the Law terribly misunderstood

[randyk]

When Paul talks about the incapacity of the Law of works to save us he is not disparaging the Law. He is only saying that despite all of the good works of obedience under the Law, Man's *record of sin* remains in place until Christ ultimately annuls the judgment of sin. Until Christ's atonement is accepted, all acts of human obedience remain essentially tarred with "sin."

I think this misunderstanding about the Law of works being "inept" has created a false dichotomy between Law and Grace as mutual and complementary systems of faith and righteousness. Paul was only arguing the need for Christ to deal with the stain of sin, which remained on Israel during their time under the Law. The *record of sin* in human life had to be dealt with in order to fulfill the promise of life under the Law.

The idea that works under the Law were worthless, and void of faith, is utterly ridiculous. David sang the praises of the Law, as well as the works of the Law. It was all designed to be based on faith.

However, to approach the works of the Law without recognition of the need to atone for sins was in effect a rejection of God, and not what the Law was for. Beyond simply doing good God requires that we acknowledge Him and our dependence upon Him, or risk losing the merit of good works in our lives.

All men require divine virtue to do good, but to the extent we reject God we introduce sin along with our good works, spoiling our reputation. So, to embrace our need for atonement is to accept God as the basis of our good works, and to repent of all our sins.

As such, the Law was designed to produce both righteousness and a dependence on divine atonement, in order to preserve righteousness. To divorce righteousness from the Law is not what God ever had in mind. He simply consigned the Law to futility when the worshiper refused to acknowledge the need for atonement, and thus for God Himself in process of producing virtue.

In sum, Paul argued that the Law was without righteousness strictly in the case of those who rejected Christ, who is the basis of our atonement, the fulfillment of faith. Paul was not saying the Law failed to produce righteousness. He was only saying that the stain of sin had to be removed, by the acknowledgement of our need for atonement, in order to properly produce righteousness by any system.

[Aviyah]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

Paul was not saying the Law failed to produce righteousness.

I disagree based on Romans 3.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin [...] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (v. 19-20, 28)

And it's stated most strongly in Galatians:

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (2:21)

The idea of going back to the law, or viewing Christ as "reinstating us" under the law with "a clean record this time" completely strips the gospel of its power, IMO. We are dead to the law; our righteousness is counted by faith alone. This is why "there is no condemnation" for us. The penalty has already been taken by Christ, and there is nothing left to do but praise and rest in His finished work. If you go back to the dead and fulfilled law, then you are treating the cross as insufficient and do not truly believe - hence the message of Hebrews.

David sang the praises of the Law, as well as the works of the Law.

He was not praising the law directly; he was praising God because the law was part of how He communicated His character and holiness. But of himself, David said:

O LORD, hear my prayer. In Your faithfulness, give ear to my plea; in Your righteousness, answer me. Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you. (Psalm 143)

So David, as with everyone else who was justified in the OT, was saved because he understood through the law that he was unrighteous. This is exactly the point Paul was making - they both realized the same thing:

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one." (Romans 3)

I think it's dangerous to your faith to be relying on the law, rather than the substitution of Jesus who was and is already perfect. Or at least that type of faith is not rooted in an unchanging God, but instead partially in your own works. Rather than viewing Christ as a "reset button", and ending up in the same place repeatedly, look to Him like David did - in the midst of your sin, and appeal to His mercy apart from the law of condemnation, according to His steadfast love rather than His revealed wrath.

[Walls]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

When Paul talks about the incapacity of the Law of works to save us he is not disparaging the Law. He is only saying that despite all of the good works of obedience under the Law, Man's *record of sin* remains in place until Christ ultimately annuls the judgment of sin. Until Christ's atonement is accepted, all acts of human obedience remain essentially tarred with "sin."

I think this misunderstanding about the Law of works being "inept" has created a false dichotomy between Law and Grace as mutual and complementary systems of faith and righteousness. Paul was only arguing the need for Christ to deal with the stain of sin, which remained on Israel during their time under the Law. The *record of sin* in human life had to be dealt with in order to fulfill the promise of life under the Law.

The idea that works under the Law were worthless, and void of faith, is utterly ridiculous. David sang the praises of the Law, as well as the works of the Law. It was all designed to be based on faith.

However, to approach the works of the Law without recognition of the need to atone for sins was in effect a rejection of God, and not what the Law was for. Beyond simply doing good God requires that we acknowledge Him and our dependence upon Him, or risk losing the merit of good works in our lives.

All men require divine virtue to do good, but to the extent we reject God we introduce sin along with our good works, spoiling our reputation. So, to embrace our need for atonement is to accept God as the basis of our good works, and to repent of all our sins.

As such, the Law was designed to produce both righteousness and a dependence on divine atonement, in order to preserve righteousness. To divorce righteousness from the Law is not what God ever had in mind. He simply consigned the Law to futility when the worshiper refused to acknowledge the need for atonement, and thus for God Himself in process of producing virtue.

In sum, Paul argued that the Law was without righteousness strictly in the case of those who rejected Christ, who is the basis of our atonement, the fulfillment of faith. Paul was not saying the Law failed to produce righteousness. He was only saying that the stain of sin had to be removed, by the acknowledgement of our need for atonement, in order to properly produce righteousness by any system.

The Law DID supply Atonement. It is established in 43 verses in Leviticus alone.

"Divine Atonement" in not taught by the Bible. Atonement was wrought by a MAN.

Your sentence; "In sum, Paul argued that the Law was without righteousness strictly in the case of those who rejected Christ, who is the basis of our atonement, the fulfillment of faith", is, to me, somewhat garbled.

1. First of all, the Law DID bring righteousness if kept (Lk.1:6)
2. Second, the Law brought righteousness ESPECIALLY for those ISRAELITES who rejected Christ. It is the basis for Israel's restoration (Deut.30:1-5).
3. Third, is Christ the BASIS for our Atonement? What then is the superstructure?
4. Fourth, is Christ's Atoning Work the "fulfillment of faith", or is it fulfilled before faith came in? While our Lord hung on the cross and was lain to rest, where were His followers? Did they not flee in faith-LESS-ness. Faith only APPLIES an already accomplished Atonement

The drawback of the Law did not lie with the Law. In everything it was good, spiritual, God-given and "ordained to life". The drawback was the Law of "sin and death" that "dwelt bodily" in men.

Forgive me if I seem to be nit-picking, but I am puzzled by your fascination with the Law, which,

1. Is never given outside of Israel
2. Is abolished for the Christian

[Follower1977]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

The Law DID supply Atonement. It is established in 43 verses in Leviticus alone.

"Divine Atonement" in not taught by the Bible. Atonement was wrought by a MAN.

Your sentence; "In sum, Paul argued that the Law was without righteousness strictly in the case of those who rejected Christ, who is the basis of our atonement, the fulfillment of faith", is, to me, somewhat garbled.

1. First of all, the Law DID bring righteousness if kept (Lk.1:6)
2. Second, the Law brought righteousness ESPECIALLY for those ISRAELITES who rejected Christ. It is the basis for Israel's restoration (Deut.30:1-5).
3. Third, is Christ the BASIS for our Atonement? What then is the superstructure?
4. Fourth, is Christ's Atoning Work the "fulfillment of faith", or is it fulfilled before faith came in? While our Lord hung on the cross and was lain to rest, where were His followers? Did they not flee in faith-LESS-ness. Faith only APPLIES an already accomplished Atonement

The drawback of the Law did not lie with the Law. In everything it was good, spiritual, God-given and "ordained to life". The drawback was the Law of "sin and death" that "dwelt bodily" in men.

Forgive me if I seem to be nit-picking, but I am puzzled by your fascination with the Law, which,

1. Is never given outside of Israel
2. Is abolished for the Christian

the laws atonement was always based upon the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
**Revelation *13:8 *KJV

thier sacrifices weren't atonement, they were an annual reminder of thier sin.

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
**Hebrews *10:1-4 *KJV


you are correct that there is an establishment of atonement in the law according to animal blood, but now having revelation of things through Christ, we have learned that it was only a shadow, of the true atonement made , ordained by Gods decree from the foundation of things. So then as Paul declares, the law was simply a tutor, teaching those under law about the c I got atonement which would actually take away sin, delivering the promise of blessing through faith

“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

...But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”
**Galatians *3:10-12, 22-26 *KJV


I think Paul's argument that the law is not of faith , it was what held us until faith came, is pretty sound. Every blessing and every curse in the law is based on the righteousness of man, what can I do, how good can I obey this holy law.....the end result of this for sinners, or less than holy people , is certain death, it can result in. Othing but a dead man waiting in the grave, still stained Crimson because the animal blood cannot atone for a man, it's only the use of a tutor teaching of the atonement which one day would come.....we have the reality now and can truly say in the light, " my sins have been made as white as snow, washed in the blood of Gods Lamb of atonement.

