 The Law Broke
In the book I state the condemnation of the law is relaxed over all christian believers because the law unjustly condemned the Christ. This would appear a gross oversimplification and far too prosaic a mechanism, but I state if the law yet held and justified the Christ that was condemned by it, the propitiation of the old covenant would have also provided for the Christ justly, not requiring the Christ to become fitting atonement, first for Himself, and subsequently all others with faith upon Him.
Without that condemnation the new covenant could not supersede the old.
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
(KJV)
Christ, has need to offer for Himself first, fulfilling all the law and prophets. That done in translating faith to faith, from old covenant to new, it required the law to unjustly condemn him first, otherwise the law would supply the atonement and propitiation for the innocent blood and would continue to hold. Christ, fitting propitiation for Himself and all others to follow, could not have been justified before God by the law, but only by Himself. It simply must have condemned Him unjustly in order for new covenant to supersede the old. (Else the works of the law would continue.)
There must simply be no middle between the covenants, else one does not supersede the other with virtue (righteousness).
If the two covenants are established by Christ (In Christ we establish the law, He is the end of the law) it should be apparent that there is a disjunction of virtue in the two covenants; and just as in chapter 5 of the book I here repeat:
r = the old covenant holds
s = the new covenant holds
u-1 = those not alive under the old covenant
v-1 = those not saved under the new covenant
and I would find the virtue p such that p&r-1 => s, or that the virtue of Christ crucified translates the house of Israel to a spirtitual house in the new covenant. I also have p&s-1 => r, or rather in the words of Christ that:
Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
(KJV)
So, to complete the octal I would find (r&s)-1 as well as u&v, so that p&r&s => u&v. And these meet in Christ crucified. And Christ is become that same virtue in p with no further work than to be unable to work, as crucified.
And I state there is an otherwise empty middle between the covenants in r&s or u-1&v-1.
Yet the disjunction itself is formed of: (r&u-1) v (s&v-1). Does Christ belong in r&u? Such a set, if found intact with Christ condemned by the law (and prophets) shows that if the law's condemnation is "lawful" in the case of Christ then there must be a disjunction between r v (u-1). The virtue required for this is found in r v (r-1&Pos(r&s)-1 => u-1) i.e. Pos(r&s)-1 acts as virtue.
Now all are baptised into Christ, some to life and others to damnation. (the Holy Spirit or simply fire.) The law holds to show all others guilty of sin and the new covenant holds to convict all without faith.
Yet if Pos(r&s)-1 is as virtue; then not only must anyone in this set be without the propitiation of the law (which is made for lawbreakers) but must also be without the grace of God (Cf. "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani").
So, the law breaks on Christ crucified as in Pos(r&s)-1, not only unable to justly confirm Him to be Christ and fulfilling the law but with all grace unable to save Him either, that grace not already being justified by His resurrection.
So, r v (r-1&Pos(r&s)-1 => u-1) rearranges to: u-1 v (u&Pos(r&s)-1 = r) and u&r holds only in this sense, that one be free from all the condemnation of the law "u" without breaking its provision of propitiation "r" (as clearly fulfilled in the person of the Christ) and also without the requirement of any grace, for equally r-1&u-1 also holds, that for those without condemnation or grace as in Pos(r&s)-1, the old covenant (r-1) cannot free those who are equivalently "dead" without the law (u-1). I point out that the provision in the law for propitiation is only a shadow of that to come in Christ. For Paul often writes of sin without the law being as if "dead" or not present until the law is brought to bear. Christ Himself taught of sin (and not the fault) being present only after a person's eyes are opened to that sin.
And there are many gentile nations in the Old Testament besides the chosen nation of Israel. (Yet Christ has brought propitiation to all in the new covenant, all are under sin but for Christ Himself and the least who I expect is sold - rather than fallen - under Satan.)
Then there is an equivalent disjunction in:
s v (s-1&Pos(r&s)-1 => v-1) which rearranges to: v-1 v (v&Pos(r&s)-1 => s)
That for one not under the law and also without grace (neither covenant holds - i.e. Pos(r&s)-1 found solely in the cross of Christ and His intercession thereby) has no faith or grace (s-1) by the new covenant and is spiritually "dead" in v-1(as conjoined in s-1&v-1), just as simply as one alive (v) in the new covenant s&v is saved (s) even if the law will not hold and all grace is denied to the Christ as "that prophet", which then permits the election of anyone.
And I would argue the set in s-1&v-1 is very large and possibly restricted to only the non-elect, whilst the set in s&v is ever growing.
And as by the disobedience of one man Adam brought in a multitude of sins, so the obedience of Christ has brought in much more abundant grace to many.
And I state that u&v is a "maximised" set of chosen (elect) but (r&s)-1 is minimal and is only of Christ crucified and that was His free choice alone.
So, does the law "break"?
I must have that it is impossible for Pos(r-1) to hold upon anyone (without Pos(s-1)) and most especially Christ with Him crucified. Then Pos(p&r-1) => Pos(s). It really is that simple. Christ, is without need of His own grace in "p" and any of His own intercession as He is without sin ("u" holds and r-1, the condemnation of the law or its lack of propitiation for that "witnessed blasphemy" leaves r-1 effectively empty in the case of Christ and before God but for the principal er). So, the law indeed "broke" in crucifying Him. Christ fulfilled the law, so r is also effectively empty without need of any propitiation in His one case.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(KJV)
Then I also state that Pos(u&v)
is a necessity for Christ in His own case, being "that prophet". Then Pos(p&r&s) is then found a necessity equal to Pos(u&v) by axiom of virtue (see the book chapter [2.1a]) and (r&s)-1 is effectively empty of all work - Christ is crucified.
I also state that if of necessity Pos(p&r-1) => Pos(s) then I must find for consistency Pos(r) and ¬Pos(r-1). The law "breaks" and will not condemn Christ, by offering Him no propitiation for which Christ is instead offered by the new covenant in "s". The set r-1 is never positive but for the principal element of rest er, and so the law cannot continue as "good", and it is broken by Christ's crucifixion.
Christ's life takes the place of that (as of the law of Moses) former propitiation and especially so in that place required as for Himself; yet He is without any sin and is confirmed raised from the dead blameless. Christ is the firstborn of the resurrection and is that resurrection.
So, without such a prosaic statement as "the law's condemnation of Christ broke the law itself" I state that the propitiation of Christ's blameless life took the place of the law's own mechanism of propitiation and instead justified Him blameless (whilst dead of the cross) and also without sin, and then superceding the mechanism of propitiation - being always a fitting atonement for any and all for whom he would intercede in grace in the new covenant He confirmed with Israel.
So, a long walk to get where I wanted to be!
For now I must have Pos(p&r-1) => Pos(p)&Pos(r-1), where Pos(r-1) is rested upon simply as Pos(er). The "God-like" set r&er has been "split" to r-1&er, as by necessity the right hand side of "r v s" is chosen as r is, effectively in the case of Christ, empty. The law has been broken of its status as "good" and replaced by "better" instead! (Christ on the cross supercedes that propitiation as His own obedience is enough to save Himself, fulfilling the law and justifying us along with Him.)
And the Christ has already come for this to have happened, and as the law could not condemn Him He is risen.
Continue To Next Page
Return To Section Start |
