Where does the justification for The New Testament doers of the law in Romans 2:13 originate from?

You said that because Jesus is God's word made flesh that He embodies the Mosaic Law. If that isn't conflating them, I don't know what is.

The Law is part of God's word. Jesus fulfilled the Law and superseded it, making it obsolete by His death.

Jesus embodied the Mosaic Law by living in sinless obedience to it. While there is a difference between a set of instructions and someone who is the embodiment of those instructions, there is nevertheless a direct correlation.

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it snd he warned against relaxing the least part of it or teaching others to do that, so you should not interpret fulfilling the law as meaning the same thing as abolishing it. Rather, to fulfill the law means "to cause God's will (as made known through the law) to be obeyed as it should be (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo). After Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be, which has nothing to do with superseding it or causing it to be obsolete by his death. According Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so again it refers to correctly obeying it as it should be and it refers to something that countless people have done, not something that only Jesus did to abolish it. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which again refers to correctly obeying it as it should be, but you do not consistently interpret that as superseding the Law of Christ and making it obsolete. In Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilled the Gospel by bringing Gentiles to obedience to it in word and in deed, which refers to fully preaching how to follow it, not to making it obsolete.

The issue of whether or not I am keeping God's law is independent of the issue of whether or not we ought to keep it, so even if it were the case that I were not keeping it, then that would just mean that I'd need to repent and return to obedience by faith, not that we ought not obey God.


God's law was never given as a way of earning righteousness, so it could not have been abolished as a way of earning it. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish God's law and warned against replacing the least part of it or teaching others to do that, so you are calling Jesus a liar and disregarding his warning. Furthermore, in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you seek to abolish it rather than uphold it. Rebellion against God is teaching against obeying what He has commanded, not teaching to obey what He has commanded.[/QUOTE]
you are preaching holy humbug. You do not keep the law any more than the Jews did ... God chucked them out of the land, and He'll chuck you out of the church.

What you are really doing is setting up a barrier in your own heart against the inner life of the Spirit, even Christ Himself. You are preferring the law and failure to keep it to the inner life.

It is humbug and hypocrisy.

Read Galatians and share in Paul's rebuke for those false brethren who sought to bewitch the people there. Satan uses the law to beguile people.

You're confusing the Law of Moses with the Law of Christ. They are not the same thing. You're also making an error of scope and focus.

Jesus didn't fulfill the Law by teaching people how to obey it properly; He fulfilled it by being the perfect sacrifice for sin, pouring out His blood as an offering in the heavenly temple.

He fulfilled (made complete) the Law, and instituted the new covenant in His blood. As I have said many times before, those under the new covenant are no longer under the Sinai covenant.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of Christ. Furthermore, Jesus set a perfect example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) ad that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and I don't see any justification for thinking that the Law of Christ was something other than or contrary to what Christ taught.

God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul used a parallel statement to equate being not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, and in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul used a parallel statement to equate the Law of God with the Law of the Spirit, and the Law of Moses is interchangeably referred to as the Law of Moses in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 6:7-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

The definition that I cited is the only one in the NAS Greek Lexicon that is specifically in regard to what it means to fulfill the law, it fits with Jesus contrasting saying that he came to fulfill the law with saying that he came not to abolish it while you interpret fulfilling as saying that he abolished it, it fits with what Jesus immediately proceeded to do next while he didn't mention he didn't mention anything about being the sacrifice for sins anywhere in the Sermon on the. Mount, it fits with how other verses use the term while your definition is contrary to how other verses us the term, and it fits with how other Jewish writings us the term while your definition is contrary to how other Jewish writings use the term. So you're going to have to give a little more support than insisting otherwise.

Nowhere does the Bible say anything like that if someone manages to live in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Covenant, then they abolish it, but rather a new covenant does not do away with the promises of a covenant that has already been ratified (Galatians 3:16-19). Moreover, Jesus did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33), so I have not been suggesting that we should be under the Mosaic Covenant, but rather I have been speaking about how we should live under the New Covenant.

That's a strawman fallacy.

Prove it from Scripture. God gave the Law to Israel, not to the gentiles. Paul made clear to the Galatians that trying to be in right relationship with God by following the Mosaic law was futile. The Holy Spirit did not lead Paul to write in opposition to the will of God and the teaching of Jesus.

A lexicon is not the Bible.

Prove it. Quote me where I said that.

Don't waste your time (or mine) responding to claims I haven't made.

