Transgressing the Law

It is a parable Bob. The Law is irrelevant.
The parable is about a wayward son coming back to his father.
His father shows grace--accepting him and even giving him more then what he deserves--for all he desired was to be as one of the hired hands. It is a picture of grace. God's grace is greater than all our sin.

 

Still no answer!
Israel was very strict on inheritance. It was to pass down through the sons and not to be sold to outsiders. God gave Moses a law, in case there were no surviving sons, for the daughters, but for the most part it was to the sons. Like the Prodigal Son, you know, the one we are talking about. I don't think I have read where the Gentiles were as strict about inheritance, not saying its not scripture, just don't come to mind.

Didn't think there was such a thing as "hired hands" in the Kingdom. I thought God was no respect of persons. Are you a "son" or a "hired hand"? How do you know? Wonder what they did to become "hired hands".

BBob,

 

Yes, I was a Gentile, then, as I posted and did not have "the Law." (Rom. 2:14)

Is your dandruff bothering you, for I notice you are still scratching your head. This verse is not that hard to understand, surely. And you might note from vs. 12, that one can sin apart from the Law.

That is why it is said that "all have sinned (both Jew and Gentile) and come short of the glory of God." The law openly showed 'the exceeding sinfulness of sin' (Rom. 7:12-14) not that it suddenly became sin. It was no more murder under the law, than before. For an example, Cain was just as guilty of murder, for the murder of Abel, long before the first precept remotely resembling this was ever uttered, as he would have been under the economy of Israel when she had the Mosaic Law, or under the economy of Israel before the Law was given, hence Cain and Lamech, Simeon and Moses, and David and Joab all committed murder, even though under three different economies.

Ed

 

I'm not DHK, but I will answer the question. We do not know the answer to your question, and Scripture never declares this, for we do not know if the Father and the two sons were Jews or Gentiles, here. Jesus, more than once, used illustrations and accounts that involved both Gentiles and/or Jews.

One can only speculate to come up with an answer, and personally, I choose not to speculate where Scripture does not declare such.

Ed

 

Me thinks many try and teach the Law and do not understand what they say.

1 Tim. 1:
1: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2: Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
3: As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4: Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5: Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7: Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
8: But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Paul was under the Law, but yet there was a time he was without the Law.

BBob,

 

HP: Says who? I almost forgot. Somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind there is a well known system of theology that holds to that unfounded presupposition.

HP: I think we are getting closer DHK. If the Scripture speaks of the unsaved, there are some logical consequences we can draw from it. Here is the Scripture once again. Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. The saved, i.e., those with an inheritance, according to this passage, must not be a whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor a covetous person who is an idolater. Believers can just be liars, adulterers and what else DHK?

HP: Would to God that you wouldn’t. Where does this parable equate the relationship sustained between an earthly father to the relationship sustained between God and those obedient children? Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

HP: Without reading too much into this parable, you tell us. Where does Scripture even tell us that she had a broom? Could that have not been simply depicting one carefully going over the house to find the coin, as in a figure of speech? Are you absolutely certain she held a broom in her hand?

 

Who were you before you believed in Christ. Nothing?

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Try as hard as you may, you will never get rid of the Law, except by believing in Christ, then it is written in your heart and mind and the righteous of the Law is fulfilled in us.



Gal. 3:
17: And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18: For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
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.
26: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29: And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

You did not always have faith.

BBob,

 

HP: Pardon me? Where does it ever state that Moses committed ‘murder’??

 

Exd 2:14 Then he said, "Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" So Moses feared and said, "Surely this thing is known!"

 

HP: Yes, one that God states we must fulfill certain conditions to receive. :thumbs:

HP: Absolutely:thumbs:

HP: No one said they were they same thing that I can recall. One thing that is certain is that if you have squandered your inheritance and have none left, neither are you saved, for salvation either has an inheritance or you don’t posses what you think you have. Salvation apart from your inheritance is like a ham hung by the ceiling that the rats have hollowed out until all that hangs there is the skin of the ham. It may still look like a ham on the outside, but it is worthless.

 

HP: I know full well he killed a man. That is not what is at stake here. Murder is what is at stake, and murder must have selfish intent. Are you taking the position that all killing is murder? If so, you are going to have a difficult time with God commanding it done at times in the OT. Are you going to stay consistent and call God a murderer for ordering the killings of those He did? Were those that carried out the commands of God all murderers also? When God ordained for the government to bear the sword, are those that carry out that command 'murderers' as well?

The point is Amy, intent has everything to do with morals, and the distinguishing between justifiable homicide and murder. Where does Scripture tell us that the intents of Moses were that consistent with murder?

 

The word "murder" is not used, of Moses, nor is that word specifically used of Lamech, Simeon, David or Joab, either in the NKJV. However, the account is given in Ex. 2:11-14, where Moses killed an Egyptian, and this was not either defending himself, or avenging any death.

Did you notice vs. 12 where Moses looked all around to see if he would be seen, before killing the Egyptian? That is hardly even jumping into a fight to protect and defend the Hebrew being beaten, but was a pre-meditated and "thought out" killing, and after the fact of the beating.

Ed

 

HP: Why would it have to be either of those to be justified? Could he not have been saving an innocent life from death and or bodily harm?

 

Wow. You are the first person I've ever come across that didn't think Moses committed murder. I don't even know how to respond.

 

HP: You don’t have to respond. Just savor the moment. :thumbs:

 

:laugh: That I can do.

 

As Ed said earlier our inheritance is our reward.

Colossians 3:24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
--This is a promise, and there are many more just like this one. We, who believe, shall receive an inheritance. It is a promise of God. It is as much as a promise as salvation is the gift of God.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--Eternal life in and of itself is a gift.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--Eternal life is a gift. I comes through Jesus Christ, and Him alone.
If this gift could ever be lost at any time, through any means, then it no longer would be eternal; it would only be "temporary," and Christ would be lying. He promised eternal life, not temporary life. Words do have meaning. The promises of Christ are yea and yea; and nay and nay.
How could Christ say one thing and then do another. It is impossible for Him to give eternal life and then take it away. It is against His nature. It makes Him a liar. The promise of eternal, then, is written in stone. It can never be lost.

Thus it must be true also for the many promises that relate to the reward of our inheritance, for that also is based on the promise of our eternal life. Every believer has a reward of an inheritance. In as much as they have eternal life they also have the reward of an inheritance. Both can never be lost. The Bible does not lie.

1 Peter 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

The beginning of that paragraph starts this way:

Ephesians 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
--There was fornication, uncleanness, etc among the believers. He was rebuking them. Otherwise why would he write thusly? "Let in not be once name among you as becometh saints. This is not the kind of activity that they should be involved in. Unfortunately there are some believers both then, and now, that do fall into sin. Paul says that this is not right. This is not becoming of a saint.

He does not say that a believer will never fall into grievous sin.
In fact he says that one should "flee fornication." (1Cor.6:18), It is evident that not every Christian did.

It is sustained in the same way that any relation is: through the genes or genetically. Have you never heard of a "mother's love"? It is unending; it never gives up. It was this way with the father as well.
What is the exact Greek tense that is being used for the words "keepeth" and "loveth"? What does it say in the Greek, literally? Do you really think that it is speaking of sinless perfection? Then what?

Luke 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

I am certain that she had an instrument (such as a broom) to sweep the house.
My question was: What does that instrument represent, (whatever it may have been) that she used to sweep her house?
Even you make the most simple of questions difficult.

 

Paul was not under "the Law" when he wrote this (Rom. 6:14-15), and there was not a time before he was saved, that he was "without the law", meaning that he did not have it, for that is a complete misunderstanding of what he is saying in Rom. 7: 8-10, and in I Cor. 9:21. Here the idea is that of "apart from the Law" and is both more accurately and so rendered by the NIV, NASB, ESV, HSCB, AMP, and ASV, among others.

As a Jew before he was saved, Paul was entirely 'under the Law' economy (Rom. 3:19; Gal. 3:23; 4:5), and he states that he was "as 'touching the law,' a Pharisee" and he was "blameless." (Phil'p. 3:4-6) In fact, he spells it out even clearer, by differentiating, as the HCSB renders I Cor. 9:19-22.

You might also want to check this passage out in the ASV, ESV, NIV, AMP, TNIV, NLT, and/or DARBY, as well. This in no way contradicts what any of the KJV, YLT, and NKJV are saying, either, but the Greek text here used does make it somewhat clearer.

Ed

 

You say that Paul was entirely under the Law as a Jew, but there was a time he was not under the Law. You can't say that Christ sets us free from the Law and then the Law returns and sin revives and you die. That just does not work. Paul was alive without the law, when he was a child, and so was you and I.

Who do you think Paul was talking to with these scriptures. sure was not Israel.

You yourself, had the law, for the Gentiles do the things contained in the Law. Same difference. The only way you or Paul became free from the Law was through the body of Christ. You or Paul did not always have Christ, therefore if you had of died in that condition, the Law, thou shall not lie, would of condemned you in the end of time and your home would of been the LoF. You accepted Christ by believing and receiving faith, therefore set free from the Law only because you did not do those things anymore. The law was then put in your mind and your heart and the righteous of the Law is now being fulfilled in you, for you do not commit those things.

It don't make sense that Paul did not have sin, until after he accepted Christ. It was before Christ, when the Law was his schoolmaster, that led him to Christ. Before that, there was a time he did not have the law, for sin was not imputed, but the commandments came, sin revived and Paul died in sin. It took the blood of Christ to get him out of that death. It took the blood of Christ to get you out of that death also.

When Paul was a child and when we were a child, sin was not imputed therefore we were alive without the law, the time came for us to know to do good and we did it not, the law entered and we died and was in need of a Saviour.

Your explanation does not hold water, for it does not even consider the Gentiles, who have not the law, but are a law unto themselves.

Scripture is plain, when it says the Law is for the sinner and ungodly and that is still just as binding today, as it ever was.

BBob,

 

Brother Bob, when I meet an older individual with any hair at all on top of his head, I am 100% certain that I am not seeing your old hermeneutics teacher. Or even your old teacher of Bible. Pulling out all of one's hair is simply not compatable with still having any left.

How is it possible for you to reposition what I have said, here as to the time line of "when" this happens?

The unbeliever is already dead in trespasses and sins, meaning he is separated from God; he does not suddenly become dead in trespasses and sins, at some later point in life. The child is safe or saved, not because he is "alive" but becaused condemnation is based on "believing not" or "disbelieving" on Him, just as salvation is based on believing on Him. (Jn,. 3:8-18,36; 5:24; 6:47; Act. 16:28-34; Eph. 2:8-10, etc.)

The sin of the world is imputed to Christ, (Isa. 53:6) and not the individual (II Cor. 5:19). The child is 'saved' or 'safe', and is not condemned, because he has not "disbelieved" (Jn. 3:18; 36).

And as an unsaved and Gentile who "disbelieved", I was condemned already, apart from the Law, prior to salvation. I did not suddenly "get condemned." And as an unsaved Gentile, being condemned "apart from" the Law, I did not suddenly become Jewish in order to get "under the Law" so I could be condemned, so that I could then get saved.

The law is for 'condemnation', in one sense, true, but is not now, and never was for salvation.

BTW, since you do acknowledge that the Gentiles don't have the law, why do you still speak of it as for them, as thought they do have it? I don't have any extra hair to spare after my chemo of a couple of years ago.

Ed