He Did Away With The Law

[Guest]

... We must view Jesus' words in light of the whole counsel of God on the issue if we are to understand what he said....

Amen~!

Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that thou mayest be wise in thy latter end.

There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand. Proverbs 19:20-21

Who's Law?

But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. Psalms 1:2

Who's Table?

And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel. Ezekiel 45:17

Who's House?

Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.

Then brought he me out of the way of the gate northward, and led me about the way without unto the utter gate by the way that looketh eastward; and, behold, there ran out waters on the right side.

And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ancles.

Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through the waters; the waters were to the knees. Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through; the waters were to the loins.

Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.

And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this? Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river. Ezekiel 47:1-6

Maranatha~!

[gdemoss]

Greetings to all of you who came before me over the last 9 pages. Very interesting discussion.

My stance on this issue is not popular to say the least. What the argument boils down to is the offense of the cross. There is an Old Covenant which dealt with covering sin with the blood of bulls and goats. It was replaced with the New Covenant of taking away the sins of man through the blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb of God.

Jesus summed up the changes in the two covenants in one sentence. "No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better."

The Old Covenant had laws and ordinances that revealed the sin of the people. It provided the people with ways to repeatedly have their sins 'covered' through sacrifices. Every year the same people would keep sinning and bringing in their sacrifices according to the law. In Proverbs we even see the strange woman who got all of her duties of the law taken care of and was ready for action because her husband was out of town.

The New Covenant brings in the entrance of Jesus Christ, the righteousness of God manifest in the flesh. The Glory of the law being shown for the true dim light that it was as it did not cover much of the true sin that was in man but merely a small portion. Jesus pointed out the weakness and unprofitableness of the law by magnifying the law in the sermon on the mount.

Many a man wants to go back to the old law and simply follow them because taking up your cross and dying to yourself as Jesus did is very painful to the flesh that must die in order for sin to cease within a man. The offense of the cross isn't that you can't be good enough, but that you must pick up yours and follow Jesus or you cannot be his disciple.

If the law had been done away with completely then Paul would have never mentioned that it could be used lawfully. But he speaks of the proper place of the law. The law was made for an unrighteous man. Those who God considers righteous are not under the law. Such as David who Jesus openly said broke the law but was innocent of wrong doing, or his own disciples who broke the Sabbath, or the priests who profane the Sabbath and are blameless.

There is much debate about how sin is dealt with under the New Covenant but there should be no argument about the law itself as we understand now that righteousness cannot be known by the law in its entirety but we only know righteousness through the person of Jesus Christ and his selfless love to all. We cleanse our hands and purify our hearts and worship God almighty through emulating Jesus Christ and living in the power of his spirit.

Christ did not do away with the law....He magnified it.

We don't follow the law...we follow Christ...putting on Christ....carrying our own cross....presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice....perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

No man who has tasted the old desireth the new....he says the old is better.

Gary

[~candice~]

I think this thread is titled wrong. It should be "He did away with our sin!" not the law. The law stands, but the penalty for not keeping it has now been permanently paid, by a perfect sacrifice.

[NathanH]

Gary,

I do not doubt there are some who indeed find it "easier" to try following the law over death to their flesh.

However, to think there are only two sets of individuals - those who follow the law and those who follow Christ - is a very big assumption.

I believe there is more. I believe there are those who still consider the law as a true and lasting testament of God. But they in no way seek their right standing with God as having anything to do with the law.

There are numerous times the law is brought into consideration by the very ones who walked with Christ. But they never once look at it as a means for righteouness.

There is no way to seperate the words of God from His Son. When Jesus refers to the wine analogy He is doing so in regards to righteousness, not daily life.

In the passage Jesus gives examples of clothes, wine skins, and wine. All of them are typologies of righteouness. It would be a very long stretch to associate them with the law.

[mizzdy]

Gary,

I do not doubt there are some who indeed find it "easier" to try following the law over death to their flesh.

However, to think there are only two sets of individuals - those who follow the law and those who follow Christ - is a very big assumption.

I believe there is more. I believe there are those who still consider the law as a true and lasting testament of God. But they in no way seek their right standing with God as having anything to do with the law.

There are numerous times the law is brought into consideration by the very ones who walked with Christ. But they never once look at it as a means for righteouness.

There is no way to seperate the words of God from His Son. When Jesus refers to the wine analogy He is doing so in regards to righteousness, not daily life.

In the passage Jesus gives examples of clothes, wine skins, and wine. All of them are typologies of righteouness. It would be a very long stretch to associate them with the law.

Exactly, the law was never ever meant for salvation they, none of us, were or are to look to His instructions as that means. Torah/law/commandments are instructions for daily living, they give instructions we can use today in our relationships with others, in business, etc. The Holy Spirit guides us into a right path, the Spirit writes on our hearts His instructions for our lives why in the world would God nail that to the cross? That would be like a dad giving a set of instructions/rules to a child because that kid needed guideance and then taking it away and saying just love everyone and you will be just fine. Or like well a parent saying I have a set of rules thats been in place for thousands of years that if followed prove to be a valuable way of living right before me but now that I sent my Son I will throw that out and give a pretty much undefined set of rules, which by the way will be one of the most argued point in all of scriptures.

Its not a popular idea that the Spirit is actually writing His laws on our heart or the idea that they could be attached in any way to the covenant given at Sinai which are a huge expansion on the 10 commandments and later Yeshua showed that if we do anything when we choose to follow Him and obey Him love should be at the center of all that we do.

[gdemoss]

Gary,

I do not doubt there are some who indeed find it "easier" to try following the law over death to their flesh.

However, to think there are only two sets of individuals - those who follow the law and those who follow Christ - is a very big assumption.

I believe there is more. I believe there are those who still consider the law as a true and lasting testament of God. But they in no way seek their right standing with God as having anything to do with the law.

There are numerous times the law is brought into consideration by the very ones who walked with Christ. But they never once look at it as a means for righteouness.

There is no way to seperate the words of God from His Son. When Jesus refers to the wine analogy He is doing so in regards to righteousness, not daily life.

In the passage Jesus gives examples of clothes, wine skins, and wine. All of them are typologies of righteouness. It would be a very long stretch to associate them with the law.

Hi Nathan, excellent response. It shows that once again I wasn't clear enough in my post to put in to words what I was trying to convey.

I didn't say there were only 2 sets of individuals. I said 2 covenants, which is true. The understanding of what sin is changed with the new covenant is all. Is it wrong to follow Gods righteous law from the Old Testament? Only if you are seeking your righteousness through it. I am not quite sure about Jews and the law. The bible is quite clear that once a covenant has been established no man can disannul it. The book of Acts speaks of those who told Paul that he should "do this thing" so that those who were concerned that he was teaching Jews not to follow the law would see that he was living lawfully as a Jew and Paul had no objection. The new Covenant changed 2 things, one is the need for animal sacrifices, the other is allowing Gentiles in without bringing them under the Old Testament law.

Please help me understand something as I can't find it in scripture. Where does one find the authority to declare the clothes, wine skins, and wine as typologies of righteousness? I have to admit that my own understanding does not come from scripture itself but the spirit that dwells in me taught me. It was the first experience of revelation that I experienced upon asking to be given understanding of scriptures. I was shown that the parable represented the two covenants and the differences in righteousness and life in the blood. I expect those who have the same spirit I do to bear the same witness of the scriptures. The bible openly declares that doctrines of devils are here in our present day being followed by those who are persuaded by them. I have trusted God not to be sending me wrong information but who am I to say to the potter how he should form me? I only ask him to make me a vessel unto honor who bears witness to the truth.

Have an excellent day in the Lord!

Gary

[NathanH]

Gary,

I do not doubt there are some who indeed find it "easier" to try following the law over death to their flesh.

However, to think there are only two sets of individuals - those who follow the law and those who follow Christ - is a very big assumption.

I believe there is more. I believe there are those who still consider the law as a true and lasting testament of God. But they in no way seek their right standing with God as having anything to do with the law.

There are numerous times the law is brought into consideration by the very ones who walked with Christ. But they never once look at it as a means for righteouness.

There is no way to seperate the words of God from His Son. When Jesus refers to the wine analogy He is doing so in regards to righteousness, not daily life.

In the passage Jesus gives examples of clothes, wine skins, and wine. All of them are typologies of righteouness. It would be a very long stretch to associate them with the law.

Hi Nathan, excellent response. It shows that once again I wasn't clear enough in my post to put in to words what I was trying to convey.

I didn't say there were only 2 sets of individuals. I said 2 covenants, which is true. The understanding of what sin is changed with the new covenant is all. Is it wrong to follow Gods righteous law from the Old Testament? Only if you are seeking your righteousness through it. I am not quite sure about Jews and the law. The bible is quite clear that once a covenant has been established no man can disannul it. The book of Acts speaks of those who told Paul that he should "do this thing" so that those who were concerned that he was teaching Jews not to follow the law would see that he was living lawfully as a Jew and Paul had no objection. The new Covenant changed 2 things, one is the need for animal sacrifices, the other is allowing Gentiles in without bringing them under the Old Testament law.

Please help me understand something as I can't find it in scripture. Where does one find the authority to declare the clothes, wine skins, and wine as typologies of righteousness? I have to admit that my own understanding does not come from scripture itself but the spirit that dwells in me taught me. It was the first experience of revelation that I experienced upon asking to be given understanding of scriptures. I was shown that the parable represented the two covenants and the differences in righteousness and life in the blood. I expect those who have the same spirit I do to bear the same witness of the scriptures. The bible openly declares that doctrines of devils are here in our present day being followed by those who are persuaded by them. I have trusted God not to be sending me wrong information but who am I to say to the potter how he should form me? I only ask him to make me a vessel unto honor who bears witness to the truth.

Have an excellent day in the Lord!

Gary

I appologize for the confussion. But I a glad you ask the questions you do. As soon as I get a chance to sit down in front of a bigger screen(using phone right now) I will be more than happy to show you the things I have seen in my studies.

[NathanH]

Wow. Am I glad you asked this question. I just spent the last little while writing a reply only to have seen some new and interesting things about this very short illustration Jesus gave. While I still do not see it referring to the covenants directly, I do see some very interesting things concerning it. I do not have time tonight to write all I have in mind, so tomorrow will have to be the day.

There is a lot too it now that I sit back and think. I am not sure how it will all fit on one post, but I will do my best to keep it short. I apologize for not being able to get to it quicker, I simply do not want to try and rush the reply.

[NathanH]

Let me start by saying I did not mean to assume, and I did not mean to make it sound like you said there were "2 sets of individuals". It stems from the thoughts I have heard over the years that it is what most think. It seems most do not give room for those who believe somewhere in the middle of the two extreme sides.

I do not personally think anyone can find any authority to declare something absolute unless it states so in perfect form within the Bible. For instance, I can declare, with authority, that the Bible declares Jesus as the Son of God - the Messiah.

Believe me when I say that I can completely relate to your feelings at this point. I too have a "first experience" with being reveled something from the Bible. And that revelation is one that no one will ever sway me away from. I physically and spiritually labored to come to the point of giving up all I thought and had been taught for the earnest desire of pure knowledge of the subject I was studying. I knew it was nothing that I had never been taught before, it was nothing I had even contemplated before, and for all intensive purposes it was something that most people do not teach at all. So please understand that I do not mean to take away from your experience in this subject matter, it is simply the way I see things.

That subject for me was baptism.

However, to get to the question. Clothes - I see the typology used in several places. The one that comes to mind the quickest is one of the parable's Jesus gave.

Mat 22:2-14 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.' But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests. "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

The wedding garment here is obviously the deciding factor in whether or not the man could stay at the feast. The man had obviously heard the call of the servants, but had not received a garment.

The second place that comes to mind is in Revelation when Jesus is addressing the churches.

Rev 3:1-5 "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: 'The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. "'I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

Here again we see ones who have garments that are either soiled or unsoiled. The idea is that its a "black and white" thing. Either the garment is soiled or unsoiled. There is no in between.

One last one on the clothes is the very first time it is used as an example, in my personal opinion, as righteousness. I think it stands alone, without need of explanation, of the typology used here. A sacrifice was made on Adam and Eves behalf, and the result of that sacrifice was placed upon them.

Gen 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

Now, when it comes to the other two I started seeing something interesting last night. Wine skins and wine are two mutually exclusive things, yet they are two things that are pointless without each other. So with that thought in mind, Jesus was more than likely giving a three part example, not three individual examples. Make sense?

One thing that points me in that direction is the conversation that led up to this example. The "Pharisees and their scribes" were asking why Jesus was spending His time around tax collectors and sinners. So He answered them, and then they asked Him another question;

"The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink."

So the question was not so much in regards to the law, as it was to the 'appearance' of outward righteousness. But this is where it gets interesting for me. And please understand that I am not claiming authority in this regard, just what I see.

First Jesus gives the example, that I firmly believe, of righteousness. In other words, they do not have the outward appearance of this righteousness because it would be counter intuitive with the way people had looked at righteousness; the "new" righteousness would not match the old, and it would only serve to ruin(tear) the new.

Then the next, wine skins, are that which wine is placed in. So here it seems He is dealing with the individual themselves. This example revolves more around the wine than it does the skin, but it is in reference to what it will do to the skin(container of the wine). I believe He was making reference to the disciples themselves and the filling of the Spirit that they would experience in time. They had not yet become "new creations" in Christ. They were "old" vessels and were unable to hold that which was a "new" thing; the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Up to that point in time the Spirit of God only came upon certain men through the ages, after Christ He comes upon all believers.

Then last the specific issue with the wine itself. Which again, I firmly believe, is a repeated illustration of the Spirit of God. "Old" wine is good stuff...let me tell you. lol. Seriously, it tastes very, very good. But, we know that it also is a 'fleshly' taste and feeling that comes from "old" wine. And perceived(not actual) righteousness that comes from the "keeping" of the law is something that "feels" good; kind of like a glass of some really good wine. It just makes you feel good when you believe you have done something good.

And so Jesus was referring to the fact that His disciples had not yet been fully trained(discipled) and if they were to partake of the "new" wine(righteousness) they would more than likely not consider it as good as the old stuff.

So, there you have it in a very short(as short as I could get it) layout of what I think Jesus is saying. I firmly believe that they all refer to righteousness, taking into consideration that righteousness is what the Scribes and Pharisees looked at on the outward appearance of man. And this outward appearance is what Jesus was answering a question about.

[gdemoss]

Let me start by saying I did not mean to assume, and I did not mean to make it sound like you said there were "2 sets of individuals". It stems from the thoughts I have heard over the years that it is what most think. It seems most do not give room for those who believe somewhere in the middle of the two extreme sides.

I do not personally think anyone can find any authority to declare something absolute unless it states so in perfect form within the Bible. For instance, I can declare, with authority, that the Bible declares Jesus as the Son of God - the Messiah.

Believe me when I say that I can completely relate to your feelings at this point. I too have a "first experience" with being reveled something from the Bible. And that revelation is one that no one will ever sway me away from. I physically and spiritually labored to come to the point of giving up all I thought and had been taught for the earnest desire of pure knowledge of the subject I was studying. I knew it was nothing that I had never been taught before, it was nothing I had even contemplated before, and for all intensive purposes it was something that most people do not teach at all. So please understand that I do not mean to take away from your experience in this subject matter, it is simply the way I see things.

That subject for me was baptism.

However, to get to the question. Clothes - I see the typology used in several places. The one that comes to mind the quickest is one of the parable's Jesus gave.

Mat 22:2-14 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.' But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests. "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

The wedding garment here is obviously the deciding factor in whether or not the man could stay at the feast. The man had obviously heard the call of the servants, but had not received a garment.

The second place that comes to mind is in Revelation when Jesus is addressing the churches.

Rev 3:1-5 "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: 'The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. "'I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

Here again we see ones who have garments that are either soiled or unsoiled. The idea is that its a "black and white" thing. Either the garment is soiled or unsoiled. There is no in between.

One last one on the clothes is the very first time it is used as an example, in my personal opinion, as righteousness. I think it stands alone, without need of explanation, of the typology used here. A sacrifice was made on Adam and Eves behalf, and the result of that sacrifice was placed upon them.

Gen 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

Now, when it comes to the other two I started seeing something interesting last night. Wine skins and wine are two mutually exclusive things, yet they are two things that are pointless without each other. So with that thought in mind, Jesus was more than likely giving a three part example, not three individual examples. Make sense?

One thing that points me in that direction is the conversation that led up to this example. The "Pharisees and their scribes" were asking why Jesus was spending His time around tax collectors and sinners. So He answered them, and then they asked Him another question;

"The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink."

So the question was not so much in regards to the law, as it was to the 'appearance' of outward righteousness. But this is where it gets interesting for me. And please understand that I am not claiming authority in this regard, just what I see.

First Jesus gives the example, that I firmly believe, of righteousness. In other words, they do not have the outward appearance of this righteousness because it would be counter intuitive with the way people had looked at righteousness; the "new" righteousness would not match the old, and it would only serve to ruin(tear) the new.

Then the next, wine skins, are that which wine is placed in. So here it seems He is dealing with the individual themselves. This example revolves more around the wine than it does the skin, but it is in reference to what it will do to the skin(container of the wine). I believe He was making reference to the disciples themselves and the filling of the Spirit that they would experience in time. They had not yet become "new creations" in Christ. They were "old" vessels and were unable to hold that which was a "new" thing; the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Up to that point in time the Spirit of God only came upon certain men through the ages, after Christ He comes upon all believers.

Then last the specific issue with the wine itself. Which again, I firmly believe, is a repeated illustration of the Spirit of God. "Old" wine is good stuff...let me tell you. lol. Seriously, it tastes very, very good. But, we know that it also is a 'fleshly' taste and feeling that comes from "old" wine. And perceived(not actual) righteousness that comes from the "keeping" of the law is something that "feels" good; kind of like a glass of some really good wine. It just makes you feel good when you believe you have done something good.

And so Jesus was referring to the fact that His disciples had not yet been fully trained(discipled) and if they were to partake of the "new" wine(righteousness) they would more than likely not consider it as good as the old stuff.

So, there you have it in a very short(as short as I could get it) layout of what I think Jesus is saying. I firmly believe that they all refer to righteousness, taking into consideration that righteousness is what the Scribes and Pharisees looked at on the outward appearance of man. And this outward appearance is what Jesus was answering a question about.

Excellent Post NathanH. This is what God has shown me by his Spirit as well. We have the same spirit teaching us I believe. I see that you haven't seen it 'yet' as the example of the new and old covenants but that is OK. That in and of itself is just a perception of thought. I do appreciate your responding with 'this is as I see it' because I myself have trouble 'hearing' and 'seeing' what the spirit is teaching me and have been 'guilty' of 'hearing' and 'seeing' things wrong. The Spirit is truth however.

May he bless you in all spiritual understanding as you humble yourself before him,

Gary