[Walls]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

the laws atonement was always based upon the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
**Revelation *13:8 *KJV

thier sacrifices weren't atonement, they were an annual reminder of thier sin.

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
**Hebrews *10:1-4 *KJV


you are correct that there is an establishment of atonement in the law according to animal blood, but now having revelation of things through Christ, we have learned that it was only a shadow, of the true atonement made , ordained by Gods decree from the foundation of things. So then as Paul declares, the law was simply a tutor, teaching those under law about the c I got atonement which would actually take away sin, delivering the promise of blessing through faith

“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

...But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”
**Galatians *3:10-12, 22-26 *KJV


I think Paul's argument that the law is not of faith , it was what held us until faith came, is pretty sound. Every blessing and every curse in the law is based on the righteousness of man, what can I do, how good can I obey this holy law.....the end result of this for sinners, or less than holy people , is certain death, it can result in. Othing but a dead man waiting in the grave, still stained Crimson because the animal blood cannot atone for a man, it's only the use of a tutor teaching of the atonement which one day would come.....we have the reality now and can truly say in the light, " my sins have been made as white as snow, washed in the blood of Gods Lamb of atonement.

Although many of your proffered verses do not address atonement, I gather that you object to my statement that the Law DID offer atonement. I offer this small selection in which in each verses the language is plain. Let us discuss them.

Exodus 29:36: "And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it."

Exodus 30:10: "And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD."

Exodus 30:16: "And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls."

Leviticus 1:4: "And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him."

Leviticus 4:20: "And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them."

Leviticus 4:31: "And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him."

Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

Numbers 16:46: "And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun."

Numbers 28:22: "And one goat for a sin offering, to make an atonement for you."

The phrase "make atonement" appears 7 times in Exodus, 42 times in Leviticus and 14 times in Numbers.

[Follower1977]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

Although many of your proffered verses do not address atonement, I gather that you object to my statement that the Law DID offer atonement. I offer this small selection in which in each verses the language is plain. Let us discuss them.

Exodus 29:36: "And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it."

Exodus 30:10: "And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD."

Exodus 30:16: "And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls."

Leviticus 1:4: "And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him."

Leviticus 4:20: "And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them."

Leviticus 4:31: "And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him."

Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

Numbers 16:46: "And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun."

Numbers 28:22: "And one goat for a sin offering, to make an atonement for you."

The phrase "make atonement" appears 7 times in Exodus, 42 times in Leviticus and 14 times in Numbers.

did you read what I wrote? I see you didn't understand my point, probably my fault.

All those verses there , are meant to begin teaching or the actual atonement. Look at it from the revealed perspective in the New Testament to understand what I'm saying this is what all of those scriptures mean in Christ after the veil has been lifted and understanding has come



“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.”
**Hebrews *10:1-6 *KJV


Of those sacrifices had atoned for thier sin, they wouldn't have needed to keep offering them, because they were required to do it continually, it's actually a reminder of thier sin. I was actually trying to support what you were saying regarding the law.

the priesthood of Aaron, is t the actual preisthood, the law of Moses , isn't the actual law, the sacrifices they sacrificed weren't the actual atonement.....those things were " a school master" they were teaching the people about sacrifice for sin, because Christ was sacrificed by Gods ordaining him to die for sin before the foundation of the world.

the law of Moses all of it was a shadow , a foretelling of the true things that came in Christ. The law is meant to hold sinners guilty .......because it's sinners who accept thier guilt, who need and accept a savior. You quoted this I believe

“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
**Romans *3:19-20 *KJV


see there , even thier sacrifices were a continual reminder of sins...we have to first accept were a sinner, before we'll ever repent and accept Jesus the savior.


"in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year."


actually agreed with your comment .

[TMarcum]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

When Paul talks about the incapacity of the Law of works to save us he is not disparaging the Law. He is only saying that despite all of the good works of obedience under the Law, Man's *record of sin* remains in place until Christ ultimately annuls the judgment of sin. Until Christ's atonement is accepted, all acts of human obedience remain essentially tarred with "sin."

I think this misunderstanding about the Law of works being "inept" has created a false dichotomy between Law and Grace as mutual and complementary systems of faith and righteousness. Paul was only arguing the need for Christ to deal with the stain of sin, which remained on Israel during their time under the Law. The *record of sin* in human life had to be dealt with in order to fulfill the promise of life under the Law.

The idea that works under the Law were worthless, and void of faith, is utterly ridiculous. David sang the praises of the Law, as well as the works of the Law. It was all designed to be based on faith.

However, to approach the works of the Law without recognition of the need to atone for sins was in effect a rejection of God, and not what the Law was for. Beyond simply doing good God requires that we acknowledge Him and our dependence upon Him, or risk losing the merit of good works in our lives.

All men require divine virtue to do good, but to the extent we reject God we introduce sin along with our good works, spoiling our reputation. So, to embrace our need for atonement is to accept God as the basis of our good works, and to repent of all our sins.

As such, the Law was designed to produce both righteousness and a dependence on divine atonement, in order to preserve righteousness. To divorce righteousness from the Law is not what God ever had in mind. He simply consigned the Law to futility when the worshiper refused to acknowledge the need for atonement, and thus for God Himself in process of producing virtue.

In sum, Paul argued that the Law was without righteousness strictly in the case of those who rejected Christ, who is the basis of our atonement, the fulfillment of faith. Paul was not saying the Law failed to produce righteousness. He was only saying that the stain of sin had to be removed, by the acknowledgement of our need for atonement, in order to properly produce righteousness by any system.

All I can say is, 100% Amen!

* The sacrifices under the law did never remove sin.
* The blood of the sacrifices under the law did never cleanse sin.
* The actual "work" of one offering and "obeying" Gods commandment of offering their sacrifice did wrought atonement. So by their works were they justified by the law (justified only in Christ Jesus).
* By their works were they also made transgressors of the law, if they did not obey the commandments of God (condemned only by Christ Jesus).
* By their "works" of those sacrifices, their sins were staved until the following year. Their was always a remembrance every year of their sins (until Christ Jesus died).
* But their sins were not actually redeemed until the instant Christ died on the cross.
* Only Jesus can forgive us our sin.
* Only the blood of Jesus can cleanse our sin.
* Only Jesus can save our souls (both those who were bound by the works of the law, and those who live under the grace of God).


Hebrews 10
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

[Walls]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

did you read what I wrote? I see you didn't understand my point, probably my fault.

All those verses there , are meant to begin teaching or the actual atonement. Look at it from the revealed perspective in the New Testament to understand what I'm saying this is what all of those scriptures mean in Christ after the veil has been lifted and understanding has come



“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

....

The statement that got the dispute going was my statement in posting #5 that the Law DID supply atonement. Now take a moment to read through your posts and see how many times you addressed ATONEMENT. Look at the above quote of yours. You addressed atonement in your second sentence, but then, as proof, brought a verse that addresses "PERFECTION". Then, your next proof has nothing to do with atonement. It deals with "purged of sins", "conscience of sin eradicated", "the remembrance of sins" and the "removal of sins by the blood of bulls and goats". These verses have NOTHING to do with atonement. ATONEMENT is defined as;

1. generally, the action of making amends for a wrong or injury.
2. in Christian Theology, the reconciliation of God and mankind

Here is an example why your verses do not help the discussion. You and I are neighbors. My wife is a bit reckless in the car and runs over your dog in our driveway. There is a dispute about whose fault it is. Insults and accusations fly back and forth. What is fact though is ...

1. the dog is dead and you suffered loss
2. my wife is terribly saddened by the event because she loved dogs too
3. both parties believe the other to be at fault
4. the accusations and insults sealed the animosity between the two families
5. the heated exchange proves that both parties are not perfected in their disposition

• After a week, I repent, see your loss and buy you a dog just like the one you lost. I have repented - but we are still enemies
• On delivering the new hound, I apologize. You accept the dog but your anger is still there. We are still enemies
• My wife apologizes after another week and you accept it but you do not invite her in for tee. You regard her as an enemy
• Both my wife and I apologize for the hard words said on top of the death of the dog. You accept - but we remain enemies
• Both my wife and I attend an anger-management course and "perfect" our disposition. But this does not remove your enmity

What is the problem? The problem is that while I have repented, admitted our sins, restored your dog and humbled ourselves before you, your hurt feelings still remain. What is the solution? We need to be RECONCILED. You have to set forth something that we have do to "MAKE AMENDS". When you finally set forth what will "make amends", and we do it, we have ATONED for our blunder and subsequent actions. You might require us to buy another dog to keep the first one company. You might require us to build a fence between driveways so it never happens again. What ever. When we "make amends" TO YOUR SATISFACTION, we have ATONED.