You completely miss the point: they are DIFFERENT covenants. The new is not an extension of the Sinai.

The good kings tended to live for much longer than the evil kings did. so while there were more evil kings, they were under a good king for a majority of the time, so while far from perfect is even further from a complete failure to keep it, so there were countless Jews who did keep it, and the Bible directly records that in verses like Joshua 22:1-3 and Luke 1:5-6. While the Bible prophesies that the Israelites would turn away from the Mosaic Law and be exiled, it also prophesies that they would return to the land, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to keeping the Mosaic Law. The reason why the Israelites were exiled was not because they were trying their hardest to keep the Mosaic Law and fell short, but because they did not continue to keep it.

I've said about humbug and hypocrisy and nothing contrary to the inner life of the Spirit and Christ. The invisible aspects of God's nature or character are the inner life and the fruits of the Spirit, such as holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control, and so forth. The Son is image of the invisible God ( Colossians 1:15) and the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of His nature (Hebrews 1:3), so the Son is the personification of the invisible aspects of God's nature or character in the form of a body that we can see, or in other words, the Son is who we see when we look at the Father. The Son expressed these aspects of God's nature or character through living in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is also the way that we live when he lives in us, which also why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

If you interpret a verse as promoting rebellion against what God has commanded, then your reaction should not be to think that makes perfect sense and that it would be a good idea for you to promote rebellion against God, but rather you should have the self-awareness to recognize that you must have misinterpreted it, and that even if you have interpreted it correctly, then you should reject it truth. Satan does not have the role of leading people to obey God, but rather you should have the self-awareness that you have been beguiled by being led away from obeying what God has commanded.

Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ's example of obedience to the Father, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to required Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified. In Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-2 denies that "works of the law" are part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore that phrase does not refer to obedience to God. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works while he said that our faith upholds God's law, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-12, so you are not correctly identify what Paul was speaking against in Galatians.

If Jesus embodied the Mosaic law, and then expired on the cross, then the Mosaic law, also, expired, on the cross. Where our positions concerning that diverge is at His resurrection. You've resurrected the law of Moses, and so you would affectively crucify Jesus, over and over again, when you sin. On the other hand, I've died in Christ and have been raised again with Him into the law of Christ and continue to live. Either you die daily, or you think Christ does, because I would not think it very much of a stretch to be sure that you sin daily if it is Moses' law that lives in you.

I establish that Christ taught his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, your position is that the Law of Christ is something other than the Law of Moses, so it follows that your position is that the Law of Christ is something other than what Christ taught. You've given no support for thinking that the Law of Christ is something other than the Law of Moses.

I did prove it from Scripture.

While the Mosaic Law was given to Israel, it was given to Israel to equip them to be a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations from their wickedness and teaching them to obey it in accordance with the Gospel and with inheriting the promise through faith.

The fact that the Holy Spirit did not lead Paul to write in opposition to the will of God and the teachings of Jesus means that you should not interpret him as being in opposition to the will of God and the teachings of Jesus, but rather you should interpret him as speaking in favor of obeying what God has commanded in accordance with Christ's example.

I didn't say that a lexicon is the Bible, but rather I cited it in support of how we should interpret the Bible, and you should give justification for why you reject the definition that I cited.

You said:

"Jesus fulfilled the Law and superseded it, making it obsolete by His death."

I understood that as meaning essentially the same thing as you saying that he abolished it. Do you affirm that God's law has not been abolished?

While I agree that they are different covenants, Jeremiah 31:33 states that the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so following the Torah is not one of the ways that they are different.

Scripture says that Jesus did not come to abolish the law; it does not say that He didn’t abolish it. Scripture says that the Sinai covenant is obsolete.

‘Abolish’ and ‘’obsolete’ are vaguely related but are quite distinct in meaning and usage.

Jesus taught many things that were not directly from the Law of Moses. He taught many things to His followers that He did not teach to the Jewish masses. Here are a few examples:

Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you, that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Matthew 5:32 "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the group of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 18:4 "Whoever humbles himself like tis child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

I could go on to list all the parables, all the didactic statements to His disciples, and so on, but you can read for yourself. Consider the volume of "reiteration" in comparison to the volume of "new teaching" in Jesus' words. There is far more than merely the Law of Moses.

Many people interpret actions of abolishing the Mosaic Law, fulfilling it, and the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete as meaning that we are no longer obligated to obey it, which is why I think that they are interpreting it as meaning essentially the same thing. Do you understand those actions differently? If so, then how do you distinguish between their meaning?

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it its a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Jesus could not raise the bar without disqualifying himself as our Savior, but even if he could do that, then that would mean that we the very least we should obey the Mosaic Law plus whatever he raised the bar to. Though I think that there is a difference between adding to the Mosaic Law and expounding upon it, clarifying it, teaching how it was originally intended to be understood, or teaching in accordance with it.

For example, if God were to give someone a list of 100 examples of how to act in accordance with His righteousness in various situations, then all of those examples would have the same principle in common, so if Jesus were to give a 101st example of how to act righteously that was based on the same principle, then he would not be raising the bar or be making changes to the way to do what is righteous, but rather he would be clarifying how to act righteously.

If we correctly understand what is being commanded against the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our heart, then we will not look at a woman with lust in our hearts, so Jesus was not making raising the bar or teaching something other than the Law of Moses, but was teaching how to correctly obey those commands as it was originally intended. Likewise, what Jesus taught in divorce was based on the OT.

You would need to establish FIRST that we are under the Sinai covenant, that we must obey its ordinances.

Good luck with that.

I've not claimed that we are under the Mosaic Covenant, so I don't need to establish that. It is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), so anyone who wants to repent from their sin in accordance with the Gospel can choose to obey it regardless of whether or not they are under a covenantal obligation to do so.

In Jeremiah 31:33, it it directly states in regard to the New Covenant that it involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so I did not lie, but rather you are saying that that verse is a lie.

And so you need to find an unblemished goat, go to the temple in Jerusalem, find a priest and have them sacrifice it on your behalf.

You really don't get it. Either you follow the ENTIRE Mosaic Law (as it applies to you) or you don't, and you need to repent for not doing so. The problem is that as long as you are under the Law, you are perpetually in a state of non-compliance with no hope of getting out. There is no middle ground. There is no buffet of ordinances that you can "choose" not to obey... for any reason.

Christians aren't under the Law. Period. Until you get that, continuing this conversation is pointless.

When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to the Mosaic Law, which contains instruction in regard to temple practice that they couldn't follow because the temple had been destroyed, so God honored their obedience to the laws that they could follow. God is just, so He does not hold us accountable for not following laws that can't be followed. In 2 Chronicles 30:15-20, Hezekiah prayed that God would pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek Him even though they were not acting according to the sanctuary's rules of cleanness and God heard him and healed the people.

God is sovereign, so everyone is under His law regardless of whether or not they agree. Period. The law that Christians aren't under is the law of sin, not the Law of God. The Psalms express an extremely positive view of God's law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in keeping it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of God's law, then we will share it as Paul did (Romans 7:12) and will consider anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying it to be incompatible with the view that the Psalms and the NT books that quote the Psalms are Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't believe in the truth of those words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of God's law, and if we do believe in the truth of those words, then we will voluntarily choose to come under it even if it were the case that we weren't under it.

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to follow God's law by word and by example and Christians are people who follow Christ, not those who refuse to follow him. We can't follow God's word made flesh by refusing to follow God's word.

Jesus embodied the Mosaic Law by living in sinless obedience to it, that's not a question of if he did, and there is nothing about him living in sinless obedience to it that means that it expired when he died on the cross, especially because all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). Moreover, if the Mosaic Law expired because Jesus expired on the cross, then that would mean that it also resurrected when he resurrected. Though the reality is that they took Jesus down from the cross because of the Sabbath, so the Sabbath did not expire because he kept the Sabbath perfectly and then expired.

In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from God's law, but that he gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20), while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he accomplished. The fact that Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins should make us want to go and sin no more, not consider ourselves free to do what God has revealed through His law to be sin.

Christ walked in obedience to the Mosaic Law and 1 John 2:6 says that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so if someone is not walking in obedience to the Mosaic Law, then they should not consider verses that speak about those who are in Christ to be referring to them. Christ all spent his ministry spreading the Gospel message calling for repentance and obedience to the Mosaic Law so he taught his followers to obey it by word and by example, which means that it would be absurd to think that the Law of Christ is something other or contrary to what Christ taught. God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul used parallel statement to equate not being outside the Law of God with being under the Law of Christ, and the Law of Moses is interchangeably referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

Jesus did not go around teaching a new set of laws after he resurrected, so it doesn't make any sense to me why people think that the resurrection means rejecting everything Jesus taught during his ministry and following a new and undefined set of laws that he didn't teach. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.