Was the Spirit of God Indwelling the Redeemed before Pentecost?

[Eleanor]

Fine by me. We've all got our "Styles".

Regarding Biblical words as meaningless is not about "style."

 

[Josheb]

And in the New Covenant, the law planted in the heart is the law of Christ, summed up in one rule: love of God and neighbor as self.
He who loves has fulfilled the law (Ro 13:8).
We are now under Christ's law (1 Co 9:21, Gal 6:2, Mt 22:37-40, Ro 13:8-10).

Justification is by faith, and righteousness is by dying to sin and obedience to the law of Christ; i.e., love of God and neighbor as self.

It seems I misunderstood your use of the law in the NT. Yours is not about their audiences' obeying the Decalogue, but about the OT regulations serving as figures fulfilled in the NT.

In what contexts is the law annulled, and in what context is it not?
It was never given as a means of justification, for justification/righteousness has always been by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-3).

"The atoning work of Christ has now made the law obsolete, along with the covenant on which it was based (Heb 8:13). In its place, we have the sacrifice of Christ as our remedy for sin, and the law of Christ (love) as our rule of life. That is the New Covenant order replacing the Old Covenant order of rule keeping."
My statement above was in light of my misunderstanding that you were referring to OT law-keeping in the NT.

Eleanor, you are not addressing what I have posted. What you're doing is ignoring the questions, not answering them and commenting as if I never posted, never answered your questions, never do the answers have any relevance or require address, and your comments create more of the same: I'll answer the questions only to have the answers ignored. I choose not to play that game (and it is a game).

I was asked if the conditions you cited denied reason and I answered that question.
I was asked for examples of the OT Law being applied to the NT Christians, formerly both Jew and Gentile, and I provided examples.

It seems I misunderstood your use of the law in the NT. Yours is not about their audiences' obeying the Decalogue, but about the OT regulations serving as figures fulfilled in the NT.

Keeping in mind I misunderstood your use of law in the NT to mean OT law-keeping.

Yes, you did misunderstand my posts and you are still misunderstanding them because I am NOT saying the OT regulations served as "figures fulfilled" (whatever that might mean). I mean exactly what I posted.

I can further clarify it, but I am apprehensive about doing so because that runs the risk of you misunderstanding more again and again, ignoring what is posted, never replying specifically to what is actually posted, my reading more of the same. I will, for the sake of goodwill, cogent topical discourse, and hope of consensus make one last attempt.

Think of how Jesus applied the Law. In episode after episode Jesus applied the Law and he did so in one of two ways, or both (that makes three ways). Sometimes the letter of the law was applied. Sometimes the principle of the letter was applied. Sometimes both were applied. There's also a fourth use of the Law in Jesus' practice because on several occasions he starts with the letter and then adds to both letter and principle.

His adherence to the rituals of the Law is an example of the first usage.
Every occasion where he says, "You have heard it said X , but I say, " Y ," is an example where Jesus speaks to the correct use of the Law (the law is good when used lawfully) and the principle on which the letter is built.
His parable of the workers in Matthew 20 is an example of both the letter and the principle cohesively applied.
Anytime Jesus further reveals the meaning, application and practice of the Law or couches the Law in commands preceding the Law he is adding to the Law. His couching marriage and adultery in the created order is an example.

The authors of the epistles practice the same techniques AND they further clarify old standards and add new standards because the fulfillment of the law, the defeat of sin, the defeat of satan, the regeneration and gifting of the Spirit and the ascendancy of Christ (and I could perhaps add to that list) changed the entire world and how people can live and how Christians should live. The meaning and application of the Law changed in some ways. The Law was never a means for obtaining righteousness in its letter but because the Law stipulated the righteous shall live by faith the one principle undergirding all of its other principles was that of faith. Salvation is by grace through faith. Salvation is not by grace through faith suddenly in the NT era. Salvation was always by grace through faith and never of ourselves, never a work of sinful flesh.


Everyone should give the New Testament a read sometime with these two questions in mind:

• Are the Laws of the OT kept in place except where the NT cancels them?
• Are the Laws of the OT all canceled except where the NT affirms their endurance?

Because what the NT affirms and what the NT cancels and HOW the NT does so is what we should be doing, too. The fact is neither Jesus nor any of the NT writers did what they did in their flesh. What they said and how they acted was one inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit. It was never a work of the sinful flesh. Jesus did so impeccably. The apostles did so imperfectly, and their mistakes witness to us just as much as their obedience. It is not different in the OT (you paying attention @makesends?).

The New Testament writers chronically quoted, cited, and/or referenced the OT Law and the OT laws and applied them (mostly in principle) to the NT converts to Christ whether those converts were formerly Jewish or Gentile but the never did so saying the Law, or obedience to the Law, was the means of obtain justification or righteousness. Justification and righteousness can be attained only by grace through faith in Christ. That does not mean all the Law/law has become irrelevant and should be ignored in all ways at all times. It simply clarifies what people should have understood about the Law/law from the beginning.

Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Jesus meant exactly what he said, and that is where the teachers of the Law failed to understand the Law. The Law of Moses was built on those two commandments, and that is why you are correct to understand judgment as an act of mercy. God could just speak you and I out of existence but He does not do so. He saves us.

According to His commands .

John 13:14
I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Romans 13:8,10
Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.... Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Galatians 5:14
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

James 2:8
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

1 John 3:10-14
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.......... We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

1 Peter 1:22-23
Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

Every single one of them taught the Law/law. Every single one of them did so to both Jewish and Gentile converts. None of them did so as a means of obtaining righteousness or justification and rarely did they teach the letter of the Law, never at the expense of its principle(s). Those in Christ are already deemed righteous and justified apart from works.

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor, you are not addressing what I have posted.

Did you miss that I misunderstood you to be stating an OC law-keeping in the NC?
That is the issue with which I was mistakenly dealing.

What you're doing is ignoring the questions, not answering them and commenting as if I never posted, never answered your questions, never do the answers have any relevance or require address, and your comments create more of the same: I'll answer the questions only to have the answers ignored. I choose not to play that game (and it is a game).

I was asked if the conditions you cited denied reason and I answered that question.
I was asked for examples of the OT Law being applied to the NT Christians, formerly both Jew and Gentile, and I provided examples.

I asked for those examples that I might be clear about your point, and your response gave me to realize that you were treating of the OT in terms of prefiguring the NT, and not in terms of OC law-keeping in the NC.
Prefiguring as in the NT's use of the OT physical "bondservant" to describe the NT spiritual meaning of sin.
I apologize for my misunderstanding, and I will try to do better.

Yes, you did misunderstand my posts and you are still misunderstanding them because I am NOT saying the OT regulations served as "figures fulfilled" (whatever that might mean). I mean exactly what I posted.
I can further clarify it, but I am apprehensive about doing so because that runs the risk of you misunderstanding more again and again, ignoring what is posted, never replying specifically to what is actually posted, my reading more of the same. I will, for the sake of goodwill, cogent topical discourse, and hope of consensus make one last attempt.
Think of how Jesus applied the Law. In episode after episode Jesus applied the Law and he did so in one of two ways, or both (that makes three ways). Sometimes the letter of the law was applied. Sometimes the principle of the letter was applied. Sometimes both were applied. There's also a fourth use of the Law in Jesus' practice because on several occasions he starts with the letter and then adds to both letter and principle.

For me, we need to begin here with "the letter of the law," which I find nowhere stated in Scripture.
I find "letter" and I find "Spirit" (2 Co 3:6), but I find neither "letter of the law," nor "spirit of the law," nor "principle of the law" in the NT.
I see that di- or trichotomy as man's invention. I see no difference between a letter and principle of the law. The letter is the principle and the prinicple is the letter, for the Holy Spirit is the author of both, and he does not present dichotomous law.

His adherence to the rituals of the Law is an example of the first usage.
Every occasion where he says, "You have heard it said X , but I say, " Y ," is an example where Jesus speaks to the correct use of the Law (the law is good when used lawfully) and the principle on which the letter is built.

I don't see that as Jesus speaking to the correct vs. incorrect use of the OC law in terms of its principle.
I see Jesus' statements in Mt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43, regarding murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation and love of enemies, respectively, not as just giving new meaning but, with the authority of the divine Lawgiver, as giving new law for the new covenant.

His parable of the workers in Matthew 20 is an example of both the letter and the principle cohesively applied.
Anytime Jesus further reveals the meaning, application and practice of the Law or couches the Law in commands preceding the Law he is adding to the Law. His couching marriage and adultery in the created order is an example.

To what specific OC law (letter) is he applying the principle of the sovereignty of God in the parable of Mt 20?

The authors of the epistles practice the same techniques

Not seeing the examples above as techniques, I would need to see some examples of the epistles practicing these techniques.
I suspect I would view those examples somewhat similarly to the way I view such in the gospels.
But I would need examples to be sure of that.

AND they further clarify old standards and add new standards

As previously stated, I don't see Jesus as "clarifying and adding," I see him giving new law for the new covenant.

because the fulfillment of the law, the defeat of sin, the defeat of satan, the regeneration and gifting of the Spirit and the ascendancy of Christ (and I could perhaps add to that list) changed the entire world and how people can live and how Christians should live. The meaning and application of the Law changed in some ways. The Law was never a means for obtaining righteousness in its letter but because the Law stipulated the righteous shall live by faith the one principle undergirding all of its other principles was that of faith. Salvation is by grace through faith. Salvation is not by grace through faith suddenly in the NT era. Salvation was always by grace through faith and never of ourselves, never a work of sinful flesh.

Everyone should give the New Testament a read sometime with these two questions in mind:

• Are the Laws of the OT kept in place except where the NT cancels them?
• Are the Laws of the OT all canceled except where the NT affirms their endurance?

The New Covenant has its own laws, given by Jesus: e.g., Mt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43, 22:37-40, Jn 13:14 and the apostles; e.g., Ro 13, 1 Co, Gal 5:14, 1 Tim 3:1-13, Jas 2:8, 1 Pe 2-3, 1 Jn 3:10-14, etc., etc., etc.
The OC laws, which were the terms of the Old Covenant, were made obsolete with that covenant (Heb 8:13), with the Levitical laws being abolished on the cross (Eph 2:15).

Because what the NT affirms and what the NT cancels and HOW the NT does so is what we should be doing, too. The fact is neither Jesus nor any of the NT writers did what they did in their flesh. What they said and how they acted was one inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit. It was never a work of the sinful flesh. Jesus did so impeccably. The apostles did so imperfectly, and their mistakes witness to us just as much as their obedience. It is not different in the OT (you paying attention @makesends?).
The New Testament writers chronically quoted, cited, and/or referenced the OT Law

Including the abrogation of the Levitical laws, and the obsolescence of the Mosaic law with the Mosaic covenant (Heb 8:13) of which the Mosaic law was the terms.

and the OT laws and applied them (mostly in principle) to the NT converts to Christ whether those converts were formerly Jewish or Gentile but the never did so saying the Law, or obedience to the Law, was the means of obtain justification or righteousness. Justification and righteousness can be attained only by grace through faith in Christ. That does not mean all the Law/law has become irrelevant and should be ignored in all ways at all times. It simply clarifies what people should have understood about the Law/law from the beginning.
Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Jesus meant exactly what he said, and that is where the teachers of the Law failed to understand the Law.

Jesus excoriated them, not for failing to understand, but for adding burdens to it while not obeying it themselves.

 

[Eleanor]

One obvious example would be the Law prohibiting the muzzling of an ox while it threshes grain.
Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the grain.
That law is cited several times in the NT but, curiously, none of the examples have anything specifically to do with oxen or grain threshing.
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?

1 Timothy 5:18 - For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
An Old Testament Law from the Mosaic code was cited and applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. Every time the term "bondservant" is mentioned that is a direct reference to the Law of Moses in which working off debts was required (owning other people as slaves outright was forbidden in the Law; indentured service and the jubilee cycle were the standard).

Clean up on aisle 5 (Ex 21:5-6):

Actually, owning other people as slaves outright was not forbidden in the law (Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46).

There were two sets of laws for slaves, one for Hebrews slaves (Ex 21:2-11, Lev 25:39-43) and one for Gentile slaves (Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46). Only Hebrews were forbidden to be owned (Lev 25:42), because they had already been purchased (redeemed) by God and were his servants (Lev 25:42). Gentile slaves could be owned (Lev 25:45).
--Picture of all those in Christ who have been purchased by God at a great price (1 Co 6:20, 1 Pe 1:18-19), are his slaves (Ro 6:22, Eph 6:6) and, therefore, are not to become slaves to the lusts of men (participate in their sin, 1 Co 7:23), or to their own lusts (Ro 6:12, 22).

The sons of God (Hebrews) were never to be treated as slaves in Israel (Lev 25:53).
--Picture of the spiritual freedom in Christ (Gal 5:1, 13) of the sons of God.

We in modern times have enormously changed the practice but in the NT the "Lord's supper" was couched in Jesus' Passover meal

The Lord's Supper being the fulfillment of the Passover meal, as the Lord's death was the fulfillment of the blood sacrifices,
both the meal and the death being separate and distinct from, and not to be confused with, their OT types.

which, again, is explicitly a matter of the Mosaic Law. There's an entirely different meaning and importance to that meal once fulfilled by Christ

Actually, the meaning is the same for both, feeding on the sacrifice which cleanses their sin, the former by covering them (Ro 4:7-8),
the latter by remitting them.

but that does not change the fact that Law and all its meaning and significance was applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.

It is not the Mosaic law and its meaning that is applied to Christians in the Lord's Supper, it is Christ's sacrifice and its meaning that is applied to Christians in the Lord's Supper.

 

[Eleanor]

One obvious example would be the Law prohibiting the muzzling of an ox while it threshes grain.
Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the grain.
That law is cited several times in the NT but, curiously, none of the examples have anything specifically to do with oxen or grain threshing.
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

An Old Testament Law from the Mosaic code was cited and applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. Every time the term "bondservant" is mentioned that is a direct reference to the Law of Moses in which working off debts was required (owning other people as slaves outright was forbidden in the Law; indentured service and the jubilee cycle were the standard). We in modern times have enormously changed the practice but in the NT the "Lord's supper" was couched in Jesus' Passover meal which, again, is explicitly a matter of the Mosaic Law. There's an entirely different meaning and importance to that meal once fulfilled by Christ but that does not change the fact that Law and all its meaning and significance was applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.
However, never were any of those laws asserted as the means of obtaining righteousness or justification. Those can be obtained only through Christ by grace through faith and the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

Clean up of the clean up:

1) Forgot to point out the most important part about bondservant in Ex 21:5-6; i.e., voluntary bondservants.
Not all bondservants were working off debt. Some chose to be owned by their masters, and which "served as figure fullfilled" in the Christian's choosing to be a bondservant to his Master, Christ

Keeping in mind I misunderstood your use of law in the NT to mean OT law-keeping.

Josheb said:
Yes, you did misunderstand my posts and you are still misunderstanding them because I am NOT saying the OT regulations served as "figures fulfilled" (whatever that might mean). I mean exactly what I posted. (post #202)

2) "Whatever that might mean" would be as in the" bondservant" presented above, who chose to be owned by his master, as a "figure fulfilled" in our choosing to be owned by Christ.
As in the sacrifices being a "figure fulfilled" in Christ's sacrifice, or the Levitical cleanliness and cleansing laws being a "figure fulfilled" in our spiritual defilement by sin and its cleansing by the blood of Christ, etc., etc., etc. The OT is pregnant with "figures fulfilled" in the NT.

- - - - - - - - - -

Clean up on aisle 5 (Ex 21:5-6):

Actually, owning other people as slaves outright was not forbidden in the law (Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46).

There were two sets of laws for slaves, one for Hebrews slaves (Ex 21:2-11, Lev 25:39-43) and one for Gentile slaves (Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46). Only Hebrews were forbidden to be owned (Lev 25:42), because they had already been purchased (redeemed) by God and were his servants (Lev 25:42). (EDIT: with the exception of those Hebrews who voluntarily chose to be bondservants, Ex 21:5-6). Gentile slaves could be owned (Lev 25:45).
--Picture (figure) of all those in Christ who have been purchased by God at a great price (1 Co 6:20, 1 Pe 1:18-19), are his slaves (Ro 6:22, Eph 6:6) and, therefore, are not to become slaves to the lusts of men (participate in their sin, 1 Co 7:23), or to their own lusts (Ro 6:12, 22).

The sons of God (Hebrews) were never to be treated as slaves in Israel (Lev 25:53).
--Picture (figure) of the spiritual freedom in Christ (Gal 5:1, 13) of the sons of God.

We in modern times have enormously changed the practice but in the NT the "Lord's supper" was couched in Jesus' Passover meal

The Lord's Supper being the fulfillment of the Passover meal, as the Lord's death was the fulfillment of the blood sacrifices,
both the meal and the death being separate and distinct from, and not to be confused with, their OT types.

which, again, is explicitly a matter of the Mosaic Law. There's an entirely different meaning and importance to that meal once fulfilled by Christ

Actually, the meaning is the same for both, feeding on the sacrifice which cleanses their sin, the former by covering them (Ro 4:7-8),
the latter by remitting them.

but that does not change the fact that Law and all its meaning and significance was applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.

It is not the Mosaic law and its meaning that is applied to Christians in the Lord's Supper, it is Christ's sacrifice and its meaning that is applied to Christians in the Lord's Supper.

 

[Josheb]

I don't see that as Jesus speaking to the correct vs. incorrect use of the OC law in terms of its principle.

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions.

I see Jesus' statements in Mt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43, regarding murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation and love of enemies, respectively, not as just giving new meaning but, with the authority of the divine Lawgiver, as giving new law for the new covenant.

And that is a mistake.

The laws he cited were always supposed to have been read as he taught them. The implication of your view is that God originally gave bad Law, Law that need correction or addition, Law that intentionally misguided those He held accountable to that Law. Paul explains the Law but in order to understand the newer revelation's revelation of the Law (a revelation or knowledge that was always there to be understood from its inception) ALL that Paul wrote must be taken as a whole, not one or a few verses selected and emphasized above all others. Paul's inspired writing should also be taken as part of a larger whole found in the New Testament, the newer revelation. Much of the newer revelation is a revelation of the older, or ongoing, revelation the Jews call "Tanakh" and we call the "New Testament."

I sampled some of what Paul wrote to show how his words inform the reader more when taken as a whole. The law is good, the law is spiritual, the law makes sin evident, the law accounts for sin, the law (as part of God's commands and/or commandments) must be obeyed but primarily in principle rather than mere letter because obedience to the letter of the Law at the expensive of its governing principles (such as the aforementioned love and/or mercy) proves paradoxical: obedience to the letter can be disobedience to the principle. That was the chief sin of the Jewish leaders. The adhered (or attempted to adhere) to the letter but often violated the principle. They made the people of Israel twice the children of hell they'd been prior to the example and teaching of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Mt. 23:15). The dietary laws were never supposed to say certain foods literally made a person unclean, physically or spiritually, any more than Eden's forbidden fruit was poison. Just as it was the act of disobedience that made eating the forbidden kiwi bad, so too it was disobedience that mad eating bacon and shrimp together bad. Bacon and shrimp are delicious! Nothing God made is not good (1 Gen. 1:31) but that did not prevent God from telling people they should not eat some of the otherwise good creatures. If we did not have carrion-eaters the world would smell of rot. It's the Law.

Just as all of Paul's writing on the Law should be taken as a whole and understood as newer revelation laid upon what Jesus taught, whose teachings should also be taken as a whole and laid upon what Moses et al taught, so too should all that the Law said about adultery be taken as a whole because the whole informs us of larger principles like purity, fidelity, and faithfulness. The word "holy" simple mean "separate" and carries with it separateness with/for sacred purpose. We are supposed to be separate people with/for sacred purpose. The Holy Spirit is the Separate Sacred Spirit of God (He has many spirits). Teachers who incorrectly cut up the Bible to emphasize one aspect over another (or to support their extra-biblical doctrine are Sadducees and Pharisees, teachers of the law and scribes. Not literally, but categorically. They teach us to be twice the children of hell we were before we heard their teachings. I am being rhetorically hyperbolic (what's the emoji for that? ).

I do not want to take this too far afield of the op. I have tried to show the relevance of the Law/law of God to the op by emphasizing the spiritual nature of the Law and all Gods laws, commandments, commands, and precepts. As the prophets and Hebrews notes the law is planted in the regenerate's mind and heart. The word of God (written, incarnate, rhema, etc.) includes the Law and His word is sharper than any two-edged sword. It pierces to the dividing of the soul and spirit, able to discern thought and intent (mind and heart) (Heb. 4).

Luke 24:32
They said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he was speaking to us on the road, while he was explaining the Scriptures to us?"

Some among us like to separate the Law of Moses from life in Christ through the selective use of the "new covenant." They say they are no longer under the Law of Moses but under the law of the Spirit (Romans 7-8). It is true we are governed and measured by the law of the Spirit and no longer under condemnation from the law of the flesh but separating the two laws this way 1) ignores all that I have posted about the precedent set by the New Testament authors and 2) creates a false dichotomy because the Spirit never contradicts the written word. In fact, much of the New Testament is a record of the Spirit's confronting human made false dichotomies concerning the Law. It's not okay to lust and think oneself faithful. It's not okay to elevate oneself above the worst sinner because pride is among the worse sins of all. Peter's view of food and the unclean (like Roman centurions) is confronted with a vision in which he is commanded to eat legally unclean food - a matter he would later bring to the Jerusalem's counsel's attention in Acts 15 when he and Barnabas sided with Paul. Israel was always supposed to be a light to all other nations. The Law of Moses was supposed to be an example to all other nations. The sojourner, alien, foreigner among them was to abide by the Law and thereby know that God is God.

The Spirit of God indwelt the redeemed before Pentecost, but just as not all descendants of Abraham are his descendants and not all Israel is Israel..... not all the redeemed are the redeemed. All of bloodline Israel was redeemed from Egyptian slavery but only two of many million made it to the promised land! Not even Moses made it .

Hebrews 11:23-31, 39-40
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict. By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen. By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them. By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land; and the Egyptians, when they attempted it, were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace...... And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

All of it was a foreshadowing of Christ living, crucified, dead, resurrected, and ascendant.

 

[Josheb]

Clean up on aisle 5 (Ex 21:5-6):

Actually, owning other people as slaves outright was not forbidden in the law (Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46).

There were two sets of laws for slaves, one for Hebrews slaves (Ex 21:2-11, Lev 25:39-43) and one for Gentile slaves (Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46). Only Hebrews were forbidden to be owned (Lev 25:42), because they had already been purchased (redeemed) by God and were his servants (Lev 25:42). Gentile slaves could be owned (Lev 25:45).
--Picture of all those in Christ who have been purchased by God at a great price (1 Co 6:20, 1 Pe 1:18-19), are his slaves (Ro 6:22, Eph 6:6) and, therefore, are not to become slaves to the lusts of men (participate in their sin, 1 Co 7:23), or to their own lusts (Ro 6:12, 22).

The sons of God (Hebrews) were never to be treated as slaves in Israel (Lev 25:53).
--Picture of the spiritual freedom in Christ (Gal 5:1, 13) of the sons of God.

The Lord's Supper being the fulfillment of the Passover meal, as the Lord's death was the fulfillment of the blood sacrifices,
both the meal and the death being separate and distinct from, and not to be confused with, their OT types.

Actually, the meaning is the same for both, feeding on the sacrifice which cleanses their sin, the former by covering them (Ro 4:7-8),
the latter by remitting them.

Think it through.

The post is good, but not complete. What you have, by your own words is two sets of rules and two sets of rules for the exact same people (the Jews). You have a God who hates slavery (as evidenced by His not allowing Hebrews to own other Hebrews), and His explicitly stated reason is because His people had been enslaved in Egypt. In other words, if those laws of the Law are rendered as Post 204 renders them then God wants the Hebrews to do to others what the Egyptians did to them. Does that sound correct to you? Is that contradiction not apparent to you?

Matthew 7:21
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

God Himself would use slavery as a tool for meting out temporal judgment and punishment and - if the Law is to be interpreted as Post 204 does - He would be breaking, contradicting His own Law.

I am not going to entertain this digression because it is tangential to the subject of this op but I will ask you to think about what I just said and give you two other points to consider. The first is the comparable matter of divorce. God hates divorce but God divorced Israel and divorce is associated with covenant breaking and disobedience, as well as adultery and thereby also idolatry. Moses allowed it but Jesus's correction of the Mosaic practice was built on an appeal to the created order, the laws of God that preceded the Law of God (Mosaic). God never wanted anyone to be a slave of anything or anyone. The only reason slavery exists in any form is because of sin. Another example is that of same-sex sex. God made same-sex sex a capital offense. A person could be killed if caught in an act of same-sex sex BUT the Law required two or more people to see the culprits in action before accusation, prosecution, conviction and punishment could occur. How often do you imagine two people got to see two men or two women having sex with one another? Sex is normally done in private, behind closed doors and - like other criminal acts - same-sex sex was done in private, not in front of multiple people. So... when we think this through, we find God legislated the public display of same-sex sex and that which was kept from the eyes of two or more people, that which occurred in secrecy went unpunished - even though God hated the act and considered it a perversion of His creation of man and woman, those made in His image. Remember also, God's jurisprudence, properly understood, is conciliatory, restitutional and rehabilitative, not vengeful and retributional. Vengence is God's job. Our job is to love other as God loved us.

So what you've posted is partly correct but because it is incomplete it is not wholly correct. It's also off-topic. If you'd like to discuss this with me further, then set up a separate thread and mention me @Josheb in the opening post and I'll pick up the subject with you there.

It is not the Mosaic law and its meaning that is applied to Christians in the Lord's Supper, it is Christ's sacrifice and its meaning that is applied to Christians in the Lord's Supper.

That, again, is not wholly correct. The errors begin with thinking Passover is a Mosaic Law, or that the problem solved by the first Passover started in Egypt. The Passover ritual preceded the Law, and the problem it addressed began long before the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, long before God established His covenant with Abraham and his seed, Jesus. The problem of slavery began at Genesis 3:6! The Passover ritual was simply repeated in the Law (as were a number of other standards, at least one of which - adultery - was previously covered in this thread). The Mosaic Law did not make the Passover required any more than the Mosaic Law made adultery forbidden. I will also add that what most of Christendom in modern times calls and practices as the "Lord's Supper" or "Communion," or the "Eucharist" is a gross perversion of the New Testament Church's practice. It also looks nothing like that which we'll enjoy in heaven.


Again: If you'd like to discuss this with me further, then set up a separate thread and mention me @Josheb in the opening post and I'll pick up the subject with you there. In the meantime, I recommend as short book to all interested in the subject. Zondervan has a book in its Counterpoints series titled "Five Views on Law and Gospel." It surveys the five main views on the subject, helps the reader understand the strengths and weakness of each position, and enables the reader to go back to the Bible with a holistically or diversely informed understanding of what God is saying. Remember: Every single one of the New Testament writers quoted, cited, and referenced the Mosaic Law and the laws of Tanakh in their writings and they did so applying the law to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ, but they never did so as a means of obtaining righteousness or justification because righteousness and justification can be obtained only by grace through faith in Christ's work, not our own, not obedience to the Law.

 

[EarlyActs]

Important: it was not a question of whether the Spirit worked before but whether the mission of Messiah was underway. It started at Pentecost and went to the known world rather quickly, considering the technology of the day. See the reminder about why the language miracle happened in the Isaiah quote in 1 Cor 14.

 

[Eleanor]

 

[Eleanor]

I am unaware of any scripture stating we are saved from the law.

Straw man. . .

In the new covenant, he who loves has fulfilled the law. (Ro 13:8, Mt 22:37-40).
The law is summed up in one rule: love of God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:9).
Love is the fulfillment of the law (Ro 13:10).

Galatians 3:13 states we are saved from the law's curse, not from the law. Is there some scripture of which I am unaware stating we're saved from the law? If so I'd like to see it because one of the most profound and undeniable realities of the epistolary is that all the NT writers often and repeatedly applied the law (and the Law) to their Christian readers (including the Gentile converts). They simply did not do so as a means of obtaining righteousness or justification.
That is incorrect. The word "simply" does not belong. The purpose, efficacy, effect, limits and application, of the laws (or Law) of God is not singular or simple. There are, in fact, multiple reasons for the Law cited in both Old and New and if we took all the many things said about the law there is no reason to think that list would be exhaustive. What you have observed is (mostly) correct but it is not complete. That which is incomplete is often also wrong wherever the incomplete is assumed complete .
For example,

• The law is good (when used lawfully).
• The law is spiritual.
• The law is applied to the converts to Christ, both Jewish and Gentile.
• The law is abrogated or annulled as a means of obtaining righteousness and justification.
• The law informs us of sin.
• The law is the means of accounting for sin.
• The law is one small portion of what may be and often is called the "Mosaic covenant" but that covenant is one small portion of a much larger covenant that runs through the entirety of scripture.

That partial list demonstrates the law is anything but "simply" to reveal sin. You've taken Hebrews 8:13 out of context.

An assertion without Biblical demonstration.

Go back and read the larger Hebrews 8 text and combine it with what Paul wrote about the law. Verse 13 certainly cannot be made to conflict with verse 10 .

v. 10 - "This is the covenant I will make. . .I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. . ."
v. 13 - "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete;"

Conflict? The laws God will put in their minds and write on their hearts in the new covenant are the laws of Christ (Mt 22:37-40).
No conflict, Christ's laws fulfill the law by loving God and neighbor as self.
And with the parable of the good Samaritan providing all the instruction one needs on the matter.

NOTE that he specifies to conditions, two specific contexts, for his comments. The first is the law as a means by which someone might be justified (a legal term indicating a valid basis for standing before God) and righteousness.
Aside from those two specified application Paul often and repeatedly applies the laws of God to his audiences! So too do all the other NT writers. The NT authors constantly referenced, cited, and quoted the OT laws and applied them to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.
But they never did so teaching the law makes a person righteous.
And we're getting far afield of the op. What's relevant about the law to the op is that the law is planted in the convert's heart by grace, through faith solely via the inner working of the Holy Spirit.

And that law is Christ's law; i.e., Mt 22:37-40, Ro 13: 8, 9, 10, 1 Co 9:20-21.

 

[Eleanor]

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions.

Are they mutually inclusive?

And that is a mistake.

On your part, until you Biblically demonstrate otherwise.

The laws he cited were always supposed to have been read as he taught them. The implication of your view is that God originally gave bad Law,

Please Biblically demonstrate love of one's enemies in the OT code.
It's not there.
That is Jesus' new law for the new covenant.
Thereby making the implication of your view to deny the words of the NT apostle in Ro 13:8, 9, 10, 1 Co 9:20, and of Jesus in Mt 22:37-40,
in addition to creating an OT law of your own making.

Law that need correction or addition, Law that intentionally misguided those He held accountable to that Law. Paul explains the Law but in order to understand the newer revelation's revelation of the Law (a revelation or knowledge that was always there to be understood from its inception) ALL that Paul wrote must be taken as a whole, not one or a few verses selected and emphasized above all others. Paul's inspired writing should also be taken as part of a larger whole found in the New Testament, the newer revelation. Much of the newer revelation is a revelation of the older, or ongoing, revelation the Jews call "Tanakh" and we call the "New Testament."
I sampled some of what Paul wrote to show how his words inform the reader more when taken as a whole.

None of which are in disagreement with what I present.
It would be helpful if you showed from where you took what Paul wrote that I might examine it, and what there was not what Paul wrote.

The law is good, the law is spiritual, the law makes sin evident, the law accounts for sin, the law (as part of God's commands and/or commandments) must be obeyed but primarily in principle rather than mere letter because obedience to the letter of the Law at the expensive of its governing principles (such as the aforementioned love and/or mercy) proves paradoxical: obedience to the letter can be disobedience to the principle. That was the chief sin of the Jewish leaders. The adhered (or attempted to adhere) to the letter but often violated the principle. They made the people of Israel twice the children of hell they'd been prior to the example and teaching of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Mt. 23:15). The dietary laws were never supposed to say certain foods literally made a person unclean, physically or spiritually, any more than Eden's forbidden fruit was poison. Just as it was the act of disobedience that made eating the forbidden kiwi bad, so too it was disobedience that mad eating bacon and shrimp together bad. Bacon and shrimp are delicious! Nothing God made is not good (1 Gen. 1:31) but that did not prevent God from telling people they should not eat some of the otherwise good creatures. If we did not have carrion-eaters the world would smell of rot. It's the Law.

Just as all of Paul's writing on the Law should be taken as a whole and understood as newer revelation laid upon what Jesus taught,

Falls somewhat short of what Paul abolishes; e.g., Eph 2:15, is himself no longer under (1 Co 9:20), and what takes its place (1 Co 9:21, Mt 22:37-40, Ro 13:8-10).

whose teachings should also be taken as a whole and laid upon what Moses et al taught, so too should all that the Law said about adultery be taken as a whole because the whole informs us of larger principles like purity, fidelity, and faithfulness.
The word "holy" simple mean "separate" and carries with it separateness with/for sacred purpose. We are supposed to be separate people with/for sacred purpose. The Holy Spirit is the Separate Sacred Spirit of God (He has many spirits). Teachers who incorrectly cut up the Bible to emphasize one aspect over another (or to support their extra-biblical doctrine are Sadducees and Pharisees, teachers of the law and scribes. Not literally, but categorically. They teach us to be twice the children of hell we were before we heard their teachings. I am being rhetorically hyperbolic (what's the emoji for that? ).

Demonstration of relevance here?

I do not want to take this too far afield of the op. I have tried to show the relevance of the Law/law of God to the op by emphasizing the spiritual nature of the Law and all Gods laws, commandments, commands, and precepts. As the prophets and Hebrews notes the law is planted in the regenerate's mind and heart. The word of God (written, incarnate, rhema, etc.) includes the Law and His word is sharper than any two-edged sword. It pierces to the dividing of the soul and spirit, able to discern thought and intent (mind and heart) (Heb. 4).

Heb 8:8-12 being a new covenant promise, it is a promise regarding the new covenant law of Christ; i.e., love of God and neighbor as self (Mt 22:37-40, Ro 13:8-10) being planted in the heart.
He who loves has fulfilled the law (Ro 13:8).

Luke 24:32
They said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he was speaking to us on the road, while he was explaining the Scriptures to us?"

Some among us like to separate the Law of Moses from life in Christ through the selective use of the "new covenant." They say they are no longer under the Law of Moses but under the law of the Spirit (Romans 7-8). It is true we are governed and measured by the law of the Spirit and no longer under condemnation from the law of the flesh but separating the two laws this way 1) ignores all that I have posted about the precedent set by the New Testament authors and 2) creates a false dichotomy because the Spirit never contradicts the written word.

Agreed. ..and the written word is "he who loves has fulfilled the law." (Ro 13:8-10, Mt 22;37-40).

In fact, much of the New Testament is a record of the Spirit's confronting human made false dichotomies concerning the Law. It's not okay to lust and think oneself faithful. It's not okay to elevate oneself above the worst sinner because pride is among the worse sins of all. Peter's view of food and the unclean (like Roman centurions) is confronted with a vision in which he is commanded to eat legally unclean food - a matter he would later bring to the Jerusalem's counsel's attention in Acts 15 when he and Barnabas sided with Paul. Israel was always supposed to be a light to all other nations. The Law of Moses was supposed to be an example to all other nations. The sojourner, alien, foreigner among them was to abide by the Law and thereby know that God is God.
The Spirit of God indwelt the redeemed before Pentecost, but just as not all descendants of Abraham are his descendants and not all Israel is Israel..... not all the redeemed are the redeemed. All of bloodline Israel was redeemed from Egyptian slavery but only two of many million made it to the promised land! Not even Moses made it

Actually, all those under 20 years of age at the time made it to the promised land (Nu 14:29).

Hebrews 11:23-31, 39-40
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict. By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen. By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them. By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land; and the Egyptians, when they attempted it, were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace......

And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

All of it was a foreshadowing of Christ living, crucified, dead, resurrected, and ascendant.

Heb 11 is about the heroes of faith from Abel to the prophets, where Abraham did not receive the land of Canaan promised to him (Ge 17:8), but he did receive the "everlasting possession" (Ge 17:8, 48:4) in the heavenly land (Heb 11:13-16).

 

[Josheb]

I am not aware of any scripture stating we are not saved by the law.

Straw man. . .

In the new covenant, he who loves has fulfilled the law. (Ro 13:8, Mt 22:37-40).
The law is summed up in one rule: love of God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:9).
Love is the fulfillment of the law (Ro 13:10).

LOL. That is not a straw man. A straw man is when a person asserts a misrepresentation and then argues against the misrepresentation is if the misrepresentation is what was argued in the first place. I did not misrepresent your post in any way and I did not misrepresent scripture, and you most definitely did not prove I did so in either case.

What you did to is make an inferential argument by twisting scripture to say things it does not actually state. And you did it without proving my statement incorrect. What scripture states is often different from what people make it say. None of the four verse you just cited actually state "we are not saved by the law." In order to prove that wrong you have to come up with a verse that actually explicitly states, "we are not saved by the law," and you have not done that.

I do not think the law saves anyone. If you think that is what I think then you, again, have not correctly understood my posts and your repeated failure to do si is getting tiresome in light of the false accusation I argued a straw man. You do not know scripture (as evidenced by not knowing the epistolary applies the OT laws), you do not know my case (as evidenced by the confession of mistaken misreading), and you do not know logic (as evidenced by the mistaken use of straw man).

So if we are going to continue having this conversation then stop being defensive and put yourself in a position to learn and consider what you're learning. I do not require anyone to believe what I believe but I do require people not deny scripture, follow the logic of an argument correctly, and apply logic correctly to their own posts. You've failed at all three.

An assertion without Biblical demonstration.

v. 10 - "This is the covenant I will make. . .I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. . ."
v. 13 - "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete;"

Completely false. I surveyed the various epistolary comments on the law in at least two different posts. The statement what I said is an assertion without Biblical demonstration is demonstrably false. It is a false accusation.

Conflict? The laws God will put in their minds and write on their hearts in the new covenant are the laws of Christ (Mt 22:37-40). No conflict, Christ's laws fulfill the law by loving God and neighbor as self. And with the parable of the good Samaritan providing all the instruction one needs on the matter.

You just made MY argument and defeated your own. YOU are the one stating the law was abrogated. I am the one stating the law was abrogated conditionally and also an intrinsic part of salvation, one applied to the NT ecclesia outside of obtaining righteousness and justification.

And that law is Christ's law; i.e., Mt 22:37-40, Ro 13: 8, 9, 10, 1 Co 9:20-21.

Yep.

As I said, you've just contradicted your original position.

Are they mutually inclusive?

Yes! And I have already explained ho so. Go back and re-read the posts.

On your part, until you Biblically demonstrate otherwise.

Completely false. Go back and re-read the posts.

Please Biblically demonstrate love of one's enemies in the OT code. It's not there.

Already done and the request should not need to be made in the first place. It shows a remarkable lack of knowledge, one that disqualifies you from having anything to teach. Jesus himself explicitly stated the Law can be summed up in the commands (laws) to love God and love others. Those two commands are found in the OT. Jesus is quoting the Shema.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

Leviticus 19:18
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

That is straight out of the OT Law of Moses. You do not know your Bible. You do not know how to reason logically. You do not take the time to consider what is stated in others' posts. You make assumptions and accusations without bothering to check their veracity. You ignore the patience and kindness of others when they take the time to answer your questions.

Love was an explicitly stated condition and requirement in the Law, and if you hadn't resorted to false accusations, I'd be more benevolent with you so if you want to continue this conversation then stow the dross. There are many places where love, mercy, grace, and faith are asserted in the OT laws and Law. Many. Not just two. The fact that you do not know then, the fact that you say I haven't demonstrated their existence, the fact that you abuse scripture to force it to say things it does not state, and the fact you've resorted to false accusation disqualify you from telling anyone what to believe. Very bad play on your part. Correct it and make amends because I'll ignore more of the same if I read it again.


Every single command in the Law of Moses is couched in God's love for His people and His expectation they will love Him and others. Every single command is couched in two recompenses: either blessing of curse and judgment is rehabilitative until the final judgment. Grace and mercy are built into every single command. So too is blessing and curse. All have been judged. All will be judged. Not all are condemned.

 

[Eleanor]

The post is good, but not complete.

Interesting notion you have there of "complete."
That post is absolutely complete.

What you have, by your own words is two sets of rules and two sets of rules for the exact same people (the Jews). You have a God who hates slavery (as evidenced by His not allowing Hebrews to own other Hebrews),

That is not what prohibition of owning Hebrews as slaves is about, as demonstrated in post #204.

and His explicitly stated reason is because His people had been enslaved in Egypt. In other words, if those laws of the Law are rendered as Post 204 renders them then God wants the Hebrews to do to others what the Egyptians did to them. Does that sound correct to you. Is that contradiction not apparent to you?

And so the meaning and truth of Scripture is determined by what "sounds correct" to me?
Therefore, Ex 21:20-21 and Lev 25:44-46 are not understood according to what they actually state and in the light of all Scripture; e.g., Eph 6:5-8, 1 Pe 2:18-21, but are to be understood according to what "sounds correct" to me?

NOT!!!

And now we're down to the heart of the matter.

Now we're down to the reason for all
the smoke and mirrors,
the walls of irrelevant text to give the impression of Biblical knowledge and right understanding of the Scriptures,
the failure to Biblically demonstrate one's assertions,
the irritation with "proof texting" and failed attempts to eliminate it. . .
all for the purpose of "authorizing" your unbelief of the word of God (e.g., Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46),
where you set Lev 25:44-46 against Lev 25:39-43, denying the clear statements of both therein, as presented in post #204:

there were two sets of laws in Israel regarding slaves, one regarding Hebrew slaves (Ex 21:2-11, Lev 25:39-43) and one regarding Gentile slaves (Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46). Only Hebrews, with the exception of those who chose to be so (Ex 21:5-6), were forbidden to be owned (Lev 25:42), because they had already been purchased (redeemed) by God and were his servants (Lev 25:42). Gentile slaves could be owned (Lev 25:45) in Israel.
--Picture (figure) of all those in Christ who have been purchased by God at a great price (1 Co 6:20, 1 Pe 1:18-19), are his slaves (Ro 6:22, Eph 6:6) and, therefore, are not to become slaves to the lusts of men (participate in their sin, 1 Co 7:23), or to their own lusts (Ro 6:12, 22).

The sons of God (Hebrews) were never to be treated as slaves in Israel (Lev 25:53), except for those who chose to be so (Ex 21:5-6).
--Picture (figure) of the spiritual freedom in Christ (Gal 5:1, 13) of the sons of God, as well as a figure of spiritual bondservants to Christ.

This glaring wrestling of the Scriptures (2 Pe 3:16), denying the clear meaning of the texts above, demonstrates your mishandling of the word of God for the sake of your contra-Biblical theology:
Ex 21:2-11 Lev 25:39-43, regarding Hebrews slaves and ownership of them (Ex 21:5-6),
Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46, regarding Gentile slaves and ownership of them as property,
--picture (figure) of spiritual bondage to Satan of all those who are not the sons of God,
which as fulfillment of
Noah's prophecy (curse) that Canaan would be slaves to Shem (Ge 9:25), the father of the Hebrews (Ge 10:21, 24-25, cf Lk 3:35),
Isaac's blessing (prophecy) on Jacob that the nations (Gentiles) would serve him (Ge 27:29, Heb 11:20), both of which point to
Jacob's blessing (prophecy) on
Judah, that his descendant,
Christ, would rule over the nations (Ge 49:10),
was ordained by God.

Note: While slavery, like poverty, sickness and disability, is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), nevertheless, it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

The heart of the matter all along has been camouflaging of your denial of the plain word of God where it disagrees with your contra-Biblical theology, particularly seen in your assault on "text proofing," as well as in your assertion of "not complete" regarding my posts, because they do not proceed on to a rearranging of the word of God to make it fit your contra-Biblical theology, as you pose to proceed to rearrange Ex 21:2-11 and Ex 21:20-21, as well as rearrange Lev 25:39-43 and Lev 25:44-46 here.

So back to what is not apparent:
what is apparent is the false contradiction you have set up in the plain word of God, in the differences he legislated regarding Hebrew slaves and Gentile slaves.
What is apparent is your choice of unbelief of God's word where it disagrees with your contra-Biblical theology, which unbelief is camouflaged with walls of irrelevant text to give the impression of Biblical knowledge and right understanding of the Scriptures.

So what you've posted is partly correct but because it is incomplete it is not wholly correct.

The ole "not complete" ploy. . .

That dog won't hunt.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Regarding Biblical words as meaningless is not about "style."

BUT when "theologians" get done TWISTING, "Biblical words" and re-defining them according to their private theological interpretations to satify their Denomination's demands, then the problem get started.

To be clear - the OP was about the Holy Spirit INDWELLING PEOPLE before Pentecost, and since John 20:22 records the point at which that happened, and Jesus words about Pentecost make it clear that Acts 2:4 WAS NOT "the Holy Spirit indwelling", but the Holy Spirit EXTERNALLY ENDUING the disciples with power.

One of the posters in this series: "Doesn't like my style of presentation" - so I told him top put me on ignore. Simple as that.

 

[Eleanor]

BUT when "theologians" get done TWISTING, "Biblical words" and re-defining them according to their private theological interpretations to satify their Denomination's demands, then the problem get started.

AS long as we have lexicons, that should not be a real problem.

To be clear - the OP was about the Holy Spirit INDWELLING PEOPLE before Pentecost, and since John 20:22 records the point at which that happened, and Jesus words about Pentecost make it clear that Acts 2:4 WAS NOT "the Holy Spirit indwelling", but the Holy Spirit EXTERNALLY ENDUING the disciples with power.

One of the posters in this series: "Doesn't like my style of presentation" - so I told him top put me on ignore. Simple as that.

Yes, I see the indwelling as different from a special empowering.

 

[Eleanor]

LOL. That is not a straw man. A straw man is when a person asserts a misrepresentation and then argues against the misrepresentation is if the misrepresentation is what was argued in the first place. I did not misrepresent your post in any way and I did not misrepresent scripture, and you most definitely did not prove I did so in either case.

What you did to is make an inferential argument by twisting scripture to say things it does not actually state. And you did it without proving my statement incorrect. What scripture states is often different from what people make it say. None of the four verse you just cited actually state "we are not saved by the law." In order to prove that wrong you have to come up with a verse that actually explicitly states, "we are not saved by the law," and you have not done that.

I do not think the law saves anyone. If you think that is what I think then you, again, have not correctly understood my posts and your repeated failure to do si is getting tiresome in light of the false accusation I argued a straw man. You do not know scripture (as evidenced by not knowing the epistolary applies the OT laws), you do not know my case (as evidenced by the confession of mistaken misreading), and you do not know logic (as evidenced by the mistaken use of straw man).

So if we are going to continue having this conversation then stop being defensive and put yourself in a position to learn and consider what you're learning. I do not require anyone to believe what I believe but I do require people not deny scripture, follow the logic of an argument correctly, and apply logic correctly to their own posts. You've failed at all three.

Completely false. I surveyed the various epistolary comments on the law in at least two different posts. The statement what I said is an assertion without Biblical demonstration is demonstrably false. It is a false accusation.

You just made MY argument and defeated your own. YOU are the one stating the law was abrogated. I am the one stating the law was abrogated conditionally and also an intrinsic part of salvation, one applied to the NT ecclesia outside of obtaining righteousness and justification.

Yep.

As I said, you've just contradicted your original position.

Yes! And I have already explained ho so. Go back and re-read the posts.

Completely false. Go back and re-read the posts.

Already done and the request should not need to be made in the first place. It shows a remarkable lack of knowledge, one that disqualifies you from having anything to teach. Jesus himself explicitly stated the Law can be summed up in the commands (laws) to love God and love others. Those two commands are found in the OT. Jesus is quoting the Shema.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."
Leviticus 19:18
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.
That is straight out of the OT Law of Moses. You do not know your Bible.

You have not shown love of enemies there, as requested.

You do not know how to reason logically. You do not take the time to consider what is stated in others' posts. You make assumptions and accusations without bothering to check their veracity. You ignore the patience and kindness of others when they take the time to answer your questions.
Love was an explicitly stated condition and requirement in the Law, and if you hadn't resorted to false accusations, I'd be more benevolent with you so if you want to continue this conversation then stow the dross. There are many places where love, mercy, grace, and faith are asserted in the OT laws and Law. Many. Not just two. The fact that you do not know then, the fact that you say I haven't demonstrated their existence, the fact that you abuse scripture to force it to say things it does not state, and the fact you've resorted to false accusation disqualify you from telling anyone what to believe. Very bad play on your part. Correct it and make amends because I'll ignore more of the same if I read it again.

Every single command in the Law of Moses is couched in God's love for His people and His expectation they will love Him and others. Every single command is couched in two recompenses: either blessing of curse and judgment is rehabilitative until the final judgment. Grace and mercy are built into every single command. So too is blessing and curse. All have been judged. All will be judged. Not all are condemned.

Rich. . .

 

[Bob Carabbio]

AS long as we have lexicons, that should not be a real problem.

We've always had "Lexicons". They obviously don't help. Theologians skilled in the art can "Prove" whatever they please - just ask the Roman Catholics!!!! They're still working on proving that "WHITE" is actually "Black".

Yes, I see the indwelling as different from a special empowering.

Agree completely. One difference was that the in the O.T, "empowering" was given to only a FEW, whereas in the NEW Testament, potentially EVERY Born Again Christian can minister as a "Miracle Worker", at God's pleasure.

 

[Josheb]

Interesting notion you have there of "complete." That post is absolutely complete.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Eleanor]

I am unaware of any scripture stating we are saved from the law. Galatians 3:13 states we are saved from the law's curse, not from the law. Is there some scripture of which I am unaware stating we're saved from the law? If so I'd like to see it because one of the most profound and undeniable realities of the epistolary is that all the NT writers often and repeatedly applied the law (and the Law) to their Christian readers (including the Gentile converts). They simply did not do so as a means of obtaining righteousness or justification.

That is incorrect. The word "simply" does not belong. The purpose, efficacy, effect, limits and application, of the laws (or Law) of God is not singular or simple. There are, in fact, multiple reasons for the Law cited in both Old and New and if we took all the many things said about the law there is no reason to think that list would be exhaustive. What you have observed is (mostly) correct but it is not complete. That which is incomplete is often also wrong wherever the incomplete is assumed complete .
For example,

• The law is good (when used lawfully).
• The law is spiritual.
• The law is applied to the converts to Christ, both Jewish and Gentile.
• The law is abrogated or annulled as a means of obtaining righteousness and justification.
• The law informs us of sin.
• The law is the means of accounting for sin.
• The law is one small portion of what may be and often is called the "Mosaic covenant" but that covenant is one small portion of a much larger covenant that runs through the entirety of scripture.

That partial list demonstrates the law is anything but "simply" to reveal sin.

That list adds nothing not already included in the law being given simply to reveal sin.

You've taken Hebrews 8:13 out of context.

Contraire. . .the context of Heb 8 is the new covenant, and the law of Christ written on our hearts.

Go back and read the larger Hebrews 8 text and combine it with what Paul wrote about the law.

I suggest you do the same.

Verse 13 certainly cannot be made to conflict with verse 10.

And they do not conflict. The law of v. 13 is the law of Moses, and the law of v. 10 is the law of Christ (Ro 13:8, 9, 10, Mt 22:37-40).

Re-read (because I am confident you have read them before ) Paul's commentaries on the law in Romans 3-8 and 10.

Ro 3-8 shuts up all OT mankind in unrighteous, and presents righteousness imputed and imparted, while Ro 9 deals with the justice of God's rejection of Israel, and Ro 10 deals with the cause of God's rejection of Israel.

NOTE that he specifies to conditions, two specific contexts, for his comments. The first is the law as a means by which someone might be justified (a legal term indicating a valid basis for standing before God) and righteousness.So too do all the other NT writers. The NT authors constantly referenced, cited, and quoted the OT laws and applied them to both Jewish and Gentile converts toChrist.

The first is the law was not given to justify, it was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).
The second is righteousness is only from God (Ro 3:21, 1:17).

Aside from those two specified application Paul often and repeatedly applies the laws of God to his audiences!

Assertion without demonstration. . .

Paul applies the law of Christ to his audience (Ro 13:8, 9, 10).
Love is the fulfillment of the law (Ro 13:10).
He who loves has fulfilled the law (Ro 13:8).
Whatever commandment there may be is summed up in one rule, love of God ad neighbor as self (Ro 13:9).

So too do all the other NT writers. The NT authors constantly referenced, cited, and quoted the OT laws and applied them to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.

All of which are fulfilled in love of God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:8-10, Mt 22:37-30).

 

[jeremiah1five]

You make a good point. I was going to counter but upon further reflection I do seem to recall that atonement in Israel, to and for Israel, was done yearly. Now I have to thin k about whether this atonement in "covering" the sins of Israel was sufficient in itself to allow the Holy Spirit to touch a "covered" elect sinner or must He wait until the Lamb of God to "taketh away" the sins of God's elect before contact can be made. Holy Spirit. Unholy man.
There are instances of the Holy Spirit being "in" those people that built the Tabernacle, and even "upon" (overshadowing) prophets, priests, and kings.
Then there's Mary. More overshadowing. But was it contact. Surely, she was not holy. But were any in Israel holy in the perfect sense of the word, or maybe I should use the word "sinless" here for holiness is interpreted also as separated and to bear the Messiah as being the choice of God she was only "separated" ("holy.") Be careful here for Catholics are waiting to pounce on this one.