Jesus "under the law"????

[praise_yeshua]

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Paul is right. Jesus was made under the law. However, it is important to understand how Christ was made "under the law".

"Under the law" is a reference to the penalty of the law that Christ suffered. Christ dying for humanity

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

We know that Jesus Christ did not keep the law of Moses. Examples of this are found throughout the Scriptures. I know that this statement offends many of you. You believe that I'm "soiling" the work of Christ because of this. I'm not. It is not the law that made Christ righteous. Christ is Impeccable and Divine. God Incarnate.

Keeping the law could never impart righteousness. It hasn't for us and it didn't for Jesus Christ.

I've mentioned this several times recently and it has been ignored....

Christ was NOT a Priest after the order of Aaron. Yet, it is by the law that the order of Aaron was DEDICATED ALONE to the Priestly work. Only the order of Aaron could attend for man under the law.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

God, destroyed the "Holy of Holies" of Aaron.

Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

The Lawgiver doesn't have to abide by the law given to His subjects. In fact, we KNOW that Christ didn't. He is the Lawgiver dying for humanity. It is the penalty of the law (DEATH) that Christ was made under.

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

 

[Diserner]

"Under the law" is a reference to the penalty of the law that Christ suffered. Christ dying for humanity

That's not what Galatians 4 says.

You are making up stuff out of whole cloth.

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Gal. 4:4-5 NKJ)

Clearly Christ was under the Law in the same way those he redeemed were born under the Law.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, (Heb. 2:17 NKJ)

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's not what Galatians 4 says.

You are making up stuff out of whole cloth.

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Gal. 4:4-5 NKJ)

Clearly Christ was under the Law in the same way those he redeemed were born under the Law.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, (Heb. 2:17 NKJ)

Exactly. Under the penalty of death of the law.. You know that is why you and I die. Remember????

Your bias is showing. You simply restated what I had already declared.

You resist the Scripture because of your Arminian view of repentance.

 

[praise_yeshua]

@dizerner

Are you going to deal with the clear example of how Jesus didn't keep the law. He didn't have to first offer a offering for Himself. Reconsider your position.

 

[Soyeong]

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Paul is right. Jesus was made under the law. However, it is important to understand how Christ was made "under the law".

"Under the law" is a reference to the penalty of the law that Christ suffered. Christ dying for humanity

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Being under a law refers to being obligated to obey it. Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day (Luke 2:21), which means that he was a member of the Mosaic Covenant and obligated to obey its terms. It is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), so the fact that he was sinless means that he never broke the Mosaic Law.

We know that Jesus Christ did not keep the law of Moses. Examples of this are found throughout the Scriptures. I know that this statement offends many of you. You believe that I'm "soiling" the work of Christ because of this. I'm not. It is not the law that made Christ righteous. Christ is Impeccable and Divine. God Incarnate.

Keeping the law could never impart righteousness. It hasn't for us and it didn't for Jesus Christ.

For you to claim that Jesus did to keep the Mosaic Law is to say that Jesus sinned and therefore to deny that he is our Savior. Keeping the law could never impart righteousness because it was never given for that purpose. Imparting righteousness was never the purpose for why Christ obeyed the Mosaic Law or for why we should obey it. The fact that we do not earn our righteousness as a wage by obeying God does not mean that we are not still obligated to obey Him.

I've mentioned this several times recently and it has been ignored....

Christ was NOT a Priest after the order of Aaron. Yet, it is by the law that the order of Aaron was DEDICATED ALONE to the Priestly work. Only the order of Aaron could attend for man under the law.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

God, destroyed the "Holy of Holies" of Aaron.

Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore His instructions for how to testify about His righteousness are also eternal (Psalms 119:160). So Hebrews 7:12-13 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it being righteous to commit adultery or sinful to help the poor, but rather the context is speaking about a change in the priesthood, which would also require a change of the law in regard to its administration.

The Lawgiver doesn't have to abide by the law given to His subjects. In fact, we KNOW that Christ didn't. He is the Lawgiver dying for humanity. It is the penalty of the law (DEATH) that Christ was made under.

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

A king gives laws to his subjects according to what He thinks ought to be done, so it is the height of hypocrisy for a king to not act in accordance with the laws that He has given or for a king to judge people for not following laws that the king does not follow. The king of Israel was not exempt from following the law of Israel and neither does the kingship of Jesus exempt him. God's law teach us how to testify about His righteousness and God does not choose to act in a way that is contrary to His righteousness. Likewise, Jesus is the righteousness of God, not contrary to it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore His instructions for how to testify about His righteousness are also eternal (Psalms 119:160). So Hebrews 7:12-13 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it being righteous to commit adultery or sinful to help the poor, but rather the context is speaking about a change in the priesthood, which would also require a change of the law in regard to its administration.

Weasel words from you. This is why I'm not going to respond to you any longer. You refuse to deal with the totality of what I write.

Jesus wasn't after the order of Aaron. NEVER WAS. Your appeal to "administration" is preposterously bogus.

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

 

[Soyeong]

Weasel words from you. This is why I'm not going to respond to you any longer. You refuse to deal with the totality of what I write.

I did not use weasel words, but rather I spoke about how it should be interpreted in context. In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal and I hold to the truth of all of Scripture, so I do not interpret Hebrews 7:12 in a way that contradicts Psalms 119:160).

Jesus wasn't after the order of Aaron. NEVER WAS. Your appeal to "administration" is preposterously bogus.

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Why is it bogus? Your handwaving while refuse in interact with what I've said is what is bogus.

I never said anything about whether Jesus was after the order of Aaron or Melchizedek, nor is that relevant to anything that I've said.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I did not use weasel words, but rather I spoke about how it should be interpreted in context. In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal and I hold to the truth of all of Scripture, so I do not interpret Hebrews 7:12 in a way that contradicts Psalms 119:160).


Why is it bogus? Your handwaving while refuse in interact with what I've said is what is bogus.

I never said anything about whether Jesus was after the order of Aaron or Melchizedek, nor is that relevant to anything that I've said.

Sure it is. The law did not establish the order of Melchizedek. The law established the order of Aaron. Which YOU... already know. Your comments are nothing more than weasel words meant to distract. You're not engaging. I'm tired of you endless trying to distract from the actually conversation.

By all means. Show how the law established the order of Melchizedek. That is the requirement. Jesus deviated and broke the requirement of the Law in the order of Aaron.

You know why? God never accepted one single offering that ever came from that order of Aaron. Not one.

Heb 10:4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

God took NO PLEASURE in such. ZERO. Even though these were rooted and established in the "law" you pretend you love.

 

[Soyeong]

Sure it is. The law did not establish the order of Melchizedek. The law established the order of Aaron. Which YOU... already know. Your comments are nothing more than weasel words meant to distract. You're not engaging. I'm tired of you endless trying to distract from the actually conversation.

By all means. Show how the law established the order of Melchizedek. That is the requirement. Jesus deviated and broke the requirement of the Law in the order of Aaron.

You know why? God never accepted one single offering that ever came from that order of Aaron. Not one.

Heb 10:4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

God took NO PLEASURE in such. ZERO. Even though these were rooted and established in the "law" you pretend you love.

Abraham walked in God's way (Genesis 18:19), so I don't see any reason to think that the order of Melchizedek is something other than or contrary to walking in God's way, do you?

Jesus was sinless, so he never broke the law in the order of Aaron.

Psalms 51:16-19
For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
18 Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
build up the walls of Jerusalem;
19 then will you delight in right sacrifices,
in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

God did not delight in the slaughter of animals itself, but in what that signified about having a broken and contrite heart, but that doesn't mean that God does not delight in right sacrifices.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Abraham walked in God's way (Genesis 18:19), so I don't see any reason to think that the order of Melchizedek is something other than or contrary to walking in God's way, do you?

Jesus was sinless, so he never broke the law in the order of Aaron.

Psalms 51:16-19
For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
18 Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
build up the walls of Jerusalem;
19 then will you delight in right sacrifices,
in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

God did not delight in the slaughter of animals itself, but in what that signified about having a broken and contrite heart, but that doesn't mean that God does not delight in right sacrifices.

For the life of me.... I have no idea why you would think that actually deals with the issue at hand. I pray the best God has to offer for you.

 

[Soyeong]

For the life of me.... I have no idea why you would think that actually deals with the issue at hand. I pray the best God has to offer for you.

Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, and Aaron all walked in God's way, which is the same way, not multiple mutually exclusive ways.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, and Aaron all walked in God's way, which is the same way, not multiple mutually exclusive ways.

Enoch preached Christ. Abraham lived the Gospel.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

 

[Soyeong]

Enoch preached Christ. Abraham lived the Gospel.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Indeed, the way to walk in God's way is consistent throughout all of Scripture and Jesus also walked in God's way.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Indeed, the way to walk in God's way is consistent throughout all of Scripture and Jesus also walked in God's way.

I value Jesus Christ more than you do. Jesus is God. He walked AS GOD.

 

[Soyeong]

I value Jesus Christ more than you do. Jesus is God. He walked AS GOD.

You spend your time arguing against following God's instructions for how to value Jesus, so I very much doubt that. Indeed, Jesus walked as God in God's way and did not depart from God's way, but rather he is God's way (John 14:6).

 

[praise_yeshua]

You spend your time arguing against following God's instructions for how to value Jesus, so I very much doubt that. Indeed, Jesus walked as God in God's way and did not depart from God's way, but rather he is God's way (John 14:6).

Doesn't matter what you doubt when you're doubting Christ.

Jesus is expressly God. The Lawgiver. Your position destroys all the attributes of God expressed in Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't apply the law of death to you and you don't honor Him for it.

 

[Soyeong]

Doesn't matter what you doubt when you're doubting Christ.

Jesus is expressly God. The Lawgiver. Your position destroys all the attributes of God expressed in Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't apply the law of death to you and you don't honor Him for it.

Embodying God's word is the way to value the one who is the embodiment of God's word, not the way to doubt him. It would be absurd to think that God taught his word to the Israelites in order to teach them how to doubt His word made flesh. I agree that Jesus is God and the Lawgiver. I've said nothing to destroy the attributes of God expressed in Christ, but rather I've consistently promoted that we should follow God's instructions for how to testify about those attributes. My position is not that Jesus applied the law of death to me or that we should't honor him, so you're making things up again. It would be better if you would asked me to confirm whether I believed something rather than just feeling free to assign whatever beliefs you want to me.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Embodying God's word is the way to value the one who is the embodiment of God's word, not the way to doubt him. It would be absurd to think that God taught his word to the Israelites in order to teach them how to doubt His word made flesh. I agree that Jesus is God and the Lawgiver. I've said nothing to destroy the attributes of God expressed in Christ, but rather I've consistently promoted that we should follow God's instructions for how to testify about those attributes. My position is not that Jesus applied the law of death to me or that we should't honor him, so you're making things up again. It would be better if you would asked me to confirm whether I believed something rather than just feeling free to assign whatever beliefs you want to me.

More weasel words from you. You have endless described your beliefs. I don't need to ask you whether you believe something or not. You have extensively described your beliefs. I have told you this over and over again. Why can't you accept the obvious? If someone accurately describes what vehicle they saw in an accident, then the police/law don't have to wait for you to confirm who they arrest. You have given me extensive detail. I don't need to ask your opinion of yourself. Your opinion of yourself doesn't matter. You can't see yourself for what you are. Which is why I have repeatedly told you that you're not self aware. You are an addict to Jewish delusional introspection. You have obviously had it so ingrained in your thinking that you're not going to listen to what I have to say nor actually deal with arguments. You're endlessly deflecting. I can only leave you to God. Which is what I'm going to do.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

We know that Jesus Christ did not keep the law of Moses.

example??

Christ was NOT a Priest after the order of Aaron.

but the priesthood of Melchizedek supersedes the Aaronic priesthood, so no problem.

 

[praise_yeshua]

example??

but the priesthood of Melchizedek supersedes the Aaronic priesthood, so no problem.

It does. Where does it say that in the law?

The writer of Hebrews uses the fact that Jesus didn't die according the law to drive home the valid point that Jesus is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice. What the law could not do......

Rom 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: