Matthew 5:17 explanation?

[Hodos]

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

In other words, every use you have made of Romans 2 has been to the exact opposite of how Paul was using it, when read in context.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Going back to one of my earlier points, Paul is explicitly using the second use of the law, as mirror, to show us that we are sinners. He then begins his telling of the gospel.

After using an example of people who were judged according to the Law as non sinners?

 

[Hodos]

After using an example of people who were judged according to the Law as non sinners?

Uh, what part of “by works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” do you not understand?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Julius_Caesar:

After using an example of people who were judged according to the Law as non sinners?

Uh, what part of “by works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” do you not understand?

Am I not understanding that part? Or are you ignoring the part which I quoted? That Paul provides an instance where the Law doesn’t condemn people?

 

[Hodos]

Am I not understanding that part? Or are you ignoring the part which I quoted? That Paul provides an instance where the Law doesn’t condemn people?

No, I explained that you cut it out of context and completely misinterpreted it because you missed the first part of the sentence where Paul is demonstrating that they are condemned by the law. Also note that in the same sentence you are referring to it demonstrates that the Gentiles you are attempting to uphold as righteous by the law in the same breath says they are at the same time accused and excused by it. So even there, Paul isn’t saying what you are asserting that he is saying. You might want to try reading whole sentences and paragraphs before making an attempt at exegesis.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Also note that in the same sentence you are referring to it demonstrates that the Gentiles you are attempting to uphold as righteous by the law in the same breath says they are at the same time accused and excused by it.

Not accused and excused. Accused or perhaps excused. So there is the possibility that the judgement will acquit them.

And they are described as people whom the Law is written in their hearts.

They’re not just Gentiles.

 

[Hodos]

Not accused and excused. Accused or perhaps excused. So there is the possibility that the judgement will acquit them.

Not there isn’t. Paul explicitly precludes this in the passage I posted from Romans 3. Maybe you haven’t read that far yet. I will give you time to get there.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Not there isn’t.

Look closely.

As Paul stated, the Gentiles in the examples he given have the laws written in their hearts.

Where does the Law written in one’s heart imagery appear?

 

[Hodos]

Look closely.

As Paul stated, the Gentiles in the examples he given have the laws written in their hearts.

Where does the Law written in one’s heart imagery appear?

We need to work on getting you to read entire sentences, paragraphs, and chapters here bud. I can walk you through Romans 1-3 with you but its going to take a lot of text that this forum doesn’t allow. Feel free to shoot me an email and I will be glad to put together a word document that walks through Romans 1-3 for you line by line as Paul builds his argument. Suffice it to say that once again, you are ignoring the line of argument that Paul himself started with in Chapter 2’s opening sentence:

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Paul’s entire premise in this section is proving that you are a lawbreaker, and he is using the Gentiles to shame the Jews in this respect. Again, for at least the third time, Paul’s argument builds to a crescendo in Romans 3. In fact, he even says in Romans 3:9 that he has already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, before getting to the place that I had quoted before which states that by works of the law no flesh will be justified in God’s sight. If Paul asserts at the beginning of Chapter 3 that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, then where did he do so? In both Chapters 1 and 2 as I stated before. Again, your position is logically inconsistent with everything Paul has laid out when looked at in context.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

And who is the “you” referred to? Is it not those who are Jews?

In fact, he even says in Romans 3:9 that he has already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, before getting to the place that I had quoted before which states that by works of the law no flesh will be justified in God’s sight.

But we’re talking about judgement here. Not initial justification. As Paul said, according to the Law said Gentiles who do what the Law says show that they have it in their hearts.

This should help. Skip to Chapter 44.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm

 

[Hodos]

And who is the “you” referred to? Is it not those who are Jews?

Yep. Immediately after the scathing rebuke of Gentiles.

But we’re talking about judgement here. Not initial justification.

No idea what you are talking about here. Both a judicial terms. Nice attempt to shift the goalposts though.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

No idea what you are talking about here. Both a judicial terms. Nice attempt to shift the goalposts though.

Not an attempt.

This is was always what was in mind. You just missed the target.

After using an example of people who were judged according to the Law as non sinners?

And here.

Not accused and excused. Accused or perhaps excused. So there is the possibility that the judgement will acquit them.

:man_shrugging:t6:

 

[Hodos]

And here.

Again, on both occasions Paul has not said they are not sinners. In fact, on both occasions Paul was saying they are sinners. So yeah, they were judged. Not as righteous though.

Just out of curiosity, is the reason you are so triggered that you are a universalist? Trying to understand where you are going with this. Not saying you are a universalist because you haven’t come out and said it to me, although some of your responses to others in the thread seem to indicate that’s where you are heading. Is this the case or am I misreading your intent? I could be wrong, I was scanning for something else this morning and might be thinking of something someone else said.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The link I showed is the exact opposite of universalism.

I take it you did not read it. Touché.

 

[Hodos]

The link I showed is the exact opposite of universalism.

I take it you did not read it. Touché.

You would be right seeing as the subject was Romans 2 and 3 and you had already demonstrated a tenacious refusal to read through entire sentences and paragraphs of the passages being discussed.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You would be right seeing as the subject was Romans 2 and 3 and you had already demonstrated an tenacious refusal to read through entire sentences and paragraphs of the passages being discussed.

You didn’t read the link. You’ve proved my inference.

 

[fhansen]

And if you read that passage in context, he is saying the law will condemn you as a lawbreaker. He then makes this forcefully clear in the first half of Romans 3.

Just as with Jesus’ words to the rich young man regarding the need to keep the commandments, there’s no need to twist Paul’s words into something other than their plain meaning:
“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:12-13

For context Rom 2:6-8 precedes that with concurring sentiment, instructing us on the way to eternal life. Faith and true justice/righteousness are inseparable, and either way both must be persevered in:
“God will repay each person according to what they have done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”

Yes. Exactly, Paul demonstrates in Philippians that his righteousness is based on faith and is given through faith to all who believe. He even acknowledges that his righteousness was not obtained through the law by your own admission.

Exactly, but his righteousness was obtained nonetheless, by grace. And now he must act on that possession:
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

So you see that we’re no longer under the law, because that would mean having a righteousness of our own based on the law (Phil 3) but the law is nonetheless still the standard as we’re now under grace- grace given to fulfill the law:
“For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” Rom 6:14

Grace, IOW causes lawfulness.
“Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” 1 John 3:4

John continues:
“But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.” 1 John 3:5-10

continued:

 

[fhansen]

continued:

So sin, as Scripture affirms in other places as well, excludes us from heaven. Rom chap 3 affirms that this is righteousness given, not merely imputed:
“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” Rom 3:21-22

Anyway, it becomes quite clear that the righteousness of God is demanded in man, and that man plays a role in accepting and keeping and acting on it. That righteousness is a direct result of the first and most basic instance of justice or righteousness for man, that of being in communion/relationship with God.

For those who have understanding rather than making guesses from Scripture centuries after the fact, this means that God, in the big picture ever since Eden, has been saying all along, “Thou shall Love”. IOW had Adam been capable of this love in Eden, then his obedience would’ve come naturally. And this is why, again, the church of Christ can rightly maintain,
“At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love”.

And, again, why Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century Bishop of that same church, would say,
“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”

 

[kerberos]

The Law is fulfilled thus:

“34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”“

https://biblehub.com/esv/matthew/22.htm

“The first and greatest commandment” is the Shema Yisrael, “Hear, O Israel”, & it is found in Deuteronomy 6. To love God in that total, unreserved, self-giving way, is to fulfil the Law. It is how Jesus fulfils it. And it is what He demands of His followers.

Love of God was the means to fulfil the Old Law, and is how to fulfil the New. Jesus came, not to abolish the Shema, but to confirm it, to live by it, to teach it, to re-assert it. He does not weaken its force in the slightest. Instead, He renews it, most solemnly, by sealing the New Covenant in His own Blood. In no way does He abolish or weaken the Shema.