The Law that God instituted forever, among His people.....to you is creepy? [1 John 3:4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Is this Law abolished? What Law is this? Why is John still speaking of observing God's Law if it's so creepy?
Don't you understand that the Law which was abolished was the sacrificial Law [Hebrews 7:11-14] .....and not the Ten Commandments? Paul is telling us about that while John is telling us to obey the commandments [1 John 5:1-3]. Don't you really see the difference?
[Galatians 3:19-25] 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
The above was your first claim that the law was done away with. Please allow me to show you your error:
You must recall Paul's position on the Law. It did not cause us to be righteous but was set up as a guidepost..... to show us the way. It allowed God to let us know what He expected of us. Paul addresses this very point in verse 21. Moses was the mediator spoken of in verse 19 who stood between the people of Israel and God.
The covenant between God and Abraham had no mediator ...they spoke face to face and Paul reemphasizes the status of Abraham's covenant over that of the Children of Israel made at Mount Sinai.
Paul, at this point realizes some may take his words to mean the law is not required any more (verse 21)....and immediately corrects that assumption. He makes the point that God's Law is in no way contrary to God's promises to Abraham. He equates life with righteousness....and death with unrighteousness. And he also states that if it were possible for any law to give life, then the Law of Moses would have been that Law....but it could not be..... as that was not the function of the law.
Why do you suppose the Law could not provide life?
Because human beings were flawed....not because the Law was flawed. [Romans 8:3] 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.
Paul understood that the Law was provided as a guidepost for rules of conduct. It also provided penalties for disobedience! Mankind's nature was sinful and the Law was not a means to obtain righteousness. Paul, therefore tells us that we all have broken the law and have all incurred the death penalty. We were captive to the Law. The Law was our guardian until Christ came so we could be justified by faith. We are no longer under a guardianship and verse 26 tells us that we are now all considered Sons of God through faith.
Many, here....have misunderstood what Paul has said about guardianship. The Greek word, PAIDAGOGOS does not mean "teacher....or schoolmaster" as some translations show it to be. Here is the Greek definition of "PAIDAGOGOS" Orig[inally] 'boy-leader', the man, usu[ally] a slave (Plut., Mor. 4ab), whose duty it was to conduct a boy or youth (Plut., Mor. 439f) to and from school and to superintend his conduct gener[ally]; he was not a 'teacher' . . . When the young man became of age, the [paidagogos] was no longer needed.
Paul is not referring to the Law as a teacher. He refers to the judgment function of the Law and the context shows that the Law functioned as a guardian for those convicted of sin and all have sinned......so this included all of humanity. When Our Savior died and provided the sacrifice of himself, eliminating once and for all the need for a Levitical Priesthood....we were then no longer subject to the guardianship of the Law and no longer under its penalty for disobedience. This did not mean that God's Law and its standard code of conduct for the human race had been eliminated. This is why John keeps insisting that we heed and observe God's commandments. The fourth one was to remember the Sabbath.
I'll try to get to your other scriptures later on. I had an extremely busy week end..... and week so far with multiple grandchildren tugging at me from all directions and quite honestly did not discover your unanswered post until you pointed it out.
It is not the law of God that is creepy, it is the acting as if a superceded, obsolete covenant is still in force that is creepy. It is like a person coming into court brandishing a copy of the Articles of Confederation and just assuming that everyone in the court is going to be bound by that law. Once again you reflexively assume that John is referring to the Ten Commandments here, when we already know that we are not under the Old Covenant law anymore, but under the law of Christ.
Don't you understand that the Law which was abolished was the sacrificial Law [Hebrews 7:11-14] .....and not the Ten Commandments? Paul is telling us about that while John is telling us to obey the commandments [1 John 5:1-3]. Don't you really see the difference?
The only place a distinction between the laws on sacrifice and the Ten Commandments exists is in your mind. It does not exist in Scripture. The Scriptural interchangeabilty of the terms that appears in so many places proves beyond cavil that the Old Covenant was a single unit of laws. Some were moral and others were ceremonial, etc., but the "Statutes, Ordinances and Decrees" did not exist as separate codes of law.
[Galatians 3:19-25] 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator [...]
The above was your first claim that the law was done away with. Please allow me to show you your error:
Besides the fact that it's not my claim - it is Paul's infallible claim, in the nine following paragraphs in which you discuss it you never once address the fact that Paul says that the law was added (430 years after Abraham, he says) which makes no sense if the law was already there as you contend. You still have not addressed this point.
Cordially,