The Biblical Theology of Love

[Arial]

The Law is type and shadow to the Holy Spirit.

Only in the sense that for the believer since the advent of Christ, His death, resurrection, and ascension, He sends the Holy Spirit to all who are in HIm through faith, as a teacher and sanctifier of righteousness. But the Mosaic Law is not the Holy Spirit.

The Law is spiritual.

The Mosaic Law is actual and historical. It is a training in righteousness, among other things. Perfect righteousness is the law of God, and that is spiritual, the command to all mankind because they are made in His image and likeness. He did not make animals, and vegetation, and stars, sun, moon, in His image and likeness----only mankind. ANd that did not change with the fall. And the command did not go away. Mankind through Adam, failed to live up to the command, cannot restore himself for now he is a sinner. Thus the need for a divine, therefore sinless, redeemer, to stand in our place, one made to be like those He substitutes for. Not for Israel alone. But for all who He lays down His life for. The Bible is very clear on this. Very clear.

The MOsaic Law, though actual and historical, contains in it all that is spiritual concerning righteousness, and the law of righteousness, (which had to be taught) because it is given by God. But teaching righteousness will not produce perfect righteousness in a sinful being. The sin is still there, and the sin still condemns. It is sin in humanity that ultimately must be dealt with for redemption to become actual. The Mosaic Law did not do that. Israel did not do that. Abraham's offspring according to the flesh, did not do that. It is the spiritual offspring---Christ, and Christ alone, who did that.

And not for the natural descendants of Abraham only, or God would not be fulfilling His promise in Gen 3, or His promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through His offspring. And that promise according to the revelation of it in the NT, means Jew and Gentile alike. By grace, through faith, His righteousness is accredited to the one who believes. This faith is counted as righteousness, just as Abraham's was, and justifies one before a Holy God.

The spiritual aspects of the Mosaic Law are not in the natural offspring of Abraham. And they are not in the Mosaic Law itself as historical. They are in the spiritual offspring, who is Christ.

 

[Arial]

Christ fulfilled the Law, not end it

Who is saying that He ended the law? If He fulfilled it, then it is no longer necessary (the Mosaic Law as code). We are not under it as our taskmaster. THe righteousness of the law, the righteousness of God, is written on the hearts of the believer. And if that believer is a Gentile, a non-Hebrew, it is not the MOsaic Law that is written on his heart, but the law of righteousness. It is not DNA that gives a person to Christ. It is God who gives persons to the Son through faith. He is the one who gives that faith, who gives the new birth, who trains in righteousness. ANd He does this for whomever He pleases, no matter what you accuse Him of.

And because Christ obeyed perfectly all the requirements of God's Law and Christ is in us, then God sees us as perfectly obeying the Law which upon we have our justification. Christ is the Law.

Christ is only in us because we are first in Him. Obeying the MOsaic covenant law, in both spirit and letter is something Christ had to do in order to be the perfect sacrifice. It is His perfect righteousness that God accredits to us, not the Mosaic covenant written legal code. Christ is not the Law. He is the Son of God, Son of Man, who was born as Son of Man under the Law, and therefore obeyed it. We do not have justification before God because we are seen by Him in Christ, as having obeyed the Mosaic Law. Our justification is through faith in the person and work of Christ.

 

[Arial]

Christ in us means we have obeyed the Law as perfectly as He did. And what Law was written on stone to lead and guide the children of Israel from without, the Law/Christ/Holy Spirit in us leads and guides us from within

Christ in us means we are in Christ through faith in His person and work. His righteousness is accredited to the believer, not obedience to the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law is not in us, Christ and the Holy Spirit are in us.

Those idiots who believe the Law is "abolished" or "obsolete" do not understand that by believing that garbage they are in effect saying the Holy Spirit in us who is the Law Personified is "abolished" and "obsolete."

It is you who does not understand what the Bible means, and what Christians believe, when the Bible states plainly that the Law has become obsolete. Here it is for you. Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The Holy Spirit is not the Mosaic Law personified. There is nothing in Scripture that either says or implies this, and you have presented nothing that does. The Mosaic Law is a written code of law, like we see in Federal, city, county, codes of law. It is a legal document, and as such is not and cannot be, personified. The fact that it was given to Moses by God, does not make it any less a legal document. It was written and binding for the people of Israel and carried penalties for breaking it. It was not written and binding for the whole world and still is not. Make distinctions and use them properly.

They say and believe this in their ignorance not understanding the purpose of the Law God gave to His covenant people is now in Christ within us.

It is you who do not understand the purpose of the Law, as you say redemption only and always pertains only to Israel, and you cannot see redemption in any other light. YOu think it begins and ends with a national Israel and an ethnic people, when the purpose of that was a part of the whole, and the purpose it was to serve, Israel failed in doing, but God, being faithful to His purpose and promise, was not thwarted from His covenant of redemption one iota. The Mosaic Law shadowed Christ but the Mosaic Law was not Christ. And you missed it.

When we violate the Law and trespass it's not the Law that deals with our conscience and our "hearts." It is the Holy Spirit within us that brings conviction to a tender, obedient heart and effects sorrow, conviction for our sin.
To me love was instructed under the Law. It is part of the Law. It is the Law. And the Law is within us in the Person of the Holy Spirit.

It is the law that ALL mankind is under because we are under God who is our King, no matter what a non-believer may think about it. This is the law that is written on the heart of a believer, not the Mosaic Law. And yes, it is the indwelling Holy Spirit that convicts and teaches. Your statement would be almost correct, except that we already know from our many words and posts, even this OP, that you believe that is only for those who possess the DNA of Abraham. You have made an Idol out of national Israel and the flesh of ethnicity, in the place of Christ.

Love is instructed in the Law, not under it, but that does not make it exclusive to Israel. Which is what you did in the OP.

 

[Arial]

The Law condemned because men were flesh and the letter of the Law killeth (but not the spirit of the Law.)

The Law condemned because men are sinners. The spirit of the Law also kills. It was in fact the spirit of the law which most condemned the Pharisees and other teachers of the Law. They could have kept every legal requirement of the Law---which they did and even added to it as though God did not make it strong enough----and still be violating the spirit of the Law---which they were, and be condemned---which they were. The doctrinal and theological theories you put forth are inconsistent with the Bible and with themselves.

The Law is spiritual and when one is born-again, they become spiritual, and the Law cannot kill us.

Tell me---how do you say one is born again, who is born again, and what does born again mean? Hopefully this will not also be a post of mine that you ignore as though nothing I say or ask matters, and you will answer those questions if nothing else.

Now with the Law within us in the Person of the Holy Spirit the Law is now used of God to instruct in righteousness.

It is not the Law that is within us but the law. I will say it again. All are created by God and under God and in His image and likeness. His image and likeness in us, pertains to His moral character, and as the only portion of His creation that bears this image, ALL mankind is commanded to bear that image, in our interactions with the rest of creation as having been given dominion over it, and with one another in our interpersonal relationships. That is where it begins. Not with Abraham and not only in Israel. That we can no longer do that, no matter how many Laws we are given or how many we keep, cannot be changed by Law. It is the heart that must change. It is our sins and our nature to sin, that must be dealt with. The Mosaic Law does not do that! Only Christ can and does do that. And what it means that it is in the believer is that His spirit,, therefore his heart, is now bowed down to God, instead of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

It is not the Law that instructs us in righteousness, thought we can and should certainly learn from it. It is the Holy Spirit Himself----and through His Word---that instructs us. There is no Law in the New Covenant. There are imperatives. And they are no different than those taught through the Law. These imperatives teach us what is pleasing to God, what is righteous and what is unrighteous---and every one of them pertain directly to His moral character, the image and likeness we are commanded to bear at the creation. The law of God is not what is said to be obsolete. It is the Mosaic Law that became obsolete when Jesus dealt with the problem of sin in sinful man, and God's law is written on the hearts of those for whom Christ atoned. ANd they are the ones God gives to Christ (John 6) whether ethnic Jew or Gentile. (Eph 3:6; Acts 10:45; Acts 11:1; Acts 13:48; Romans 9:9;Gal 3:14)

 

[Arial]

It is pure rejection of God's authority over us to reject the Law, and to say it is "abolished" or "obsolete." That is a slap in God's face and a serious sin. And there will be Gentiles and Jew alike that will be judged for their rejection of God's Law. By holding to the Law being "obsolete" affects the purity of the body of Christ for it is in ignorance unrepented sin and so the Church suffers. It is suffering today.

Tell me----who is rejecting the Law? What do you even mean by rejecting the Law? You need to define your terms and make yourself clear. Will you do that?

What is a slap in God's face and a serious sin is to say that non-Jews have no covenant with God and that Christ did not atone for their sins. Both things you have said. That is rejecting Christ and claiming salvation, as you have done, by some hypothetical and hidden, DNA of Abraham somewhere in one's ancestry.

WHat is a slap in God's face and a serious sin, is to say that Gentiles do not and cannot love God, and that God does not love them, only Jews.

It says in the book of Hebrews that the Law is obsolete, and it explains exactly why. Are we to believe you, or God? The body of Christ is made up of believers from all nations, just as the Bible says and you have been repeatedly shown. To say it does not, is what would affect the purity of His body. The church suffers today, because the great majority of it has utterly abandoned sound doctrine, that comes from systematic putting together with consistency all parts of the Bible. You are contributing to that.

Scripture tells us that Jesus tore down that wall of hostility, to make of the two one man in Christ. And here you are, trying to build it back with wood, hay, and straw. Truthfully, your doctrinal heresy presents national/ethnic Israel as the savior, national/ethnic Israel as a god, national/ ethnic Israel as the idol to be worshiped. It is the opposite of love, it is bigotry along ethnic lines, and you attribute it to God who you acknowledge with words, but not of heart, is love.

And that does not make me "woke" as you have tried to shame me with. A cheap and amature shot. It makes me to be in submission to God, and what He teaches about ALL people being created in His image, and therefore, to be treated and regarded as such. It puts me in submission to His declaration that ALL life is precious for no one and no thing has life unless that life is given by God. Think about that for awhile.

 

[Mr GLee]

There you go. You said it. It was given to the Hebrews. End of story. Any teaching or interpretation that contradicts this truth in adding Gentiles into any of the three Hebrew covenants is a lie and violates the Scripture and adds to the Word of God.

Not all Israel is born again Israel Some remained under the name Jacob (the deceiver) Most likely the outward Jew. . dying flesh , the Jew born of the ne new spit as born agin

Romans 2:27-29King James Version28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
.

 

[Arial]

Gentiles were never under the Law and had no responsibility to obey the Law.

They were still under law. What is it about what I have said three or four times and @Josheb alluded to a couple of times, that you are unable to understand?

Creation did not begin with Abraham. Redemption did not begin with Abraham. God's law did not begin with Moses. There has never been a split second when mankind was not under and subject to the law of God---His moral character, and whatever commands He gives. Why do you think the only law of God is the Mosaic Law? ANd there has never been a split second since the fall, when mankind was not facing the sure judgement of God---except where grace saved through faith. The Mosaic Law did not save one single person. The only ones in the community of Israel who were saved to eternal life, were those who learned righteousness from the Law, and had a love for righteousness from the heart, and whose obedience to the Law was a product of faith in God, and living according to that faith. It was not from perfect obedience, for all sinned.

. I suggest you study the early ancestry of the seed of the woman as opposed to the seed of the serpent of which they were the majority, and they were against God and every thought of their heart was evil and this led to God destroying everyone but ONE man: Noah

That is an odd thing to say to me since I have only ever presented the seed of Seth---the one who bore the Seed of Christ. You are exalting the wrong seed buddy. You are exalting the flesh. Noah was not the only one who wasn't destroyed. His sons and his sons wives were not destroyed either.

Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. His wife didn't. His sons or their wives didn't. ONLY NOAH found grace in the eyes of the Lord and by virtue of this grace upon one man an obedient family line was preserved.

They were saved out of the flood, all of them---purely by grace. The seed of Christ was preserved in one son. In Noah and one of his sons. YOu are following the wrong trail. YOu think the trail is leading to and ends at Abraham. But the trail leading to redemption is leading to and ending in Christ. There was not an obedient person in the family of Noah or Abraham. ANd there was no Mosaic Law to be obedient to until Moses. And none after Moses who were obedient to that Law. Not even to this very day. But one only. ANd who is it. Christ?

So was Christ's mission to save only national/ethnic Hebrews with Abraham's DNA, or was it to redeem His entire creation and inhabit it with persons who through His work, and faith in His work, have sin and death put under His feet? Destroyed. Never gain to raise its ugly head. What does Scripture tell us about that?

 

[Arial]

I understand redemption. It weaves through a particular family, not all families.

It weaves through the entire OT and into the NT.

John 10 and Ephesians 1 allude to nothing significant before creation

They allude to a plan and purpose that had of necessity to exist within the Trinity before creation. If it didn't, then God is neither omniscient or omnipotent.

The can be no "second" or "last" Adam in Christ unless this family line is preserved all the way to the first Adam. And it does.

It was preserved in a nation that did not exist until God created it, for that purpose. But the crucial Seed is Christ, not Abrahams DNA. And not only for Abraham's children of the flesh. ANd only a small (comparative) number of them not all.

There was no "works" covenant. There was only a covenant with Noah that God promised one thing. To never flood the earth again.

Did I say it was a covenant of works? Any relationship God has with anyone or anything is a covenant relationship. He is responsible for and to what He creates. He is not required to have any relationship with us or with creation. It is always by grace---God condescending to what He has made. Creation is created with a built in covenant. The covenant with Noah and with creation was a starting over. It is a re-establishment of the covenant with Adam and Eve and creation. ANd mankind still has the same responsibility to God and to the creation that He gave to Adam. But Noah and his family were still sinners.

It is not a salvation covenant for the flood is past and God will burn up the earth at a future time.

I never said it was. But neither is the Mosaic covenant a salvation covenant.

Irrelevant.

It is extremely relevant. You are so messed up in your teaching because you don't see it. Not even when it is put right in front of your eyes.

The covenant is with Abram the Hebrew and his seed, and everybody is not of his seed.

The only covenant exclusive to Israel is the Mosaic covenant, and the covenant with all mankind and creation itself is what is undergirding that covenant. And that undergirding is a covenant of salvation to eternal life in God's kingdom, and the promised new heaven and new earth, by grace, through faith.

The covenant is with Abram and his seed and not everyone is his seed. If you are not the seed of Abraham, you are in no covenant.

Liar.

Sin was "defeated" on the cross and applied to and for Israel.

Sin was defeated on the cross for all who GOD has placed in Christ through faith, Jew and Gentile alike. You cannot break God's word, and that is what He said He was going to do and it is what He did.

Those for whom Christ did not die have their sin remaining them and upon which the judgment of God will address at a future day.

Well it sounds like that would be you as you reject out of hand, and stubbornly so, even in the face of all the biblical evidence that you have been presented with, that it is Jesus who saves, not DNA. It is DNA you are trusting in. Not Christ at all. ANd you have said you do not have any proof that you have the DNA of Abraham. So what have you done. Considered your self saved on the basis that since you are, there is the glorious, all powerful, DNA of Abraham somewhere back there in the dark tunnels of time.

You have said that you think God put you here on the forum to teach what every Christian can see is rank heresy. It is more likely He put you here so you could hear the truth and believe, and shake you out of that dangerous mire that has hold of you like quicksand. Listen. It will only hurt your pride to do so, and only for a little while. It is with that hope that I keep throwing the lifeline.

 

[Arial]

There you go. You said it. It was given to the Hebrews. End of story

The "nations" and "kings" are identified as coming "out of thee" (Abraham), and those that did come "out of thee" (Abraham) are through Ishmael and Esau, people that became a great people living alongside Israel as the Ishmael birth-prophecy of God declared.

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen. 17:5–6.

I am not contradicting Scripture. I am saying the same thing as God.

That is not the end of the story. It is only the middle of the story.

I was not talking about God making nations of those that came out of Abraham. I am talking about the promise made to Abraham that ALL NATIONS would be blessed in Abraham. What do you think that means? ANd it is best to not just go by your understanding but what the Apostles revealed it to mean.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Do you think that something God is means that what He is does not exist in Him? Have you never heard that all that is created lives and moves and has its being in Him, that everything created only exists and is sustained by His power and His graces? There is nothing in all of creation that is independent of God. Have you not heard from His word that His grace and His mercy is over all the earth, even towards those dreaded Gentiles and the animals? It is not a saving unto eternal life grace and mercy, but if God did not have it towards His creation, He would have saved no one and nothing in the flood. If He did not have it, there would be no Adam, no Eve, no Seth, no Abraham, no Son of God come as Son of Man. But for His covenant with creation and all that is in it, a covenant that was unilateral and contained a promise, as He cursed the serpent in Gen 3: 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

And that seed was not Israel, it was not Abraham. It is Christ.

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 1 Jn 4:8.

I will take Scripture as written and words rightly translated and defined. It doesn't say love exists in Him, but that God IS love. Similar to "I AM."

It may have been that the Seed was eventually Christ (singular) but until that revelation the promise was possessed by Abraham (singular) first. God proceeded upon that fact for 3500 years towards Abraham and later to his seed. That one seed is also found in Isaac, a child miraculously born to two aged, and passed their years of bearing offspring parents. There would be no Christ unless there was an Isaac first. And in Isaac (singular) was the promise possessed.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises [Isaac] offered up his only begotten son, Heb 11:17.

Isaac (singular) received the promises

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Heb 11:18.

The Noahic Covenant was with all mankind, but the Abrahamic Covenant was with one man (singular) and to his seed (plural) until the second Isaac (singular) could be born (Christ) upon which all the promise would rest. For 3500 years God protected, blessed, prospered, and caused the seed of Abraham to endure throughout those years and many individuals also were the recipients of the promise made to Abraham (singular) and his seed (singular) who was Isaac.
Just as Christ was a miracle birth, so was Isaac's. Though Jacob also possessed the promises given to Abraham and resting upon Isaac in his own right, the promises also rested upon his sons (children of Jacob/Israel - Mosaic Covenant) it was Isaac that received the promises given to Abraham. Not Ishmael, Isaac.
Father - Abraham.
Son - Isaac.
Holy Spirit - Jacob.

You and other might want to interpret "nations and kings" as Gentiles but that would be false because while you take "nations and kings" (plural) the promises of the covenant went to Isaac (singular) thereby destroying the plurality of "nations and kings" as being Gentiles (plural) and in covenant. All the covenant promises went to Isaac (singular), and there were no Gentiles in that one seed (Isaac.) He was Hebrew through and through. Then the covenant promises went to Jacob (singular) and again there were no Gentiles (plural) in Jacob (singular.)
God declared "Jacob have I loved but Esau (non-covenant promises) Gentiles have I hated" because the covenant promises rested in Jacob (singular) while he lived, not in Esau who represented non-covenant Gentiles. And while he lived the covenant promises and even the covenant promises of the Mosaic Covenant went and rested upon his twelve sons and none of his twelve sons were Gentile. From Abraham (singular) the covenant promises rested on Isaac (singular) and then upon Jacob (singular.) There were no Gentiles in these singular seeds who possessed the covenant promises in their own generation, in their own lives. While Isaac lived, He possessed the covenant promises - no Gentiles. And while Jacob lived, he possessed the covenant promises - no Gentiles, because again the covenant promises went to each generation singular, not plural.

11 And God said unto him (Jacob/Israel), I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land. Gen. 35:11–12.

That is how the covenant worked. Abraham (singular) possessed the covenant promises until he died and then Isaac (singular) inherited and possessed the covenant promises until he died, and then Jacob/Israel (singular) inherited and possessed the covenant promises until he died. There are no Gentiles in each of the three inheritances. And the covenant promises were inherited upon the death of the preceding testator. And in these three generations there are no Gentiles. So, where do you get the idea of the covenant promises included non-Hebrew Gentiles? And proving that the covenant promises was possessed by each succeeding generation in the singular any New Covenant statements that are interpreted as Gentiles being in covenant is a lie because until the twelve sons, Isaac (singular) and Jacob/Israel (singular) possessed the covenant promises and there were no Gentiles in Isaac nor in Jacob.

Isaac's wife was not Gentile (Canaanite), but Hebrew.

3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. Gen. 24:2–4.

Jacob's wife was not Gentile (Canaanite) but Hebrew.

1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
2 Arise, go to Padan-aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother. Gen. 28:1–2.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hebrew says the Law was abolished and because it became obsolete. Why? We can ask Jesus for He tells us. Because He fulfilled it, both in letter and righteousness. You make no distinctions between Law----the written code of the Mosaic covenant which was the teacher of righteousness----and law, which is that righteousness that ALL people are under and always have been and always will be, Jew and Gentile, believer and unbeliever.

If you believed 2 Tim 3:16-17 you wouldn't disregard so much of Scripture and say God is only saving those with Abraham's DNA. I guess you have never read those passages that tell us the Law never saved anyone. Never read the instruction in righteousness, utterly consistent with the righteousness taught in the Mosaic covenant (it is God's righteousness, that same righteousness that Jesus was faithful to for those who God would give Him and He would die for), that is taught in the NT as to how the believer is to conduct Himself. Christianity does not teach that we now have no obligation to be obedient to God and live accordingly. ANd we did not come under that obligation by being saved. All of mankind has always been under that obligation and still is. The difference is, we are not saved by our own righteousness, which we still cannot do or be, but by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. It is the Holy Spirit indwelling those in Christ, that teaches through His word, His word is truth (John 17,) and continues to sanctify us in righteousness. And not for the Jew only, but also for the Greek (the term Paul used in that instance for the Gentile, as much of his audience were Greek, in spite of the lie you continue to tell that they were only Jews.) Those Scriptures you ignore or pervert.

That is what is meant by the law being written on our hearts. Not the Mosaic law, but the righteousness that that Law puts forth. Written Law is not the point. The point is righteousness. Israel is not the point or the idol that you make of it, Christ is the point and the one true God.

How could the Law be abolished when God uses it to instruct in righteousness (holy living.)
If there is no Law, then there are no Laws for God's people that instructs in righteousness (holy living) and God's people will be without Law. (instruction in righteousness and holy living.

Christ fulfilled the Law. He didn't end it for that would violate God's Word. But Gentiles like to abolish that which is spiritual and holy. And yet each Jew that was born-again continued their obedience to the Law. Even Saul himself after he met his Redeemer continued to obey and practice the Law. If it was abolished by Christ then the Jews and Saul, and Peter, and James, and the rest of them were practicing and obedient to something abolished? That would make the apostles, and Saul included, in great error being Christian and still obeying the Law which you say is abolished. IF Saul believed as you and other Gentiles that the Law was abolished then Scripture would not say those born-again - including Saul - practiced and continued to be obedient to something abolished. That doesn't make sense.
No, contrary to your rejection of God's Law I prefer to hold to and believe the Scripture which reveals that born-again Jewish Christians continued to be obedient to the Law because the Law was their instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17) as commanded by God. If at the death of Christ the Law was abolished then there is no instruction in righteous living for Christians and Christians in Scripture were in great error and sin in obeying God's Law.
BUT the opposite was true, and God was pleased by their obedience.

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:17–24.

The Jewish Christians "walked orderly" and "kept the Law."

Seems the Law was not abolished, or these thousands of Jewish Christians sinned by obeying God's Law. Imagine that. It is a sin to obey God's Law.
Really?

 

[Arial]

How could the Law be abolished when God uses it to instruct in righteousness (holy living.)
If there is no Law, then there are no Laws for God's people that instructs in righteousness (holy living) and God's people will be without Law. (instruction in righteousness and holy living.

Christ fulfilled the Law. He didn't end it for that would violate God's Word. But Gentiles like to abolish that which is spiritual and holy. And yet each Jew that was born-again continued their obedience to the Law. Even Saul himself after he met his Redeemer continued to obey and practice the Law. If it was abolished by Christ then the Jews and Saul, and Peter, and James, and the rest of them were practicing and obedient to something abolished? That would make the apostles, and Saul included, in great error being Christian and still obeying the Law which you say is abolished. IF Saul believed as you and other Gentiles that the Law was abolished then Scripture would not say those born-again - including Saul - practiced and continued to be obedient to something abolished. That doesn't make sense.
No, contrary to your rejection of God's Law I prefer to hold to and believe the Scripture which reveals that born-again Jewish Christians continued to be obedient to the Law because the Law was their instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17) as commanded by God. If at the death of Christ the Law was abolished then there is no instruction in righteous living for Christians and Christians in Scripture were in great error and sin in obeying God's Law.
BUT the opposite was true, and God was pleased by their obedience.

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:17–24.

The Jewish Christians "walked orderly" and "kept the Law."

Seems the Law was not abolished, or these thousands of Jewish Christians sinned by obeying God's Law. Imagine that. It is a sin to obey God's Law.
Really?

You pay absolutely no attention to anything anyone says so you are always arguing a straw man. Well---whatever keeps you entertained and feeds your ego. There comes a time when it is best to just let person be.

 

[Arial]

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 1 Jn 4:8.

I will take Scripture as written and words rightly translated and defined. It doesn't say love exists in Him, but that God IS love. Similar to "I AM."

It may have been that the Seed was eventually Christ (singular) but until that revelation the promise was possessed by Abraham (singular) first. God proceeded upon that fact for 3500 years towards Abraham and later to his seed. That one seed is also found in Isaac, a child miraculously born to two aged, and passed their years of bearing offspring parents. There would be no Christ unless there was an Isaac first. And in Isaac (singular) was the promise possessed.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises [Isaac] offered up his only begotten son, Heb 11:17.

Isaac (singular) received the promises

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Heb 11:18.

The Noahic Covenant was with all mankind, but the Abrahamic Covenant was with one man (singular) and to his seed (plural) until the second Isaac (singular) could be born (Christ) upon which all the promise would rest. For 3500 years God protected, blessed, prospered, and caused the seed of Abraham to endure throughout those years and many individuals also were the recipients of the promise made to Abraham (singular) and his seed (singular) who was Isaac.
Just as Christ was a miracle birth, so was Isaac's. Though Jacob also possessed the promises given to Abraham and resting upon Isaac in his own right, the promises also rested upon his sons (children of Jacob/Israel - Mosaic Covenant) it was Isaac that received the promises given to Abraham. Not Ishmael, Isaac.
Father - Abraham.
Son - Isaac.
Holy Spirit - Jacob.

You and other might want to interpret "nations and kings" as Gentiles but that would be false because while you take "nations and kings" (plural) the promises of the covenant went to Isaac (singular) thereby destroying the plurality of "nations and kings" as being Gentiles (plural) and in covenant. All the covenant promises went to Isaac (singular), and there were no Gentiles in that one seed (Isaac.) He was Hebrew through and through. Then the covenant promises went to Jacob (singular) and again there were no Gentiles (plural) in Jacob (singular.)
God declared "Jacob have I loved but Esau (non-covenant promises) Gentiles have I hated" because the covenant promises rested in Jacob (singular) while he lived, not in Esau who represented non-covenant Gentiles. And while he lived the covenant promises and even the covenant promises of the Mosaic Covenant went and rested upon his twelve sons and none of his twelve sons were Gentile. From Abraham (singular) the covenant promises rested on Isaac (singular) and then upon Jacob (singular.) There were no Gentiles in these singular seeds who possessed the covenant promises in their own generation, in their own lives. While Isaac lived, He possessed the covenant promises - no Gentiles. And while Jacob lived, he possessed the covenant promises - no Gentiles, because again the covenant promises went to each generation singular, not plural.

11 And God said unto him (Jacob/Israel), I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land. Gen. 35:11–12.

That is how the covenant worked. Abraham (singular) possessed the covenant promises until he died and then Isaac (singular) inherited and possessed the covenant promises until he died, and then Jacob/Israel (singular) inherited and possessed the covenant promises until he died. There are no Gentiles in each of the three inheritances. And the covenant promises were inherited upon the death of the preceding testator. And in these three generations there are no Gentiles. So, where do you get the idea of the covenant promises included non-Hebrew Gentiles? And proving that the covenant promises was possessed by each succeeding generation in the singular any New Covenant statements that are interpreted as Gentiles being in covenant is a lie because until the twelve sons, Isaac (singular) and Jacob/Israel (singular) possessed the covenant promises and there were no Gentiles in Isaac nor in Jacob.

Isaac's wife was not Gentile (Canaanite), but Hebrew.

3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. Gen. 24:2–4.

Jacob's wife was not Gentile (Canaanite) but Hebrew.

1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
2 Arise, go to Padan-aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother. Gen. 28:1–2.

Irrelevant.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Both of you have posted false dichotomies. God being love does not preclude love being in God. You, @jeremiah1five, are also arguing a red herring because @Arial's point is not about God's ontology (although it is implicitly predicated upon it). She is drawing a distinction between love and (the) Law. If there is a mistake it is that law/Law is also in God, not just love. She/we could just as easily say, "Law is in God," but we could not correctly say "Law is in God, not love."

Adjust the conversation accordingly .

The same applies to God's Law. God is love; God is Law. God is grace, God is longsuffering. He doesn't 'possess these attributes. He IS these attributes. It is His nature.
As I have said before and will continue to say, the Law is spiritual. The Law given to the children of Israel was God Himself in the Third Person. The Law is type and shadow of the Holy Spirit. God said He will put His Law in the inward parts of the covenant House of Israel - the 'Jews.' It is their covenant and God gave THEM Himself represented in His Law. By His Law being in the "inward parts" of His people in the New Covenant - which is the putting of His Law in their inward parts. This means the Holy Spirit is to be put in their inward parts what was once placed upon their person until the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the establishing a New Covenant in His blood instituted at the last Passover, it didn't take effect nor did the New Covenant take effect until the day of Pentecost "fully come" and the Holy Spirit Himself (God's Law) applied the salvation bought by the Son in the "inward parts" when they became born-again. What instruction in righteousness - NOT making one righteous - that was written in stone or parchment from without was not instruction in righteousness that led and guided Christ's Church from within, and didn't Jesus say the "kingdom of God doesn't come with observation but is within you?"
The kingdom of God is Christ Himself. There was no kingdom of God when Jesus said this. Israel was occupied land. There was no king, no land, no subjects, no court, and all the accouterments of an actual kingdom but Jesus said, "If I cast out devils with the finger of God - which is what He was doing - then the kingdom of God has come unto you" which meant He, Jesus, is the kingdom of God which has come unto 'you.'

 

[Arial]

The same applies to God's Law. God is love; God is Law. God is grace, God is longsuffering. He doesn't 'possess these attributes. He IS these attributes. It is His nature.

If God is those things, then He possesses those things.

If you are a redhead, then you possess red hair.

You say God is love, then say He only loves Hebrews.

You say God is Law, then say only the Mosaic Law. And only for Hebrews.

You say God is grace then say He only gives grace to Hebrews.

You say God is longsuffering, then say only with Hebrews.

You say God is Law, then say Law is only the Mosaic Law, then say only Hebrews have that Law, and everyone else is held accountable for what He did not give them., and are not under.

You say all those things that God is, then say but only based on DNA.

You profess to be a prophet and set people straight and speak for God to the Gentiles, telling them they have no hope, no covenant, no relationship with God, no love for God, and God does not love them----unless somewhere so far back it can never be traced, so there is no assurance or reason to trust God or even consider Him at all----there is even the smallest, most diluted DNA of Abraham. Where there is no covenant, there is no promise.

Christ's value is reduced to His DNA, while Abraham is set upon a throne. Christ's purpose and accomplishment is reduced to one tiny nation ruling over a tiny speck of earth, while what?----the rest of the earth is uninhabited, because as you have said, God destroys them all----instead of "Taking away the sins of the WORLD.

In order to preach these things, you vanquish two thirds of God's word, into the void. And proudly call yourself Jeremiah 1 five which reads as follows. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

In kindness and with patience, you have been walked through the scriptures you ignore, and speaking for myself, because you show a zeal for God, and have a correct understanding of many things, then tear it down by applying it only to national Israel and ethnic Jews.

Listen. Hear. Repent. You will hear only rejoicing from the brothers and sisters. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. And that is the very last thing I want for you or anyone.

And in case you are ready to accuse me of saying you are not saved (though you have said the same of me unless I have Abraham's DNA) I am not. That is far outside my wheel house to know. But I do know that you are building on the foundation laid by the Prophets and Apostles, with wood, hay, and straw, which even if you are an adopted child of God, will be burned up. (1 Cor 3:11-15)

 

[Arial]

How could the Law be abolished when God uses it to instruct in righteousness (holy living.)
If there is no Law, then there are no Laws for God's people that instructs in righteousness (holy living) and God's people will be without Law. (instruction in righteousness and holy livi

Hear this!

The Mosaic Law is no longer needed to teach righteousness, because it is written on the hearts of all who are in Christ Jesus through faith. ANd it is foolish to think that if there is no Mosaic Law then there is no law of God.

You yourself have said that God is Law, and then you turn around and say He is not when you reduce His law to the Mosaic Covenant, rather than the law that is taught in it.

Hear this!

God is Holy, righteous and good, and all His ways are perfect. Gravity is God's law. What we call the rising and setting of the sun, is God's law. The position of the moon and stars and planets, and the functions they are serving, is God's law. Everything multiplying and filling the earth is God's law. All our scientific discoveries that give us automobiles, telephones, and televisions, and vacuum cleaners etc. are a result of and contain, God's law.

Everything is subject to God's law and functions according to His law. The moment our world was created, it was subject to God's law. The second man was created he was subject to obey God's law. He gave him dominion over the earth to care for it. The minute God announced, "Let us create man in our image and likeness." man is subjugated to mirror God's moral character, in everything he thinks and does. All of creation and most specifically man as the one put in charge of caring for it, and the only one who bears His image and likeness, is, always has been, and always will be, under God's law. The fall did not change that. Sin did not change that.

It is not the entrance of the Mosaic Law that put humanity under God's law.

It was to the nation He made as Israel, that He would show that He is the one true God, a God who acts in history, and the only God to be worshiped and to whom all obedience is owed and required. He was showing this to the world, through them, but they are not the end game, but only part of it. The whole world is the end game. A new creation in which there is no sin, no death, no sorrow, no corruption, and a people redeemed by the blood of Jesus in which no spot or blemish remains.

 

[Josheb]

The same applies to God's Law. God is love; God is Law. God is grace, God is longsuffering. He doesn't 'possess these attributes. He IS these attributes. It is His nature.
As I have said before and will continue to say, the Law is spiritual. The Law given to the children of Israel was God Himself in the Third Person. The Law is type and shadow of the Holy Spirit. God said He will put His Law in the inward parts of the covenant House of Israel - the 'Jews.' It is their covenant and God gave THEM Himself represented in His Law. By His Law being in the "inward parts" of His people in the New Covenant - which is the putting of His Law in their inward parts. This means the Holy Spirit is to be put in their inward parts what was once placed upon their person until the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the establishing a New Covenant in His blood instituted at the last Passover, it didn't take effect nor did the New Covenant take effect until the day of Pentecost "fully come" and the Holy Spirit Himself (God's Law) applied the salvation bought by the Son in the "inward parts" when they became born-again. What instruction in righteousness - NOT making one righteous - that was written in stone or parchment from without was not instruction in righteousness that led and guided Christ's Church from within, and didn't Jesus say the "kingdom of God doesn't come with observation but is within you?"
The kingdom of God is Christ Himself. There was no kingdom of God when Jesus said this. Israel was occupied land. There was no king, no land, no subjects, no court, and all the accouterments of an actual kingdom but Jesus said, "If I cast out devils with the finger of God - which is what He was doing - then the kingdom of God has come unto you" which meant He, Jesus, is the kingdom of God which has come unto 'you.'

The salient point is still being missed: YOU cannot take a small portion of scripture - or a false dichotomy - and pretend to correctly represent the whole of God's word. No claim of "biblical theology" can be made based on three verses. You can claim a "three-verse theology, but not a biblical theology.

 

[Mr GLee]

These words reflect different facets of love as understood in the ancient Hebrew context, ranging from general affection to deep, covenantal commitment and compassionate care. But the word of my focus is the first entry אָהַב (ahav), and it is found here in Leviticus where the keyword of this 'book' is "holiness." God being Holy would also mean God's love is Holy. So, let's look closely at the biblical theology of love.

After God delivered the children of Israel from their Egyptian bondage God gathered them at Mount Sinai and through Moses delivered His Law in the form of commands to this people by which they would know and learn how to worship God, and how to live among themselves under the economy of God. Not only that but God also directed Moses where each tribe would be situated around the Tabernacle once it was built, a Tabernacle patterned after the 'heavenly' Tabernacle. A Tabernacle that pointed to the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. There were three tribes encamped to the north, three tribes to the west, three tribes to the south, and three tribes to the east with the tribe of Levi situated in each cardinal direction point closest to the Tabernacle.

And what did God's living word reflect before it (not Israel) delivered the Israelites . Did it reflect that which deliver the gentile?.

Are there two brides ?

Three things of God as the very essence.

God is love and not that he only has a abiltlty to perform it.

God is light and not only can he create it. temporally under the Sun

God is Spirit has no form. . . . a Spirit has not flesh and bones. .

Gods name is Jealous, he owns all things but his eternal love is not jealous it works in mankind , it strengthens new born again teaching the milk of the word (God is gracious)

Drink milk it builds strong bones of faith .

In 1 John 2: 26-27 The lord lovingly warns us of those who say we do need dying mankind to teach us as if the promise of the Holy Spirit was to weak (.John 14) to teache, comforts, guide and bring to our memory the previous thing he has taught us .

1 Peter 2:1-3King James VersionWherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

You could say a sweet as the land of honey.

 

[Josheb]

These words reflect different facets of love as understood in the ancient Hebrew context...

Right there is where you went wrong.

The correct understanding is that these words reflect different facets of love God wanted understood by everyone, given the limits of human language, and Hebrew in particular. Remember it is God who caused the diversity of language when he confounded the builders at Babel. We should also remember Hebrew is a very idiomatic language where words have meaning in addition to their literal meaning; it's a very idiomatic language that creates "word pictures" that connotatively go beyond what is denotative. We should also remember that God did not just speak about love using words; He also demonstrated His love in His actions so that any examination of the words used for love MUST be understood integrally with God's actions demonstrating love. Most importantly, we should remember love is, for God, an infinite and ontological condition that is not wholly fathomable on this side of the grave. We should also remember the newer revelation explains the older revelation, so trying to single out select verses from the OT without giving any consideration to what the NT states about those selected verses is bad exegesis. Although peripheral, I would also submit love is part of a dialectic. For example, God is not only love. God is also just. Love and justice are two sides of the same coin, so to speak. Correctly understood there is no love without righteousness, and justice is often loving even when it seems painful and/or costly. Ultimately, "love" is simply a word (or set of words) used to describe a certain kind of unique value placed on another. Lastly, although Tanakh was mostly written in Hebrew, God loved others in the Old Testament long before any Hebrews, or the Hebrew language ever existed.

God's love is not a Hebrew-only thing.

It's not a Hebrew-only thing and that is the irony. The Hebrew language itself communicates all I just posted. In the newer revelation

 

[Josheb]

So, taking Leviticus 19:17-18, who is my "brother" in these verses, who is my "neighbor" and who is the "children of thy people." No doubt the twelve tribes of Israel were all descendants of Jacob through his twelve sons and their families, "brother" in this context refers to any member of the same tribe. "Neighbor" refers to any member of any other tribe living next to any one tribe or tribes.

Here again the same problem of starting in the middle of Tanakh and ignoring what the newer revelation states about the Old prove to be a problem.

The words "brother" and "neighbor" are used many times prior to the book of Leviticus and Jesus speaks explicitly to the matter of a neighbor's identity. The twelve tribes were descended from Jacob, but two of the tribes (Manasseh and Ephraim) got their names from sons born by a mixed marriage with Egyptian goyim, so it cannot be said the twelve tribes are purely Hebrew or Jewish. Furthermore, Jesus' parable about the "good Samaritan" is about a man from the mixed Jewish people who'd intermarried and had sided with the enemies of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jesus called that mongrel with adulterated blood a neighbor and he did so at the expense of a Levite and a priest.

This puts the participants in the same, recurring position: Do we take @jeremiah1five's word for it or do we take Jesus' word for it? Do we take a selective use of scripture that deliberately endeavors to prove only Jews have a covenant relationship with God, or do we take ALL of God's word as a whole and realize the matter is much richer and more complex than the simplistic Jews-only point of view? Do we take the word of a guy who claims to be the only Biblical Christian here, judging everyone else not to be so, or do we take the word of the Only Person who can sit in judgment over everyone?