Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 64

Thread: Was the Law inept?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,331

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by TMarcum View Post
    The intent of the sacrifices under the law was not to remove or cleanse anyone of their sins. None of those sacrifices under the law ever removed any sins. Those sacrifices that they did every year was to stay (or to shove forward) their sins until the following year. Then in the following year, the sacrifice at that time would stay them for another year. The sins were never removed or wiped away clean.
    Yes, the Law "pushed off" the problem of sin for another year. So that means that the Law actually did succeed in *temporarily* staving off the guilt of sin--it did succeed in atoning for sin in a limited way.

    And that was my whole point. The Law worked. It just didn't work in a final way. It did not accomplish final redemption. It only kept Israel in covenant relationship with God until final redemption could be won by Christ.

    But the important thing to recognize here is that the Law did in fact keep Israel in covenant relationship with God. That was certainly critical if Israel, at least in part, was going to properly anticipate the coming of Christ. Israel's covenant relationship with God, among a remnant, was absolutely critical, if Christ was going to come at all!

    Quote Originally Posted by TMarcum
    But the intent of the law was to keep the people in a protected state until the time that the Christ should come. They were all anxiously awaiting for this time. The intent of the law was not to redeem the children of Israel. All of those people abiding under the law knew this. They all knew that the Christ is coming and is the only one that could fulfill this role. Only those who did the things contained in the law were justified by the works of the law. This was what the old covenant was based upon; keeping the law and obeying the commandments of Moses. God made the covenant with Abraham, he said within thy seed (which is Jesus), all the nations of the earth would be blessed. And the token or seal of that covenant was in circumcision of the foreskin of the flesh.
    I agree that those who properly kept the Law were covered by that Law, and properly waited for Christ to come and redeem them. And I see nothing wrong or contradictory about depending upon obedience to the Law to keep them in that covenant relationship. Obedience to the Law was in fact an expression of dependence upon God's ultimate redemption. Offering a lamb was in effect trust that God will bring another Lamb who could bring final atonement.

    Quote Originally Posted by TMarcum
    John the Baptist was the last prophet under the law. He also knew this, as he came preaching preparing the way for Jesus. Notice what he said to the people:
    John 1:29
    "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
    If the Law could "stave off" sin, then it certainly did provided a limited redemption for Israel. Obedience to the Law did bring temporal forgiveness to Israel.

    Again, if the Law was able to "stave off" sin, then it certainly did "cleanse from sin!" This was, however, only a temporary cleansing, but it was, in fact, a cleansing.

    The Scriptures clearly express that reality. Just because God said these things under the Law does not make it untrue! If God said Israel would be cleansed by following the laws of atonement, then He meant what He said, and it was absolutely true!

    I think we've been given a lot of bad theology about the Law, and therefore misunderstand Paul when he creates this dichotomy between the Law and Grace. Paul did not deny the efficacy of the Law while that system remained in play. Rather, he was downplaying the Law after it had been fulfilled in Christ, because in following the Law after Christ's redemption men were going back to a system that had been completely perverted by Israel.

    The Law, as it was intended to work, was designed to be in operation only until Christ came and made final atonement for sin. From that point on, obedience would be focused strictly on him because it was through him that final redemption would be accomplished.

    We should not downplay the efficacy of the Law while that system remained in play. Clearly, it was designed to operate by faith. When Paul argued that it was not a system of faith, he was expressing only the fact that it could not complete faith in the atonement of Christ. It was designed as only a temporary measure, looking forward to final redemption by Christ. "Faith" in final deliverance was not made available by the Law.

    "Faith," for Paul, was a code word for final redemption through Christ. Paul was *not* saying that faith was not in operation under the Law. He was only saying that the Law was never designed to accomplish the kind of faith that would complete our salvation.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by TMarcum View Post
    The intent of the sacrifices under the law was not to remove or cleanse anyone of their sins. None of those sacrifices under the law ever removed any sins. Those sacrifices that they did every year was to stay (or to shove forward) their sins until the following year. Then in the following year, the sacrifice at that time would stay them for another year. The sins were never removed or wiped away clean.
    That's not what scripture says:

    Lev_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.

    Lev_4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

    Lev_5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

    This "shoving sins forward" and not being forgiven is not biblical.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It's true that if Israel had been able to flawlessly obey the Law,
    There is no if, Christ said it was true. We don't know if anyone got eternal life that way but it wasn't impossible especially with sin atonement part of the covenant.

    And so, the Law was never designed to give them eternal life.
    People can say whatever they want but nothing can overturn what Jesus said.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    219

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    That's not what scripture says:

    Lev_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.

    Lev_4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

    Lev_5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

    This "shoving sins forward" and not being forgiven is not biblical.
    I think your argument then is with Apostle Paul, because this is what the scriptures says:
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    That's not what scripture says:

    Lev_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.

    Lev_4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

    Lev_5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

    This "shoving sins forward" and not being forgiven is not biblical.
    I think your argument then is with Apostle Paul, because this is what the scriptures says:
    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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by TMarcum View Post
    I think your argument then is with Apostle Paul, because this is what the scriptures says:
    Obviously Paul isn't talking about the same thing since God says many times that sins were forgiven.


    Lev_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.

    Lev_4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

    Lev_5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    219

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Obviously Paul isn't talking about the same thing since God says many times that sins were forgiven.


    Lev_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.

    Lev_4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

    Lev_5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
    Or, perhaps you do not have the full understanding of what the author of Leviticus was conveying what God said? Apostle Paul, an anointed man of God said it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins and those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

    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.

    I would be inclined to believe what Paul said and begin to do a deeper dive in trying to find the true understanding of Leviticus.

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Obviously Paul isn't talking about the same thing since God says many times that sins were forgiven.


    Lev_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.

    Lev_4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

    Lev_5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
    Or, perhaps you do not have the full understanding of what the author of Leviticus was conveying what God said? Apostle Paul, an anointed man of God said it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins and those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

    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.

    I would be inclined to believe what Paul said and begin to do a deeper dive in trying to find the true understanding of Leviticus.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by TMarcum View Post

    I would be inclined to believe what Paul said and begin to do a deeper dive in trying to find the true understanding of Leviticus.
    By all means why don't you explain why Lev. says sins were forgiven.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    219

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    By all means why don't you explain why Lev. says sins were forgiven.
    By the works they did, they were justified as being obedient to the law. The works they did at that particular moment was forgiven only by blood of Christ. If they did not obey Gods law, then they were guilty and judged by the law as transgressors by Christ Jesus.

    They were indeed forgiven by the sacrifices they offered, but not redeemed before the time of Christ when he shed his blood on the cross

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    By all means why don't you explain why Lev. says sins were forgiven.
    By the works they did, they were justified as being obedient to the law. The works they did at that particular moment was forgiven only by blood of Christ. If they did not obey Gods law, then they were guilty and judged by the law as transgressors by Christ Jesus.

    They were indeed forgiven by the sacrifices they offered, but not redeemed before the time of Christ when he shed his blood on the cross

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by TMarcum View Post

    They were indeed forgiven by the sacrifices they offered
    Then it is a false belief that sins weren't forgiven, and were "shoved forward" as has been claimed in this thread.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    219

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Then it is a false belief that sins weren't forgiven, and were "shoved forward" as has been claimed in this thread.
    How is it a false belief that sins were forgiven.

    The law said that they are to make the sacrifice of animals of their flock without spot or blemish and their sins will be forgiven. They took the best animal of their flock and made the sacrifice offerings.

    The blood of the animals did not cleanse them of their sins. It was not the blood of the animals that did the cleansing. It was their works that justified them, as they were commanded to offer the blood upon the alter. But even in doing so, there was still a remembrance of their sins each year. The blood of the animals did not take away the sins and never could.

    It is because they obeyed God and did the work of the law as commanded that justified them. The animal was merely an offering and a vessel to be used in the ceremony. It was their offering, their obedience, and their works that justified them. Yet redemption came thru the death of Christ. Only the blood of Jesus cleansed them of their sins.

    A good example is when we work at our jobs. We do the work for 40 hours per week. After the work is complete, then the money has already been earned. But payment is made the following week.

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Then it is a false belief that sins weren't forgiven, and were "shoved forward" as has been claimed in this thread.
    How is it a false belief that sins were forgiven.

    The law said that they are to make the sacrifice of animals of their flock without spot or blemish and their sins will be forgiven. They took the best animal of their flock and made the sacrifice offerings.

    The blood of the animals did not cleanse them of their sins. It was not the blood of the animals that did the cleansing. It was their works that justified them, as they were commanded to offer the blood upon the alter. But even in doing so, there was still a remembrance of their sins each year. The blood of the animals did not take away the sins and never could.

    It is because they obeyed God and did the work of the law as commanded that justified them. The animal was merely an offering and a vessel to be used in the ceremony. It was their offering, their obedience, and their works that justified them. Yet redemption came thru the death of Christ. Only the blood of Jesus cleansed them of their sins.

    A good example is when we work at our jobs. We do the work for 40 hours per week. After the work is complete, then the money has already been earned. But payment is made the following week.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by TMarcum View Post
    How is it a false belief that sins were forgiven.
    You said, "None of those sacrifices under the law ever removed any sins." Yet scripture says the sins were forgiven which means removed. Of course just someone shedding animal blood does nothing to sin but when God commands the process which results in forgiven sin then the sin is forgiven and removed as the scriptures affirm. Naturally that process was replaced by Christ's blood.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    219

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    You said, "None of those sacrifices under the law ever removed any sins." Yet scripture says the sins were forgiven which means removed. Of course just someone shedding animal blood does nothing to sin but when God commands the process which results in forgiven sin then the sin is forgiven and removed as the scriptures affirm. Naturally that process was replaced by Christ's blood.

    You said, "None of those sacrifices under the law ever removed any sins."
    It was not the "actual sacrifice" nor the "blood" of the animals that removed their sins. Only the blood of Jesus can remove sins. Jesus was their only sacrifice that removed their sins. It was their "work" in making the sacrifice and their "obedience" that justified them.

    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.


    Yet scripture says the sins were forgiven which means removed.

    This is the same thing Paul was trying to get the Hebrews to understand and you are in the same group with them not having understanding. Their sins indeed "were" forgiven and "removed". But only in Jesus. They were removed as a result of their works. Not from the animal and not from it's blood.

    Naturally that process was replaced by Christ's blood.

    I realize you are having a hard time getting your head around this. But their process was "not replaced" by Christ's blood. It was "in" the blood of Christ which removed all the sins of those who kept the works of the law. The only thing the sacrifices did at that particular moment of time in their lives was sanctify to the purifying of their flesh. But redemption came when Christ came. He knew each of their works and it was those works that they were judged by.

    Hebrews 9:
    9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
    10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
    11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
    12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
    13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    You said, "None of those sacrifices under the law ever removed any sins." Yet scripture says the sins were forgiven which means removed. Of course just someone shedding animal blood does nothing to sin but when God commands the process which results in forgiven sin then the sin is forgiven and removed as the scriptures affirm. Naturally that process was replaced by Christ's blood.

    You said, "None of those sacrifices under the law ever removed any sins."
    It was not the "actual sacrifice" nor the "blood" of the animals that removed their sins. Only the blood of Jesus can remove sins. Jesus was their only sacrifice that removed their sins. It was their "work" in making the sacrifice and their "obedience" that justified them.

    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.


    Yet scripture says the sins were forgiven which means removed.

    This is the same thing Paul was trying to get the Hebrews to understand and you are in the same group with them not having understanding. Their sins indeed "were" forgiven and "removed". But only in Jesus. They were removed as a result of their works. Not from the animal and not from it's blood.

    Naturally that process was replaced by Christ's blood.

    I realize you are having a hard time getting your head around this. But their process was "not replaced" by Christ's blood. It was "in" the blood of Christ which removed all the sins of those who kept the works of the law. The only thing the sacrifices did at that particular moment of time in their lives was sanctify to the purifying of their flesh. But redemption came when Christ came. He knew each of their works and it was those works that they were judged by.

    Hebrews 9:
    9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
    10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
    11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
    12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
    13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by TMarcum View Post
    You said, "None of those sacrifices under the law ever removed any sins."
    It was not the "actual sacrifice" nor the "blood" of the animals that removed their sins. Only the blood of Jesus can remove sins.
    The blood of Jesus had not been shed yet in the OT. God set up animal sacrifices to forgive sins, just as the scriptures say. Are you seriously disagreeing with OT scripture that sins were forgicen after animal sacrifices?

    It was their "work" in making the sacrifice and their "obedience" that justified them.
    And shedding animal blood. That's the main part that God required. No sins were forgiven unless that took place.






    This is the same thing Paul was trying to get the Hebrews to understand and you are in the same group with them not having understanding. Their sins indeed "were" forgiven and "removed". But only in Jesus. They were removed as a result of their works. Not from the animal and not from it's blood.
    No, it's you that doesn't understand either Paul nor the OT scriptures.


    I realize you are having a hard time getting your head around this. But their process was "not replaced" by Christ's blood.
    It was replaced. The scriptures are clear on that.

    It was "in" the blood of Christ which removed all the sins of those who kept the works of the law.
    That is not scriptural. Christ shed his blood on the cross, not anywhere in the OT.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,478

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    If one kept the law, they were saved ie: would receive eternal life.


    Mat 19:17 "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"
    Jesus was speaking about the rich young ruler. And look at what He said later.

    Matt 19:25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" 26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

    It was never possible to obtain righteousness from the law. Paul said it this way:

    Gal 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

    Jesus gave the rich young ruler a command to show him he wasn't actually keeping the law as he thought. And rather than repenting, the man went away sad. He should have responded like the publican in the temple, who didn't lift his head and said "God be merciful to me a sinner." The rich young ruler thought he was good enough and Jesus, through the law, showed the young man he was lacking.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    It was never possible to obtain righteousness from the law.
    Jesus said keeping the commandments was how (at the time) one could receive eternal life. That changed after the cross.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •