Should Christians follow the Law?

[NathanShepard8888]

I beleive we should follow the law according to the grace that Jesus gives us to do so.

Matthew 19.17 "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

 

[NathanShepard8888]

1 John 2.3-7 "He that Saith I know him and keeps not his commandments is a liar and the truth is not found in him."

 

[12jtartar]

NathanShepard8888,
God requires us to obey many laws, such as the laws made by our government. Unless the laws contradict God's laws, we are under obligation to obey them. This is explained clearly at Romans 13:1-7. We are required to obey the law of the Christ, Galatians 6:2. If we are a Christian, we are required to obey the ones taking the lead in the Congregation of God, Hebrews 13:7, 17. If you have a Bible trained conscience you are required to obey it, Hebrews 5:14, James 4:17.
No one should obey his heart, unless it is well trained by the Bible, Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26. We should obey the Bible, because it is the word of The Almighty God, whose Personal Name is Jehovah, Proverbs 3:5,6.
God made many Covenants with the Jews, but Christians are not under Jewish Laws. The Mosaic Law Covenant was a temporary Covenant, and God had written in the Bible that He would give a New Covenant to the Jews, Jeremiah 31:31-34. The New Covenant would be written in their hearts, not on stones, as the Mosaic Covenant was. In the writings of Paul, he showed that the New Covenant was instituted by Jesus, on the night before his death, 1Corinthians 11:23-26, Colossians 2:13,14. We are told in Galatians that the Law was to be in force until the Messiah, or Christ, would arrive, Galatians 3:21-25. The Mosaic Law Coventry required obedience, by doing works that were stipulated in the Covenant, Romans 6:21-23. God wanted obedience, not the sacrifices offered because of sinning required by the Law, but the Jews used the Law wrongly, not in faith, but in works, Romans 9:30-32. Because no one could obey the Mosaic Law Covenant perfectly, anyone under it was under a curse, the curse of sin and death, Galatians 3:1-14. Jesus removed the curse by instituting The New Covenant, which was founded on his blood not on the blood of goats and Bulls, Hebrews 9:11-20. Only by this New Coventry could anyone be completely forgiven for sins, Acts 13:38-41.
The New Covenant was far superior to the Mosaic Covenant, because no one was under a set of laws written down, but were under faith in Jesus ransom sacrifice, and laws written on their hearts, not on stones, 2Corinthians 3:3. For a full and clear explanation of the superiority of the New Covenant, read the entire 3rd chapter of 2Corinthians. Also read Hebrews 8:6-13, which actually tells us that the New Covenant is a better covenant, because by obeying it you are not charged with sins, but are perfected forever, Hebrews 10:14-18. One of the very important things that Jesus did for mankind was to end the Mosaic Law Covenant, because all under it were under a curse, of sin and death, Romans 3:20, 6:23, 7:5,6. If a person could obey the Mosaic Law Covenant perfectly, he could live by it, but no one could, and if you broke one law you have broken the whole Covenant, Acts 15:5-10, James 2:10.
Agape!!!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It depends. An observant Jew who follows Jesus should keep the Judaic Law. A Gentile, however, is not constrained (by biblical precedent) to convert to Judaism, and thus is not obliged to keep Judaic Law. Christianity is pan-cultural and pan-religious. As long as one loves, one is following Jesus.

This seems to me to be an almost total misunderstanding of the meaning of Biblical law.

 

[sojourner]

This seems to me to be an almost total misunderstanding of the meaning of Biblical law.

In what way?

 

[metis]

This seems to me to be an almost total misunderstanding of the meaning of Biblical law.

Actually S is correct by Jewish Law (halacha): "An observant Jew who follows Jesus should keep the Judaic Law. A Gentile, however, is not constrained (by biblical precedent) to convert to Judaism, and thus is not obliged to keep Judaic Law."

The last sentence I omitted and will not comment on.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

In what way?

Romans explains Biblical Law very well. First there needs to be a reason for law. If someone is going to be judged then the law must be righteous, explained, a correct judge must oversee, punishment explained and applied according to law. The reason for the shift from one law to another is that a newer law incorporates or nullifies or circumvents older law. Since Jesus' death and resurrection opened a new law based on belief and faith in Him which superseded all other law. Why would a Jewish person who believes in Christ follow a law he is no longer judged by?

 

[metis]

But the Torah/Tanakh says that the Law is "forever" and "perpetual". Non-Jews need not worry, but Jews very much do, according to Torah.

 

[roger1440]

I beleive we should follow the law according to the grace that Jesus gives us to do so.

I have no idea what that means. Explain please.

 

[sojourner]

Romans explains Biblical Law very well. First there needs to be a reason for law. If someone is going to be judged then the law must be righteous, explained, a correct judge must oversee, punishment explained and applied according to law. The reason for the shift from one law to another is that a newer law incorporates or nullifies or circumvents older law. Since Jesus' death and resurrection opened a new law based on belief and faith in Him which superseded all other law. Why would a Jewish person who believes in Christ follow a law he is no longer judged by?

Romans wasn't written to Jews. It was written to Gentiles.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Romans wasn't written to Jews. It was written to Gentiles.

It was also written to those who believe in Christ by faith without respect to persons.

 

[sojourner]

It was also written to those who believe in Christ by faith without respect to persons.

It was Paul's letter to the church at Rome. Which was comprised of Gentiles. Doctrinal beliefs about the broader theological intent of the letter are tertiary to the argument.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It was Paul's letter to the church at Rome. Which was comprised of Gentiles. Doctrinal beliefs about the broader theological intent of the letter are tertiary to the argument.

So is it your contention that what he had to say only applied to the church at Rome?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Doctrinal beliefs about the broader theological intent of the letter are tertiary to the argument.

T,Tertiary huh? what is secondary? And which argument, Paul's or this one?

 

[sojourner]

So is it your contention that what he had to say only applied to the church at Rome?

Primarily, yes. There are some general theological principles that can broadly be applied to Christians in all times and places, but we have to remember who the intended audience was -- the church at Rome.

 

[sojourner]

T,Tertiary huh? what is secondary? And which argument, Paul's or this one?

It is a doctrinal argument that Paul is "really" written to all Christians. And, in the scope of a critical treatment of texts, doctrinal arguments are tertiary. Purely textually speaking, Paul wrote to the church at Rome, and that's how the document must be parsed out before any doctrinal assertions can be extrapolated.

 

[midopafo]

He did not come to " Destroy the Law", but to fulfill it ? Maybe we as His proclaimed believers should think about that !

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Primarily, yes. There are some general theological principles that can broadly be applied to Christians in all times and places, but we have to remember who the intended audience was -- the church at Rome.

So when Paul says the message in Romans is the power of God unto salvation, given through the preaching of the gospel of Christ, to believers both Jew and Gentile (1:15-16) we should just ignore that?

 

[metis]

He did not come to " Destroy the Law", but to fulfill it ? Maybe we as His proclaimed believers should think about that !

Ah, but the word "fulfill" has to be interpreted in terms of what actually was being said, and that's quite conjectural. If I say "I have fulfilled the Law", what am I really saying?

 

[sojourner]

So when Paul says the message in Romans is the power of God unto salvation, given through the preaching of the gospel of Christ, to believers both Jew and Gentile (1:15-16) we should just ignore that?

No, but we should read it in the context of its intended audience, and then apply what we glean from that context to our own context.