God, in His Law, set forth certain actions that did not rectify the sins, did not pay Him back for His loss, did not change our sinful nature, BUT WHICH MADE AMENDS AND RESTORED THE FRIENDSHIP. If you stick to this meaning of ATONEMENT we can both agree that the Law allowed for doing something that RECONCILED us to God. That is why my proffered verses are so plain. There was no putting away of sin and sins by the blood of bulls and goats. There was no clearing of the conscience. There was no change in the Israelites disposition. These, the Law could not do. But what it could do was (i) cleanse the flesh for ceremonial purity, and (ii) make amends for offenses against God so that both parties could bury the animosity.

[randyk]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

I disagree based on Romans 3.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin [...] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (v. 19-20, 28)

And it's stated most strongly in Galatians:

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (2:21)

The idea of going back to the law, or viewing Christ as "reinstating us" under the law with "a clean record this time" completely strips the gospel of its power, IMO. We are dead to the law; our righteousness is counted by faith alone. This is why "there is no condemnation" for us. The penalty has already been taken by Christ, and there is nothing left to do but praise and rest in His finished work. If you go back to the dead and fulfilled law, then you are treating the cross as insufficient and do not truly believe - hence the message of Hebrews.

We do not go back to the Law of Moses, which was a system of human righteousness, since Christ's atonement had not come yet. It was an insufficient form of righteousness, not because it was unrighteous, but only because it lacked the ability to save.

The Romans 3 passage is only saying what I've already said, that the righteousness of the Law was insufficient, not because it was unrighteous, but only because it depended on human righteousness, which had been stained with sin. Until Christ's atonement, the record of human sin stained all of man's good works. Christ's atonement was therefore needed to *complete* righteousness by exonerating man, and by atoning for his shortcomings.

So I don't revert back to the Law of Moses as a human system, with a flawed record. Rather, we continue to move forward in legal righteousness, not by our own flawed human righteousness, but rather, by the unspotted righteousness of Christ.

To say that we don't need to be legally righteous is absurd. Jesus taught legal righteousness under the Law. And under the NT we are in the same way to be righteous as Christ was righteous.

1 John 3.7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

He was not praising the law directly; he was praising God because the law was part of how He communicated His character and holiness. But of himself, David said:

O LORD, hear my prayer. In Your faithfulness, give ear to my plea; in Your righteousness, answer me. Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you. (Psalm 143)

So David, as with everyone else who was justified in the OT, was saved because he understood through the law that he was unrighteous. This is exactly the point Paul was making - they both realized the same thing:

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one." (Romans 3)

I think it's dangerous to your faith to be relying on the law, rather than the substitution of Jesus who was and is already perfect. Or at least that type of faith is not rooted in an unchanging God, but instead partially in your own works. Rather than viewing Christ as a "reset button", and ending up in the same place repeatedly, look to Him like David did - in the midst of your sin, and appeal to His mercy apart from the law of condemnation, according to His steadfast love rather than His revealed wrath.

I don't agree. David praised *the Law.* There is no way around that. And it wasn't just because it showed how bad Man is. It also showed Man how to be good! To obey the Law was *good!*

I'm not hitting a "reset button" to go back to the Law. I'm moving forward to the Law of Christ, and not looking back to the Law of Moses. God's Law is the same, morally, in all ages. But the Law of Moses was time-sensitive, and has now expired. The Law of God, however, cannot expire. That Law is now eternally set in Christ.

When we follow Christ we are following his example, which is in a sense a "law." It is the law of faith, as well as the law of doing right. It is determined by our conscience as we look to Christ.

I don't know why you think I'm going back to the Law of Moses, unless you think *all law* goes back to the Law of Moses? It most certainly doesn't, since law existed before Moses, and still exists under the covenant of Christ. Much of NT Scripture is about Christian law!

So what we're really talking about is the fact that the record of human righteousness was never good enough, before Christ, to attain salvation. Righteousness, however, was in fact attainable under the Law--not just enough righteousness for salvation. Only Christ could provide that. And that's why we live by Christ today, because only through him comes both righteousness and salvation.

When you quote that nobody is righteous before God under the Law this is a nuanced statement. It is not saying that Man cannot be righteous under the Law--only that he cannot be absolved, completely, of his sin by the Law alone.

No matter how much righteousness was done before Christ came, the stain of sin, and with it death, remained. Only after Christ's atonement did sin get removed from our record of righteousness.

But to be saved we need not just atonement but righteousness. And that righteousness comes by faith and through Christ, just as under the Old Covenant righteousness came by the Law and through the word of God.

By God's word Israel came under a covenant of atonement, which was only partial and temporary. But now, under Christ, we can place our righteousness under the covenant of Christ's atonement, which completes our salvation.

[randyk]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

The Law DID supply Atonement. It is established in 43 verses in Leviticus alone.

"Divine Atonement" in not taught by the Bible. Atonement was wrought by a MAN.

Your sentence; "In sum, Paul argued that the Law was without righteousness strictly in the case of those who rejected Christ, who is the basis of our atonement, the fulfillment of faith", is, to me, somewhat garbled.

1. First of all, the Law DID bring righteousness if kept (Lk.1:6)
2. Second, the Law brought righteousness ESPECIALLY for those ISRAELITES who rejected Christ. It is the basis for Israel's restoration (Deut.30:1-5).
3. Third, is Christ the BASIS for our Atonement? What then is the superstructure?
4. Fourth, is Christ's Atoning Work the "fulfillment of faith", or is it fulfilled before faith came in? While our Lord hung on the cross and was lain to rest, where were His followers? Did they not flee in faith-LESS-ness. Faith only APPLIES an already accomplished Atonement

The drawback of the Law did not lie with the Law. In everything it was good, spiritual, God-given and "ordained to life". The drawback was the Law of "sin and death" that "dwelt bodily" in men.

Forgive me if I seem to be nit-picking, but I am puzzled by your fascination with the Law, which,

1. Is never given outside of Israel
2. Is abolished for the Christian

Because of your position I doubt you will accept the reasons behind my theology. But I'll try to organize them a bit better for you and for others, because it is indeed a difficult thing to express in "ungarbled" fashion. What makes it so difficult is that we have all this nonsense about the Law having no useful purpose, except to expose Man's sin.

1st, we *agree* that the Law is righteous. What we do *not* agree on is that the Law provided righteousness for rebellious Israel. Instead, it condemned them as recalcitrant and apostate. This condemned them to death in judgment.

I certainly do not subscribe to your bipartite system of salvation, one for Israel by the Law and another for the Church by Grace. In both systems, OT and NT, righteousness came by the Law of God. Salvation, however, was only temporary by the atonement of the Law. And salvation was completed only by the atonement of Christ. In both cases there was both righteousness and atonement. Only in Christ the atonement was final and complete.

Your statement about an atonement "superstructure" is bewildering to me, unless you think that atonement required a temple superstructure? I, of course, don't believe that, since I trust the NT of Christ supersedes the OT structure and law.

I understand what you mean by Faith following Christ's atoning death, because faith existed before Christ but could only achieve faith in his salvation after he had, in fact, won that salvation. But what I meant by the atonement of Christ "fulfilling faith" I refer to the faith that preexisted Christ and which had hoped in his salvation.

I do agree that what wrecked the Law was the record of human sin. Until Christ's atonement, the record of sin remained with men--even as they lived righteously under the Law. This record of sin had to be dealt with before men could achieve salvation. Their faith had to be placed in an atonement better than the atonement of the Law. Their faith had to be placed in the atonement of Christ.

But finally, let me explain my "garbled" statement: "In sum, Paul argued that the Law was without righteousness strictly in the case of those who rejected Christ, who is the basis of our atonement, the fulfillment of faith."

Indeed this was not said very well. But what I mean is this: Paul was arguing against those who were returning to the Law with no more reference to a meritorious atonement. The atonement of the Law had lost its efficacy with the death of Christ. The only atonement that has efficacy any more is the atonement of Christ.

So Paul was not condemning righteousness that had been done under the Law. Rather, he was condemning a return to this righteousness when its form of atonement had expired, and when it had become superseded by the atonement of Christ. This would be a return to righteousness without any more dependency on atonement from God--in any form!

In rejecting Christ and going back to the Law of Moses Israel was, in effect, rejecting faith, which had always been the basis of righteousness under the Law. The Law had never attempted to uphold human righteousness, because it had been permanently stained with sin.

And so, the Law was always to be based on faith in God's word, which is from above--from God. Righteousness has always come from God above, and not from independent Man. Living by our conscience is itself a resort to divine virtue. It's just that when men turn away from God they lose their virtue and their righteousness.

And when Israel turns away from Christ they also turn away from divine virtue and true righteousness. Their human righteousness is spoiled by the fact they turn away from faith in God above.

The Law always had righteousness as long as it was based on faith. But faith is no longer directed by means of the Law. Instead, faith is now to be directed at Christ. Righteousness and atonement now only comes through him. Turning away from Christ and back to the Law is only an attempt at human righteousness without atonement.

[Walls]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

Because of your position I doubt you will accept the reasons behind my theology. But I'll try to organize them a bit better for you and for others, because it is indeed a difficult thing to express in "ungarbled" fashion. What makes it so difficult is that we have all this nonsense about the Law having no useful purpose, except to expose Man's sin.

Agreed. We have a lot of nonsense about the Law. Christians are almost disdainful of it, never pausing to think that the very God of the universe gave it, and UPHELD it. The tragedy of Israel today is proof of its veracity and potency. But my esteemed friend, in the friendliest terms, you contribute to it by your "theology". But before we go further, let me show you why we sometimes "box our shadows" in our debates. I said, quote

Walls, point #1 "First of all, the Law DID bring righteousness if kept (Lk.1:6)"

You answer, quote,

1st, we *agree* that the Law is righteous. What we do *not* agree on is that the Law provided righteousness for rebellious Israel. Instead, it condemned them as recalcitrant and apostate. This condemned them to death in judgment.

Did you really read my statement? Or is their some agenda to attribute something to me that I do not hold. Did I say it brought righteousness to rebellious Israel. I said "IF KEPT"!!! Did I deny that it convicted and condemned of sin? NO! So why address it as if I said it? I happen to agree with your sentence and its content, but was it honest in motive? How can men have an intelligent discussion if such tactics are used?

I certainly do not subscribe to your bipartite system of salvation, one for Israel by the Law and another for the Church by Grace.

Here is another prime example. If you return to previous postings on this (don't try - I know how difficult it is), I have CONTINUOUSLY maintained that:

• "Salvation" for Israel is DIFFERENT to the "salvation" of a Christian. Just as Noah's salvation by an Ark was different to Paul's on the way to Damascus. But you just won't agree to that!
• The Law is the means of Israel's "RESTORATION" (Deut.30:1-5)
• There CANNOT be "salvation" like ours for Israel because they are ALL concluded in UNBELIEF (Rom.11:32) and our salvation is by FAITH

In both systems, OT and NT, righteousness came by the Law of God.

Agreed. But I would add, for clarity that righteousness by the Law was attained by sheer discipline, but the IMPUTED righteousness of Christ is had by NOT LIFTING A FINGER. But, on another (friendly) note, you have just agreed with my statement above about the Law being able to GIVE righteousness - a statement you took me to task about.

Salvation, however, was only temporary by the atonement of the Law.

What is "temporary "salvation"? You have just corrected me about a "bipartite salvation" and now you bring one yourself. Which "salvation" was temporary? However, let me seek common ground with you. Would you agree if I reworded your statement thus; "ATONEMENT under the Law was not lasting, seeing as it had to be repeated over and over again.

And salvation was completed only by the atonement of Christ. In both cases there was both righteousness and atonement. Only in Christ the atonement was final and complete.

Agreed, if you'll agree to word it; "Atonement was complete yb the atonement of Christ. Salvation and Atonement are two sepaarte and different things. Both are included in Christ's sacrifice, but they remain different concepts. One is the stopping of a journey to destruction. The other is the RECONCILIATION of enemies.

Your statement about an atonement "superstructure" is bewildering to me, unless you think that atonement required a temple superstructure? I, of course, don't believe that, since I trust the NT of Christ supersedes the OT structure and law.

If you say that something is the BASIS for it, it implies that it is a foundation. Christ's DEATH is a the BASIS for salvation as it puts way sin and sins. But FULL SALVATION is also rebirth, partaking of the divine life, transformation into the image of Christ and resurrection of the body, and they are had BY HIS LIFE - ESPECIALLY ATONEMENT (Rom.5:12).

I understand what you mean by Faith following Christ's atoning death, because faith existed before Christ but could only achieve faith in his salvation after he had, in fact, won that salvation. But what I meant by the atonement of Christ "fulfilling faith" I refer to the faith that preexisted Christ and which had hoped in his salvation.

I do agree that what wrecked the Law was the record of human sin. Until Christ's atonement, the record of sin remained with men--even as they lived righteously under the Law. This record of sin had to be dealt with before men could achieve salvation. Their faith had to be placed in an atonement better than the atonement of the Law. Their faith had to be placed in the atonement of Christ.

I can live with this. We both have our own terminology.

But finally, let me explain my "garbled" statement: "In sum, Paul argued that the Law was without righteousness strictly in the case of those who rejected Christ, who is the basis of our atonement, the fulfillment of faith."

Indeed this was not said very well. But what I mean is this: Paul was arguing against those who were returning to the Law with no more reference to a meritorious atonement. The atonement of the Law had lost its efficacy with the death of Christ. The only atonement that has efficacy any more is the atonement of Christ.

So Paul was not condemning righteousness that had been done under the Law. Rather, he was condemning a return to this righteousness when its form of atonement had expired, and when it had become superseded by the atonement of Christ. This would be a return to righteousness without any more dependency on atonement from God--in any form!

In rejecting Christ and going back to the Law of Moses Israel was, in effect, rejecting faith, which had always been the basis of righteousness under the Law. The Law had never attempted to uphold human righteousness, because it had been permanently stained with sin.

And so, the Law was always to be based on faith in God's word, which is from above--from God. Righteousness has always come from God above, and not from independent Man. Living by our conscience is itself a resort to divine virtue. It's just that when men turn away from God they lose their virtue and their righteousness.

And when Israel turns away from Christ they also turn away from divine virtue and true righteousness. Their human righteousness is spoiled by the fact they turn away from faith in God above.

The Law always had righteousness as long as it was based on faith. But faith is no longer directed by means of the Law. Instead, faith is now to be directed at Christ. Righteousness and atonement now only comes through him. Turning away from Christ and back to the Law is only an attempt at human righteousness without atonement.

OK. To save nit-picking every sentence, let me say that I think I know what you are getting at. So let me say it my way and you can then object or agree.

When God gave Israel the Law, He was deadly serious. In His integrity He meant all He said in it. And the disastrous history of Israel, even up to now, is proof that God meant every jot and tittle of the Law. But let me make a bold statement. The Law was not designed to SAVE as we Christians know it. The Law was given to a Nation in the FLESH to

1. Make them ceremonially clean and pure so that God could dwell among them
2. Give men their due and the earth its due. That is, the Law would uphold an environment where the creation could function and recover as it was designed to
3. Be a TESTIMONY of God's JUST NATURE before the other nations
4. Be a TESTIMONY of God's righteous and generous dealings with men when compared with the demon-gods of the nations

You will notice that there is no talk of "salvation" in the Law.

Now, God gives Israel this Law in the format of a CONTRACT. For compliance blessings would pour from heaven and Israel would be the leading nation on earth. For non-compliance there would at first be chastisement and finally destruction. The chastisement was drought, plagues, defeat by their enemies and rule by foreign king. If this did not bring Israel to their senses, then siege, eating their own children, famine, war, mass-death by the sword, deportation, captivity by foreign nations and dispersion throughout the earth would be their portion. This is where we are today.

In the midst of this crisis, with 10 of the tribes already dispersed, and 97% of the other 2 tribes in Persian captivity and slowly being dispersed, the Israeli Messiah appears on the scene. He offers Israel SALVATION. But what "salvation"? The CAUSE of all this unhappiness is SIN and SINS (as Daniel prayed so elegantly in Daniel 9). So Israel needed a REDEEMER. But the prerequisite for sins to be put away is that one ADMITS them. This Israel REFUSED. And their basis for refusal was THE LAW. They had the Law and in their minds they were keeping it. God sent Jesus as a Physician - to sick people, and the sick people said that they were not sick despite every evidence to the contrary. Salvation for Israel was to ADMIT that the Law had failed, not in itself, but IN THEM. And John Baptist's message was, "you Israelites are like your fathers. Abraham worshiped idols in Mesopotamia and had to leave that behind forever by crossing a flooding Euphrates. The fathers of the twelve tribes worshiped idols in Egypt and had to cross the flood of the Red Sea to be forever separated from this. Now it is time to pass through the flood of the Jordan because you have utterly failed to gain the standing that the Law intended! (Josh.24:2, 14, 1st Cor.10: 1-11).

So when both John Baptist and our Lord Jesus had confirmed Israel's serpentine nature and a coming judgement, the issue was that the Law that had been in place for 1,500 years was not the way to go for God's favor. Our Lord Jesus presents Himself as the way to God's favor. FAITH in Jesus was the new and effective way to God's favor. This favor extended beyond the Law. It promised a new birth, divine life and transformation by Christ's indwelling life. The Jews, like most of us Christians, chose the Law. Adam and Eve, the minute they had fallen, they settled on Fig Leaves. Fallen man likes a "garment" OF HIS MAKING! And so Israel threw out the "Prince of LIFE" and clung to the Law. AND THIS BRINGS ME TO THE STATEMENT I WANTED TO MAKE BY MY PREVIOUS POSTINGS ....

IF ISRAEL, WHO WERE UNDER CONTRACT, REFUSE THE NEW GOD-GIVEN WAY, ARE THEY STILL UNDER CONTRACT?

The answer is a resounding YES!!! If you make a contract with your local Ford Dealer for a car, are you bound by that contract? YES! When can you pull out of it. NEVER! Will a judge uphold Ford's case if you do not comply with the terms of the contract? YES! What does scripture say about Contracts? "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth" (Num.30:2). What does scripture say about God's Covenants? The Covenant cannot be ANNULLED! It can be broken, but the party that breaks it then pays the penalties of that Contract - thus upholding the Contract. But what if your Ford Dealer calls you in and says that your car was stolen while in transit from the factory, and that since no replacement will be available for a while, they are willing, at no extra cost, to give you a brand new S-class Mercedes INSTEAD of the Ford. What then is your CONTRACTUAL STATUS. It is this; You may stick to the Contract in which case Ford will pay some small penalties. That is, YOU REMAIN UNDER CONTRACT. But if you are wise, you will accept the offer of the Mercedes. It has no CONTRACT. It is PROMISED! Your side of things does not change, but you get a FAR BETTER product. (Hey, I think Ford make great cars and had one myself which served me admirably. I just needed an analogy.)

ARE ISRAEL STILL UNDER CONTRACT? YES!!! WILL THIS CONTRACT ONE DAY BE REPLACED? YES!!! But it takes both parties to annul a contract and God has not relinquished His hold on the Contract of Sinai. When will God replace it? When Israel is resurrected, gathered back to their Land and united. Until then Sinai IS VALID. It is so valid that the BASIS for resurrecting, gathering and uniting Israel in their Land IS THIS CONTRACT (Deut.30:1-5). The call of the prophets to Israel is; "RETURN to God's Law"!

Now, read this carefully!

1. Did the Nations EVER have this Contract? NO! ONLY ISRAEL had the Contract of Sinai. What must a Gentile do? He must either follow his conscience as it forbids evil (Rom.2:6-16), OR ... he must BELIEVE in Jesus, His Person and His Works. If he follows his conscience he might miss the Lake of Fire and he might be of those families that the Seed of Abraham blesses. If he BELIEVES in Jesus he, (i) has his sin ans sins put away, (ii) he undergoes a rebirth which imparts eternal life and makes him a son of God, (iii) he enters a program in which God trains him to be in the image of Jesus (Rom.8:29), (iv) he will be resurrected with celestial glory and (v) rule the nations in the next age.
2. Israel had this Contract. If an Israelite BELIEVES in his Messiah, he (i) ceases to be an Israelite (2nd Cor.5:17) and is a New Creature, (ii) has his sin ans sins put away, (iii) he undergoes a rebirth which imparts eternal life and makes him a son of God, (iv) he enters a program in which God trains him to be in the image of Jesus (Rom.8:29), (v) he will be resurrected with celestial glory and (vi) rule the nations in the next age. If an Israelite REFUSES his Messiah - as most did and still do - HE REVERTS TO THE LAW. He is bound by it, and must comply with it. And he will be judged by it (Rom.2.12). BUT ... because he has the CONTRACT made with Abraham, and God NEVER annuls this CONTRACT, he can expect to (i) have his sin and sins put away, (ii) be resurrected when Jesus cokes to earth, (iii) be gathered back to his Land, (iv) receive a New Contract that will cause him (a) to not be kicked out of the Land again, and (b) cause God to pour out blessings upon him and the whole nation, (v) serve Emmanuel Who will live in a House in Jerusalem, (vi) live in this Land forever in peace and prosperity and protection from enemies

So, returning to your opening paragraph and "all this nonsense about the Law", let it be known that the Law

1. is the CONDITIONS of the Contract of Sinai
2. is the CONDITIONS of the New Covenant when Israel is united andgathered
3. will not pass till heaven and earth do
4. is still valid in all its force for Israel today

As such, it is to be respected and adhered to IF YOU ARE AN ISRAELITE. If your are a CHRISTIAN .... YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS LAW. If you are a Christians this Law was fulfilled by our Lord Jesus, and the joy that the Father has in this established righteousness is ours because THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST IS IMPUTED TO A BELIEVER. The Israelite must make every effort to keep the Law. He is bound by it still today. The BELIEVER must have nothing to do with it because in attempting to fulfill it he makes out that Christ did a lousy job and he can do better. And that, my friend, is a thought can loosen one's bowels. Imagine a Christian standing up and saying to the Father that His Son's Work was not complete, that the Father's approval of it was in vain and that he can do better than Jesus. Just writing this down sends fear through my whole being!

• To the Christian, the Law is NOTHING
• To the Israelite (who refuses Jesus) the Law is EVERYTHING
• To the Gentile the Law is NOTHING. He is NOT under contract

[randyk]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

...Did I say it brought righteousness to rebellious Israel. I said "IF KEPT"!!! Did I deny that it convicted and condemned of sin? NO! So why address it as if I said it? I happen to agree with your sentence and its content, but was it honest in motive? How can men have an intelligent discussion if such tactics are used?

Not a tactic on my part. I read other posts of yours, and over time develop an idea of your beliefs. I apologize if I'm wrong about what you believe on this, and am very happy you don't believe what I thought you believed! I read somewhere--I thought--that you believe God uses the Law of Moses to bring Israel back to Himself?

Here is another prime example. If you return to previous postings on this (don't try - I know how difficult it is), I have CONTINUOUSLY maintained that:

• "Salvation" for Israel is DIFFERENT to the "salvation" of a Christian. Just as Noah's salvation by an Ark was different to Paul's on the way to Damascus. But you just won't agree to that!
• The Law is the means of Israel's "RESTORATION" (Deut.30:1-5)
• There CANNOT be "salvation" like ours for Israel because they are ALL concluded in UNBELIEF (Rom.11:32) and our salvation is by FAITH

Yes, this is the theology I believed you held to, and it is, in my opinion, a *bipartite system.* It isn't just a *different* testimony of salvation--more, it is a *different basis* for salvation.

There is no question that God utilized the Law of Moses to deliver Israel in limited kinds of salvation in the OT era. He saved Israel from Egypt, for example. But this is not legal atonement for eternal life. Christ is the only way that can be achieved. Other preliminary forms of salvation were designed to lead up to that.

Agreed. But I would add, for clarity that righteousness by the Law was attained by sheer discipline, but the IMPUTED righteousness of Christ is had by NOT LIFTING A FINGER. But, on another (friendly) note, you have just agreed with my statement above about the Law being able to GIVE righteousness - a statement you took me to task about.

Faith requires two things--the word of God from heaven, and our obedience on earth. Our obedience to God's word does not mean that we have obtained our own atonement on earth. Rather, it means that we are obedient to Christ as the word from heaven who alone accomplished our atonement.

This is complex so let me just add this. The Law, before Christ, certainly produced righteousness. But it was a record of human righteousness before Christ, and as such, still had the stain of sin. Faith was in God's word, but it was faith in a word that did not yet utilize Christ's atonement--only in our own participatory atonement, as accomplished through Levitical priests. This was a flawed righteousness, and though acceptable to God could not achieve eternal life.

What is "temporary "salvation"? You have just corrected me about a "bipartite salvation" and now you bring one yourself. Which "salvation" was temporary? However, let me seek common ground with you. Would you agree if I reworded your statement thus; "ATONEMENT under the Law was not lasting, seeing as it had to be repeated over and over again.

Hebrews 10 says it more than adequately. No matter how many times God delivered Israel from their enemies they remained under the curse of sin and ultimately died. What the Law did was protect Israel from death by judgment so that they could complete their lives in ministry to God. This was a "temporary salvation."

Agreed, if you'll agree to word it; "Atonement was complete yb the atonement of Christ. Salvation and Atonement are two sepaarte and different things. Both are included in Christ's sacrifice, but they remain different concepts. One is the stopping of a journey to destruction. The other is the RECONCILIATION of enemies.

Salvation, in my terminology, is either temporal or eternal. Christ came to bring eternal life. All forms of salvation prior to the Cross were forms of temporal salvation. But they were predicated on righteousness from heaven, just as righteousness today is predicated on Christ in heaven.

If you say that something is the BASIS for it, it implies that it is a foundation. Christ's DEATH is a the BASIS for salvation as it puts way sin and sins. But FULL SALVATION is also rebirth, partaking of the divine life, transformation into the image of Christ and resurrection of the body, and they are had BY HIS LIFE - ESPECIALLY ATONEMENT (Rom.5:12).

All the same thing to me. Christ's atonement made our faith rest purely on God's word from heaven, and its virtue, as opposed to our own obedience, which is flawed. We choose to obey from within ourselves, but we put our faith in God's word in heaven, which enables us to obey (Deut 30.14). Now that Christ has come our faith is put in a new word from heaven. We achieve because Christ enabled and atoned for us. We have no more need to participate in the process of redemption as flawed human beings. The Law has been fulfilled completely.

...I can live with this. We both have our own terminology.
OK. To save nit-picking every sentence, let me say that I think I know what you are getting at. So let me say it my way and you can then object or agree.

When God gave Israel the Law, He was deadly serious. In His integrity He meant all He said in it. And the disastrous history of Israel, even up to now, is proof that God meant every jot and tittle of the Law. But let me make a bold statement. The Law was not designed to SAVE as we Christians know it. The Law was given to a Nation in the FLESH to

1. Make them ceremonially clean and pure so that God could dwell among them
2. Give men their due and the earth its due. That is, the Law would uphold an environment where the creation could function and recover as it was designed to
3. Be a TESTIMONY of God's JUST NATURE before the other nations
4. Be a TESTIMONY of God's righteous and generous dealings with men when compared with the demon-gods of the nations

You will notice that there is no talk of "salvation" in the Law.

Now, God gives Israel this Law in the format of a CONTRACT. For compliance blessings would pour from heaven and Israel would be the leading nation on earth. For non-compliance there would at first be chastisement and finally destruction. The chastisement was drought, plagues, defeat by their enemies and rule by foreign king. If this did not bring Israel to their senses, then siege, eating their own children, famine, war, mass-death by the sword, deportation, captivity by foreign nations and dispersion throughout the earth would be their portion. This is where we are today.

In the midst of this crisis, with 10 of the tribes already dispersed, and 97% of the other 2 tribes in Persian captivity and slowly being dispersed, the Israeli Messiah appears on the scene. He offers Israel SALVATION. But what "salvation"? The CAUSE of all this unhappiness is SIN and SINS (as Daniel prayed so elegantly in Daniel 9). So Israel needed a REDEEMER. But the prerequisite for sins to be put away is that one ADMITS them. This Israel REFUSED. And their basis for refusal was THE LAW. They had the Law and in their minds they were keeping it. God sent Jesus as a Physician - to sick people, and the sick people said that they were not sick despite every evidence to the contrary. Salvation for Israel was to ADMIT that the Law had failed, not in itself, but IN THEM. And John Baptist's message was, "you Israelites are like your fathers. Abraham worshiped idols in Mesopotamia and had to leave that behind forever by crossing a flooding Euphrates. The fathers of the twelve tribes worshiped idols in Egypt and had to cross the flood of the Red Sea to be forever separated from this. Now it is time to pass through the flood of the Jordan because you have utterly failed to gain the standing that the Law intended! (Josh.24:2, 14, 1st Cor.10: 1-11).

So when both John Baptist and our Lord Jesus had confirmed Israel's serpentine nature and a coming judgement, the issue was that the Law that had been in place for 1,500 years was not the way to go for God's favor. Our Lord Jesus presents Himself as the way to God's favor. FAITH in Jesus was the new and effective way to God's favor. This favor extended beyond the Law. It promised a new birth, divine life and transformation by Christ's indwelling life. The Jews, like most of us Christians, chose the Law. Adam and Eve, the minute they had fallen, they settled on Fig Leaves. Fallen man likes a "garment" OF HIS MAKING! And so Israel threw out the "Prince of LIFE" and clung to the Law. AND THIS BRINGS ME TO THE STATEMENT I WANTED TO MAKE BY MY PREVIOUS POSTINGS ....

IF ISRAEL, WHO WERE UNDER CONTRACT, REFUSE THE NEW GOD-GIVEN WAY, ARE THEY STILL UNDER CONTRACT?

The answer is a resounding YES!!! If you make a contract with your local Ford Dealer for a car, are you bound by that contract? YES! When can you pull out of it. NEVER! Will a judge uphold Ford's case if you do not comply with the terms of the contract? YES! What does scripture say about Contracts? "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth" (Num.30:2). What does scripture say about God's Covenants? The Covenant cannot be ANNULLED! It can be broken, but the party that breaks it then pays the penalties of that Contract - thus upholding the Contract. But what if your Ford Dealer calls you in and says that your car was stolen while in transit from the factory, and that since no replacement will be available for a while, they are willing, at no extra cost, to give you a brand new S-class Mercedes INSTEAD of the Ford. What then is your CONTRACTUAL STATUS. It is this; You may stick to the Contract in which case Ford will pay some small penalties. That is, YOU REMAIN UNDER CONTRACT. But if you are wise, you will accept the offer of the Mercedes. It has no CONTRACT. It is PROMISED! Your side of things does not change, but you get a FAR BETTER product. (Hey, I think Ford make great cars and had one myself which served me admirably. I just needed an analogy.)

ARE ISRAEL STILL UNDER CONTRACT? YES!!! WILL THIS CONTRACT ONE DAY BE REPLACED? YES!!! But it takes both parties to annul a contract and God has not relinquished His hold on the Contract of Sinai. When will God replace it? When Israel is resurrected, gathered back to their Land and united. Until then Sinai IS VALID. It is so valid that the BASIS for resurrecting, gathering and uniting Israel in their Land IS THIS CONTRACT (Deut.30:1-5). The call of the prophets to Israel is; "RETURN to God's Law"!

Now, read this carefully!

1. Did the Nations EVER have this Contract? NO! ONLY ISRAEL had the Contract of Sinai. What must a Gentile do? He must either follow his conscience as it forbids evil (Rom.2:6-16), OR ... he must BELIEVE in Jesus, His Person and His Works. If he follows his conscience he might miss the Lake of Fire and he might be of those families that the Seed of Abraham blesses. If he BELIEVES in Jesus he, (i) has his sin ans sins put away, (ii) he undergoes a rebirth which imparts eternal life and makes him a son of God, (iii) he enters a program in which God trains him to be in the image of Jesus (Rom.8:29), (iv) he will be resurrected with celestial glory and (v) rule the nations in the next age.
2. Israel had this Contract. If an Israelite BELIEVES in his Messiah, he (i) ceases to be an Israelite (2nd Cor.5:17) and is a New Creature, (ii) has his sin ans sins put away, (iii) he undergoes a rebirth which imparts eternal life and makes him a son of God, (iv) he enters a program in which God trains him to be in the image of Jesus (Rom.8:29), (v) he will be resurrected with celestial glory and (vi) rule the nations in the next age. If an Israelite REFUSES his Messiah - as most did and still do - HE REVERTS TO THE LAW. He is bound by it, and must comply with it. And he will be judged by it (Rom.2.12). BUT ... because he has the CONTRACT made with Abraham, and God NEVER annuls this CONTRACT, he can expect to (i) have his sin and sins put away, (ii) be resurrected when Jesus cokes to earth, (iii) be gathered back to his Land, (iv) receive a New Contract that will cause him (a) to not be kicked out of the Land again, and (b) cause God to pour out blessings upon him and the whole nation, (v) serve Emmanuel Who will live in a House in Jerusalem, (vi) live in this Land forever in peace and prosperity and protection from enemies

So, returning to your opening paragraph and "all this nonsense about the Law", let it be known that the Law

1. is the CONDITIONS of the Contract of Sinai
2. is the CONDITIONS of the New Covenant when Israel is united andgathered
3. will not pass till heaven and earth do
4. is still valid in all its force for Israel today

As such, it is to be respected and adhered to IF YOU ARE AN ISRAELITE. If your are a CHRISTIAN .... YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS LAW. If you are a Christians this Law was fulfilled by our Lord Jesus, and the joy that the Father has in this established righteousness is ours because THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST IS IMPUTED TO A BELIEVER. The Israelite must make every effort to keep the Law. He is bound by it still today. The BELIEVER must have nothing to do with it because in attempting to fulfill it he makes out that Christ did a lousy job and he can do better. And that, my friend, is a thought can loosen one's bowels. Imagine a Christian standing up and saying to the Father that His Son's Work was not complete, that the Father's approval of it was in vain and that he can do better than Jesus. Just writing this down sends fear through my whole being!

• To the Christian, the Law is NOTHING
• To the Israelite (who refuses Jesus) the Law is EVERYTHING
• To the Gentile the Law is NOTHING. He is NOT under contract

You utilize a lot of biblical terminology, and thus, there is a lot of truth in it. But I do disagree with your application of that terminology. I do *not* believe the Israel ceases to be Israel when they put their faith in Christ. I do *not* believe the Law of Moses is a contract that remains in effect in perpetuity, absent Israel's faith in Christ.

I do *not* believe that the Law and Christian Grace are opposite, and thus, separate systems. Rather, the Law was designed to operate by faith and to lead to faith in Christ. Today, since Christ has come, the Law cannot operate by faith unless that faith is focused on Christ. Thus, the Law can no longer operate, and has, in fact, been annulled.

When Paul talks about the Law not being a system of faith, he is not saying it did not operate by faith. He is saying that it did not operate by faith in Christ, because he had not yet come.

Christ would come to liberate Israel from acts of self-atonement, or from flawed human participation in the process of redemption. It wasn't as though Levitical sacrifices were without merit, but only that they could not achieve eternal life. To do that, atonement had to come from Christ.

Preliminary acts of atonement foreshadowed what only Christ could do, to achieve a *temporary covering* for sin. This kept Israel in good standing with God until Christ came and won eternal life for them. Final atonement could only come through a sinless man who was also God. It required a sinless man to perform a final priestly atonement. It required God to forgive sins.

[randyk]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

...Did I say it brought righteousness to rebellious Israel. I said "IF KEPT"!!! Did I deny that it convicted and condemned of sin? NO! So why address it as if I said it? I happen to agree with your sentence and its content, but was it honest in motive? How can men have an intelligent discussion if such tactics are used?

Not a tactic on my part. I read other posts of yours, and over time develop an idea of your beliefs. I apologize if I'm wrong about what you believe on this, and am very happy you don't believe what I thought you believed! I read somewhere--I thought--that you believe God uses the Law of Moses to bring Israel back to Himself?

Here is another prime example. If you return to previous postings on this (don't try - I know how difficult it is), I have CONTINUOUSLY maintained that:

• "Salvation" for Israel is DIFFERENT to the "salvation" of a Christian. Just as Noah's salvation by an Ark was different to Paul's on the way to Damascus. But you just won't agree to that!
• The Law is the means of Israel's "RESTORATION" (Deut.30:1-5)
• There CANNOT be "salvation" like ours for Israel because they are ALL concluded in UNBELIEF (Rom.11:32) and our salvation is by FAITH

Yes, this is the theology I believed you held to, and it is, in my opinion, a *bipartite system.* It isn't just a *different* testimony of salvation--more, it is a *different basis* for salvation.

There is no question that God utilized the Law of Moses to deliver Israel in limited kinds of salvation in the OT era. He saved Israel from Egypt, for example. But this is not legal atonement for eternal life. Christ is the only way that can be achieved. Other preliminary forms of salvation were designed to lead up to that.

Agreed. But I would add, for clarity that righteousness by the Law was attained by sheer discipline, but the IMPUTED righteousness of Christ is had by NOT LIFTING A FINGER. But, on another (friendly) note, you have just agreed with my statement above about the Law being able to GIVE righteousness - a statement you took me to task about.

Faith requires two things--the word of God from heaven, and our obedience on earth. Our obedience to God's word does not mean that we have obtained our own atonement on earth. Rather, it means that we are obedient to Christ as the word from heaven who alone accomplished our atonement.

This is complex so let me just add this. The Law, before Christ, certainly produced righteousness. But it was a record of human righteousness before Christ, and as such, still had the stain of sin. Faith was in God's word, but it was faith in a word that did not yet utilize Christ's atonement--only in our own participatory atonement, as accomplished through Levitical priests. This was a flawed righteousness, and though acceptable to God could not achieve eternal life.

What is "temporary "salvation"? You have just corrected me about a "bipartite salvation" and now you bring one yourself. Which "salvation" was temporary? However, let me seek common ground with you. Would you agree if I reworded your statement thus; "ATONEMENT under the Law was not lasting, seeing as it had to be repeated over and over again.

Hebrews 10 says it more than adequately. No matter how many times God delivered Israel from their enemies they remained under the curse of sin and ultimately died. What the Law did was protect Israel from death by judgment so that they could complete their lives in ministry to God. This was a "temporary salvation."

Agreed, if you'll agree to word it; "Atonement was complete yb the atonement of Christ. Salvation and Atonement are two sepaarte and different things. Both are included in Christ's sacrifice, but they remain different concepts. One is the stopping of a journey to destruction. The other is the RECONCILIATION of enemies.

Salvation, in my terminology, is either temporal or eternal. Christ came to bring eternal life. All forms of salvation prior to the Cross were forms of temporal salvation. But they were predicated on righteousness from heaven, just as righteousness today is predicated on Christ in heaven.

If you say that something is the BASIS for it, it implies that it is a foundation. Christ's DEATH is a the BASIS for salvation as it puts way sin and sins. But FULL SALVATION is also rebirth, partaking of the divine life, transformation into the image of Christ and resurrection of the body, and they are had BY HIS LIFE - ESPECIALLY ATONEMENT (Rom.5:12).

All the same thing to me. Christ's atonement made our faith rest purely on God's word from heaven, and its virtue, as opposed to our own obedience, which is flawed. We choose to obey from within ourselves, but we put our faith in God's word in heaven, which enables us to obey (Deut 30.14). Now that Christ has come our faith is put in a new word from heaven. We achieve because Christ enabled and atoned for us. We have no more need to participate in the process of redemption as flawed human beings. The Law has been fulfilled completely.

...I can live with this. We both have our own terminology.
OK. To save nit-picking every sentence, let me say that I think I know what you are getting at. So let me say it my way and you can then object or agree.

When God gave Israel the Law, He was deadly serious. In His integrity He meant all He said in it. And the disastrous history of Israel, even up to now, is proof that God meant every jot and tittle of the Law. But let me make a bold statement. The Law was not designed to SAVE as we Christians know it. The Law was given to a Nation in the FLESH to

1. Make them ceremonially clean and pure so that God could dwell among them
2. Give men their due and the earth its due. That is, the Law would uphold an environment where the creation could function and recover as it was designed to
3. Be a TESTIMONY of God's JUST NATURE before the other nations
4. Be a TESTIMONY of God's righteous and generous dealings with men when compared with the demon-gods of the nations

You will notice that there is no talk of "salvation" in the Law.

Now, God gives Israel this Law in the format of a CONTRACT. For compliance blessings would pour from heaven and Israel would be the leading nation on earth. For non-compliance there would at first be chastisement and finally destruction. The chastisement was drought, plagues, defeat by their enemies and rule by foreign king. If this did not bring Israel to their senses, then siege, eating their own children, famine, war, mass-death by the sword, deportation, captivity by foreign nations and dispersion throughout the earth would be their portion. This is where we are today.

In the midst of this crisis, with 10 of the tribes already dispersed, and 97% of the other 2 tribes in Persian captivity and slowly being dispersed, the Israeli Messiah appears on the scene. He offers Israel SALVATION. But what "salvation"? The CAUSE of all this unhappiness is SIN and SINS (as Daniel prayed so elegantly in Daniel 9). So Israel needed a REDEEMER. But the prerequisite for sins to be put away is that one ADMITS them. This Israel REFUSED. And their basis for refusal was THE LAW. They had the Law and in their minds they were keeping it. God sent Jesus as a Physician - to sick people, and the sick people said that they were not sick despite every evidence to the contrary. Salvation for Israel was to ADMIT that the Law had failed, not in itself, but IN THEM. And John Baptist's message was, "you Israelites are like your fathers. Abraham worshiped idols in Mesopotamia and had to leave that behind forever by crossing a flooding Euphrates. The fathers of the twelve tribes worshiped idols in Egypt and had to cross the flood of the Red Sea to be forever separated from this. Now it is time to pass through the flood of the Jordan because you have utterly failed to gain the standing that the Law intended! (Josh.24:2, 14, 1st Cor.10: 1-11).

So when both John Baptist and our Lord Jesus had confirmed Israel's serpentine nature and a coming judgement, the issue was that the Law that had been in place for 1,500 years was not the way to go for God's favor. Our Lord Jesus presents Himself as the way to God's favor. FAITH in Jesus was the new and effective way to God's favor. This favor extended beyond the Law. It promised a new birth, divine life and transformation by Christ's indwelling life. The Jews, like most of us Christians, chose the Law. Adam and Eve, the minute they had fallen, they settled on Fig Leaves. Fallen man likes a "garment" OF HIS MAKING! And so Israel threw out the "Prince of LIFE" and clung to the Law. AND THIS BRINGS ME TO THE STATEMENT I WANTED TO MAKE BY MY PREVIOUS POSTINGS ....

IF ISRAEL, WHO WERE UNDER CONTRACT, REFUSE THE NEW GOD-GIVEN WAY, ARE THEY STILL UNDER CONTRACT?

The answer is a resounding YES!!! If you make a contract with your local Ford Dealer for a car, are you bound by that contract? YES! When can you pull out of it. NEVER! Will a judge uphold Ford's case if you do not comply with the terms of the contract? YES! What does scripture say about Contracts? "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth" (Num.30:2). What does scripture say about God's Covenants? The Covenant cannot be ANNULLED! It can be broken, but the party that breaks it then pays the penalties of that Contract - thus upholding the Contract. But what if your Ford Dealer calls you in and says that your car was stolen while in transit from the factory, and that since no replacement will be available for a while, they are willing, at no extra cost, to give you a brand new S-class Mercedes INSTEAD of the Ford. What then is your CONTRACTUAL STATUS. It is this; You may stick to the Contract in which case Ford will pay some small penalties. That is, YOU REMAIN UNDER CONTRACT. But if you are wise, you will accept the offer of the Mercedes. It has no CONTRACT. It is PROMISED! Your side of things does not change, but you get a FAR BETTER product. (Hey, I think Ford make great cars and had one myself which served me admirably. I just needed an analogy.)

ARE ISRAEL STILL UNDER CONTRACT? YES!!! WILL THIS CONTRACT ONE DAY BE REPLACED? YES!!! But it takes both parties to annul a contract and God has not relinquished His hold on the Contract of Sinai. When will God replace it? When Israel is resurrected, gathered back to their Land and united. Until then Sinai IS VALID. It is so valid that the BASIS for resurrecting, gathering and uniting Israel in their Land IS THIS CONTRACT (Deut.30:1-5). The call of the prophets to Israel is; "RETURN to God's Law"!

Now, read this carefully!

1. Did the Nations EVER have this Contract? NO! ONLY ISRAEL had the Contract of Sinai. What must a Gentile do? He must either follow his conscience as it forbids evil (Rom.2:6-16), OR ... he must BELIEVE in Jesus, His Person and His Works. If he follows his conscience he might miss the Lake of Fire and he might be of those families that the Seed of Abraham blesses. If he BELIEVES in Jesus he, (i) has his sin ans sins put away, (ii) he undergoes a rebirth which imparts eternal life and makes him a son of God, (iii) he enters a program in which God trains him to be in the image of Jesus (Rom.8:29), (iv) he will be resurrected with celestial glory and (v) rule the nations in the next age.
2. Israel had this Contract. If an Israelite BELIEVES in his Messiah, he (i) ceases to be an Israelite (2nd Cor.5:17) and is a New Creature, (ii) has his sin ans sins put away, (iii) he undergoes a rebirth which imparts eternal life and makes him a son of God, (iv) he enters a program in which God trains him to be in the image of Jesus (Rom.8:29), (v) he will be resurrected with celestial glory and (vi) rule the nations in the next age. If an Israelite REFUSES his Messiah - as most did and still do - HE REVERTS TO THE LAW. He is bound by it, and must comply with it. And he will be judged by it (Rom.2.12). BUT ... because he has the CONTRACT made with Abraham, and God NEVER annuls this CONTRACT, he can expect to (i) have his sin and sins put away, (ii) be resurrected when Jesus cokes to earth, (iii) be gathered back to his Land, (iv) receive a New Contract that will cause him (a) to not be kicked out of the Land again, and (b) cause God to pour out blessings upon him and the whole nation, (v) serve Emmanuel Who will live in a House in Jerusalem, (vi) live in this Land forever in peace and prosperity and protection from enemies

So, returning to your opening paragraph and "all this nonsense about the Law", let it be known that the Law

1. is the CONDITIONS of the Contract of Sinai
2. is the CONDITIONS of the New Covenant when Israel is united andgathered
3. will not pass till heaven and earth do
4. is still valid in all its force for Israel today

As such, it is to be respected and adhered to IF YOU ARE AN ISRAELITE. If your are a CHRISTIAN .... YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS LAW. If you are a Christians this Law was fulfilled by our Lord Jesus, and the joy that the Father has in this established righteousness is ours because THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST IS IMPUTED TO A BELIEVER. The Israelite must make every effort to keep the Law. He is bound by it still today. The BELIEVER must have nothing to do with it because in attempting to fulfill it he makes out that Christ did a lousy job and he can do better. And that, my friend, is a thought can loosen one's bowels. Imagine a Christian standing up and saying to the Father that His Son's Work was not complete, that the Father's approval of it was in vain and that he can do better than Jesus. Just writing this down sends fear through my whole being!

• To the Christian, the Law is NOTHING
• To the Israelite (who refuses Jesus) the Law is EVERYTHING
• To the Gentile the Law is NOTHING. He is NOT under contract

You utilize a lot of biblical terminology, and thus, there is a lot of truth in it. But I do disagree with your application of that terminology. I do *not* believe the Israel ceases to be Israel when they put their faith in Christ. I do *not* believe the Law of Moses is a contract that remains in effect in perpetuity, absent Israel's faith in Christ.

I do *not* believe that the Law and Christian Grace are opposite, and thus, separate systems. Rather, the Law was designed to operate by faith and to lead to faith in Christ. Today, since Christ has come, the Law cannot operate by faith unless that faith is focused on Christ. Thus, the Law can no longer operate, and has, in fact, been annulled.

When Paul talks about the Law not being a system of faith, he is not saying it did not operate by faith. He is saying that it did not operate by faith in Christ, because he had not yet come.

Christ would come to liberate Israel from acts of self-atonement, or from flawed human participation in the process of redemption. It wasn't as though Levitical sacrifices were without merit, but only that they could not achieve eternal life. To do that, atonement had to come from Christ.

Preliminary acts of atonement foreshadowed what only Christ could do, to achieve a *temporary covering* for sin. This kept Israel in good standing with God until Christ came and won eternal life for them. Final atonement could only come through a sinless man who was also God. It required a sinless man to perform a final priestly atonement. It required God to forgive sins.

[Aviyah]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

I'm not hitting a "reset button" to go back to the Law. I'm moving forward to the Law of Christ, and not looking back to the Law of Moses [...] I don't know why you think I'm going back to the Law of Moses

I never mentioned Moses, I was just quoting you. Your OP said:

Paul talks about the incapacity of the Law of works to save us [...] So, to embrace our need for atonement is to accept God as the basis of our good works [...] As such, the Law was designed to produce both righteousness and a dependence on divine atonement, in order to preserve righteousness.

Which is completely wrong, based on:

If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Gal. 2:21)

When you quote that nobody is righteous before God under the Law this is a nuanced statement. It is not saying that Man cannot be righteous under the Law--only that he cannot be absolved, completely, of his sin by the Law alone.

Righteousness is not graded on a scale - it's an either-or.

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. (James 2)

[...] just as under the Old Covenant righteousness came by the Law [...]

What Scripture can I read that says this, so I can compare it to Galatians 2?

[randyk]

Re: the Law terribly misunderstood

I never mentioned Moses, I was just quoting you. Your OP said:
Which is completely wrong, based on:

If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Gal. 2:21)

I'm not wrong to say that the Law produced righteousness. If I were to prove it from Scriptures we'd be here all day long! Obeying the Law produced righteousness. Period.

So Paul's argument is obviously a nuanced one, and has to be properly understood. Peter recognized that Paul spoke this way when he admitted that Paul may be difficult to understand. 2 Peter 3.16

So what did Paul mean when he said righteousness is not obtained through the Law? He was talking about *lasting righteousness,* or righteousness that could not be disqualified by our sin nature. Under the Law, Israel could be righteous, but their sin nature marked them for death, as the curse in Eden indicated.

By contrast, Christ brought a righteousness that could not be overcome by the curse of sin. Since he did not have sin, sin could not judge him, and death could not hold him. And since he had the right and the ability to transfer his virtue to us, through the Holy Spirit, we also have access to his victory over sin and death. He has given us his life so that our righteousness cannot be a disqualifier for eternal life with God.

Righteousness is not graded on a scale - it's an either-or.

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. (James 2)

Well yes, that's my whole point. Righteousness under the Law was truly righteous, but could be disqualified for eternal life due to a single sin. The record of human sin was *not* removed permanently by the Law. It was only temporarily "passed over" by God, as an act of good faith. Ultimately Christ would come to enable men to choose for eternal forgiveness, simply by accepting Christ as our standard of righteousness.

What Israel did under the Law was truly righteous, and did obtain atonement of a kind on a temporary basis. But God did not want the record of human sin to spoil Israel's good faith efforts. He had in mind a final "fix" to the problem of "human sin."

This "fix" would be fixed at the cross, where a new righteousness would be offered to Israel that completely disqualified the condemnation of sin. Living in the life of Christ is enough to qualify for his redemption.

What Scripture can I read that says this, so I can compare it to Galatians 2?