SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Did Jesus teach a higher Law?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
Sree
Member



Joined: 2011/8/20
Posts: 1699


 Re:

Quote:

Paul’s use of the “schoolmaster” analogy, which itself is expounded upon in Hebrews-




I was driving and I just realized that I missed to put the term schoolmaster and mark that scripture. Thank you for emphasizing it. The whole purpose of my post was to show how under New Covenant we do not need this school master because the Law giver himself is dwelling inside us!


_________________
Sreeram

 2019/6/25 10:24Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 1971
Joplin, Missouri

 Re: Did Jesus teach a higher Law?

gt768

Just a few verses that might apply to the discussion.

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.

Romans 8:2-4 .2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

I believe the law ( . I assume we are both talking about the ten commandments combined with the rest of the law given to Moses ) was holy and good (Rom 7). After all, it was given by God. However these verses show that it was only a shadow of good things to come and that it was weak in that it was up to us in our own flesh to keep it . So in ended up ministering death and strengthening sin (its God ordained purpose...see Rom. 7:13)in our lives.

Was it holy? Absolutely! But it was ordained with the express purpose of pointing the way to a new covenant that was to replace it, to supersede it. Gal. 2:21, 3:21.

Just some scriptures to consider in the discussion.


_________________
Travis

 2019/6/25 16:28Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 1971
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Something that I believe might also help. Jesus did not teach a higher moral law than the old testament law. He came to taste death for every man. When He died, we died with Him. If one die for all, then are all dead. We are then risen to new life in Him. So the fleshly man that used to try to keep commandments in order to be holy and pleasing to God died. Now I have my life in Christ. It is not I but Christ who lives in me. The living word of God is now my very source of life. I no longer make any attempt to keep a moral law. To do so is to return to flesh attempting to be holy. Instead, I walk in intimacy with Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, a product of His great grace (divine empowerment). As a result, His grace teaches me that denying unGodly lust to live soberly and righteously in this present world. He lives through me. If Jesus Himself is holy, then so am I because I no longer live but He lives in me.

This is what Jeremiah prophesied when he said that the law would no longer by something external that I try to keep, but that it would be written on my heart.

If I am trying on my own effort, I need a law to follow . If Jesus lives through me, then He will fulfill holiness, the fruit of righteousness, in me.


_________________
Travis

 2019/6/25 16:35Profile
gt768
Member



Joined: 2019/6/12
Posts: 37


 Re: Sree

Sree, First of all, I never said that the Law in the OT was corrupt. I said that the leaders of Israel in Jesus' time were teaching corrupt interpretations of God's Law. And my contention in this thread has much to do with the teaching that you are putting forth which tries to say that the wicked religious leaders in Israel were accurately teaching God's law! They were not- Jesus didn't improve upon God's Law in the Gospels- He was correcting the corrupt interpretations of the Law that were common in His day.

Please answer this: Were the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day who opposed Him being faithful with the Law or were they being hypocrites?

The OT would indeed oppose the NT if the NT standard was higher. But in reality Jesus was teaching the true interpretation of the law in the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospels. You need to beware lest you call the perfect, righteous morality seen in the OT (and NT) anything less than perfect righteousness lest you trample on God's law and be counted a transgressor and lest you take away from the Word of God.

Your child analogy is not comparable to our discussion, as the standard of morality for the child never changed, only the trust of the parent for the child as he grew.

You wrote on Leviticus 19:17-18 " This is nothing but an expansion of one shall love their neighbor. Like I said, the objective of God from Man is the same in both NT and OT, which is total purity. So if you see any external command like thou shall not commit adultery then the heart of God is to have total sexual purity. But it is expressed by not committing adultery. If we expand all the 600+ OT commands, we can also achieve internal purity, because that is the objective. But the requirement was only obeying those external command. Only those who meditated on the heart of God behind those external commands understood the inner purity. Like Job who did not even lust after a virgin."

One purpose of the Law is to show man the heart of God and bring him into line with that. You are not consistent on what you say about what the expectations of the Law were. Was it merely external purity or was it internal purity? If it was the latter, then how do you claim that Jesus taught a higher standard in the NT? Yes, the morality of the Law of Moses is an expression of how to love God and your neighbor as yourself. We are to love our neighbor by not only not committing the act of adultery, but by not lusting after his wife at all. That has never changed and your position actually justifies wicked men by saying the actual requirements of God's law were too much for them. You even confess that Job that did not lust after women- so how do you also claim that not doing this was not possible before Christ?

Jesus made it clear in Matthew 7:12 that He was teaching what the Law and the Prophets taught- not something beyond that or better. Matthew 7:12- "12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

You wrote: "See David wrote in Psalm 51, that God wanted truth in innermost being. How did he know that? Which piece of scripture it is? They all knew the objective of God because they searched God beyond his laws and found it. Same was the case with Job. Take David for example, he did not get convicted for lusting against Bathseba but for committing adultery and killing her husband. Even though he had forgiven Shimai who cursed David publically. He kept the anger and grudge in his heart till death bed. Proof that he wanted the man dead by his son. Even the man from God's own heart could achieve only external purity but not internal"

They knew he wanted truth in the inward parts because that is what the law required, not because they searched God beyond His laws. You are implicitly accusing them of practicing Gnosticism- the concept that there is a secret knowledge of God that man can find beyond the written Word of God. David did indeed get convicted lusting after Bathsheba- do you really think he didn't know better then? Do you really think his repentance wouldn't have included repentance from the lust that began that whole chain of sin? David probably considered Shimei a threat to the public welfare and wanted Solomon to deal with him for that reason. But even if had kept the grudge in his heart, that was David's fault and he didn't need to do so. Have you not considered how David earlier in his life had loved his enemy Saul and didn't take vengeance against him into his own hand? There is hardly a better example in Scripture of loving one's enemy. Are you really saying that the godly men in the OT didn't have truth in their inward parts when David repented like he did, when the Holy Spirit commends Job, in light of Hebrews 11, and many, many other commendations in Scripture?

You wrote: "John the Baptist, Jesus said was the greatest of all OT saints. This is Jesus own testimony. Others were also Good but none close like John. Still even the least in NT will be greater than John in terms of Standard of life."

Why do you keep adding to God's Word? Where does it say that John that NT saints are greater than John in terms of standard of life? Are you greater than John the Baptist in your standard of life? Please enlighten me as to how you are better.

You wrote: "Yes even under NT, there are few but very few external commands. Even here Paul does not write exactly what dress women should wear! There is a liberty in Christ because of the indewlling of Holy SPirit. Another example is head covering. That is why it is important to obey the external commands in NT because there are very few of them."

Paul was expecting to Timothy to determine what is modest and what is not based on the principles already laid down in the Old Testament. This is hitting at where it is deadly to believe Jesus preached a higher law and to not be guided by the moral principles already laid down in the Old Testament. Biblical Jewish modesty is upheld in Christianity- to a first century Jew looking to the Scriptures there were already principles in place to determine what is modest and the need for a woman to cover her head would have been included in that. By your answer you concede that externals do matter in the New Covenant. There were external object lessons in the OT ceremonies which ceased with the Temple's destruction in AD 70. Yet that's not a matter of morality that is eternally binding but a matter of God's appointment making something binding and later loosing.

You wrote: "I agree that we can be nearer to the Lord than OT. Naturally the one to whom more is given, much more is expected. Hence our standard should also be higher than that of OT. We cannot keep hatred in our heart like David (forget about adultery), be discouraged like Elija, tell lies like Abraham, or doubt Jesus like John the Baptist! All these are OT saints whom God accepted and was not ashamed to be called their God. But in NT these things are not acceptable because we have God living inside us.
Heb 11:39 - 39 And all these, having [y]gained approval through their faith, did not receive [z]what was promised, 40 because God had [aa]provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
Abraham, David and John the Baptist all got approval irrespective of their imperfections. But now we have something better, which is Jesus who is our example and forerunner and also the Holy Spirit living inside us."

Having the example of Jesus is greater light but it is not a new a higher standard of morality- it is having the example of a perfect expression of the morality that was from the beginning. Greater light means greater accountability, but like I've implied before, we need to be guided by the moral principles seen in the Old Testament or we are opposing Christ and following another jesus because Jesus' perfection was a perfect living out of those very principles. David repented of and overcame the sins that led to his fall- and he never had to fall like that to begin with. Abraham never had to lie and in a way he really didn't- Sarah really was his sister. But Abraham surely repented of whatever dishonesty he showed and continued faithful from thence. People in the New Covenant can still fall in moments of weakness (look at Peter in Galatians). That doesn't justify their failure nor mean they don't need to repent and get back up and be faithful again. They absolutely need to. Perhaps we have a greater accountability not to fall- but not due to a higher standard of morality- the definition of what a "fall" is has never changed. Yet the way you're speaking implies New Covenant believers aren't also in danger of falling. 1 Corinthians 10:12 warns us otherwise. Your quoting of Hebrews 11 here shows that we NEED TO look to men of the Old Testament as our examples in running a faithful race and that looking unto Jesus in this is not looking in another direction. Your doctrine puts the faithful men of the OT out of line with Jesus; and that is a potentially deadly error.

 2019/6/25 16:42Profile
gt768
Member



Joined: 2019/6/12
Posts: 37


 Re: Sree'

Sree, You wrote "I see that the greatest danger is in believing that OT and NT standard of requirements are the same. How many times we hear of Pastors falling in adultery with their assistants and then claim that David fell so it is fine? A man after God's own heart can also fall so there is nothing wrong in them falling!"

By writing this you are falling right into their error. Where did the OT promote or permit David's fall? It didn't! The people who make this claim are lying Scripture twisters. Please don't heed them.

"God loves a cheerful giver" has always been true and it was spoken in light of what was already commanded in the OT.

Serving in the military and law enforcement are not inherently wrong and that was my point before. MANY fields that are not inherently wrong are still filled with temptations that it might be wise to avoid altogether if you can do something else that is less likely to put you in an awkward position or less likely to leave your soul vexed from day to day.

 2019/6/25 16:49Profile
gt768
Member



Joined: 2019/6/12
Posts: 37


 Re: JFW

I'm not denying what Hebrews chapters 8 to 10 say. There is nothing in there though about a higher morality in the New Covenant. Please show me if there is. We have the perfect atonement for sin now and the heavenly high priesthood that the ceremonial arrangement in the Old Covenant pictured but did not itself accomplish. We do not have a higher moral law to follow nor a different definition of sin. If we did, the Law of Moses would not even be a reliable schoolmaster for us to lead us to Christ.

 2019/6/25 16:54Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 1971
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
.There is a major difference between a better covenant and a higher law standard of law. The New Covenant allows the faithful to be nearer to the Lord and indwelt by His Spirit to a depth and degree which enables an even better quality, more pure fulfillment of the same moral law which existed from the beginning.



2 Cor. 3:12-14; Ephesians 2:15; Hebrews 10:1-10

Another thing we might look at is found stated very explicitly in these passages. The old testament law has been abolished and taken away. The entire covenant is done away with. Remember that in Rom. 10:4 we find that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for them that believe.

Jesus does not make us better law keepers with more power to keep the OT law through the Holy Spirit. He makes us like him. Look at the end of 2 Cor. 3 and you find this statement...18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

The word changed here is found in only four places in the NT. Once in Romans 12:2 where we are transformed by the renewing of the mid and twice on the mount of transfiguration when Jesus was transfigured before them and shone with light. We, through intimacy with Jesus, are transformed into His image from glory to glory. Our own human effort is not augmented with the Holy Spirit so we can do a better job of pleasing Him. Our human effort has died entirely and we now become like Him through intimacy with Him. No more trying to live for Him. Now I am transformed into His image and become like Him so that He lives through me. No more self effort. Instead total transformation by His power. It is awesome. I don't have to look at the shadow anymore because the real is now living through me.


_________________
Travis

 2019/6/25 16:58Profile
gt768
Member



Joined: 2019/6/12
Posts: 37


 Re: twayneb

Thank you for bringing those Scriptures out. I addressed Hebrews 10:1 in my previous post to JFW.

With Romans 8:2-4 note that walking after the Spirit causes one to fulfill the very same law that in itself, without grace in the equation, left one condemned to death. Remember that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4) so the law would not be a reliable schoolmaster for us if Jesus had changed the definition of sin or if victory over sin now meant something different than what the law had defined it as.

Galatians 2:21 and 3:21 are dealing with the fact that the law was never something that in itself man could be justified by so as to set aside what God had promised Abraham- which was ultimately that the Messiah would be of his seed and that all nations would be blessed in Him. There was never any competition between the Abrahamic covenant, the old covenant, and the new covenant. As you go on in Galatians there it's clear that the definition of sin itself has never changed and that grace is only offered to those who yield to God's Spirit that they might walk in the everlasting righteousness of the law which was from the beginning (Galatians 5:14-26, Galatians 6:7-10, etc).

 2019/6/25 17:07Profile
gt768
Member



Joined: 2019/6/12
Posts: 37


 Re: twayneb (second post in thread)

The fleshly man's problem wasn't that he tried to keep God's law; it was that he had a commitment to the flesh which kept him in bondage to sin, left him ineligible for God's grace, and caused him to be defeated.

God writing His law on my heart doesn't mean I don't need to cooperate with Him and aim to do His law (I.e. do what pleases Him). If I don't have the right standard that I'm looking to for pleasing God then my definition of victory over sin could be anything and I will end up calling something intimacy with Jesus that is not that- at least not the Jesus of the Bible (2 Cor 11:2-4).

 2019/6/25 17:14Profile
Sree
Member



Joined: 2011/8/20
Posts: 1699


 Re:

Quote:

By writing this you are falling right into their error. Where did the OT promote or permit David's fall? It didn't! The people who make this claim are lying Scripture twisters. Please don't heed them.




Those people who use David as excuse are actually holding the Biblical view that you have. They believe OT and NT standard are same. God did accept David and still kept him king. Infact the promise of having an inheritance for ever in the throne was always fulfilled irrespective of his fall. Hence God accepted David irrespective of his fall.

But David was an old testament person. He is not our example even though he was accepted by God. Our example is Jesus whom Heb 11 says is a better example given to NT people than people of Old. There is no excuse for a Christian to fall into adultery.

In either case your understanding of scripture is really dangerous.


_________________
Sreeram

 2019/6/25 17:25Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy