A Blended Gospel

[Drew]

Just lets me know that you dont understand the difference but alot of christians do,,,me being one of them,,,so lets look at the verse


Leviticus 19:19 "Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."


Thou shall keep what?????? statutes,,,,many of the statutes are of no effect anymore because of Christ,,,,but the law is still in effect,,,,by asking this you show your ignorance concerning the statutes tof God.......

Your argument here rests on a very shaky assumption - that a reference to a statute is a reference to something other than "the Law". I suggest that the correct reading of both Old and New Testaments is this:

1. "The Law" (the Torah) = all 613 rules, practices, statutes, ordnances set forth in the Pentatuech.

and not this (which seems to be your view):

2. There exists a "Law" which is supplemented by "ordnances and statutes" which are not part of the Law.

In this post, I do not specifically argue for position 1 (which I believe is the correct position). I merely point out that there is no reason assume that, just because the word "statute" is a different word from the wor "law", this means that statutes are something other than "the Law".

I plan to post other material that makes the case that all 613 "items" in the written code are what Paul refers to as "the Law".

 

[Drew]

What Paul writes in Galatians 2 makes it clear that he uses the term “law†in a sense that includes the kosher purity laws, given as part of the written code of Torah. This is powerful evidence that Paul’s use of the term “law†is not limited to what we normally think of as the “moral†components (e.g. the 10 commandments), but rather includes all the written code.

In Galatians 2, Paul writes of a dispute he had with Peter over table-fellowship. Peter had been encouraging Jews and Gentiles to eat at separate tables. What is not explicitly stated, but is clear from implication, is that Peter’s motivation would have been grounded in the prescriptions of the Torah, where food laws served the function of marking out the Jews as a distinct people. Thus, we have this from Leviticus 20:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

Paul argues that Peter is incorrect and insists on a single table for Jews. In so doing, he is implicitly saying that the Levitical food laws have come to an end – if they were still in force, then it would indeed make sense for Jews to eat apart from Gentiles. But the key point, for present purposes, is that Paul uses the term “Law†in such a way that food “statutes†are part of the law. Note how Paul makes his point that Jew and Gentile belong at the same table:

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified

The logic is quite simple and clear:

1. Paul is arguing for a single table for Jews and Gentiles;

2. Peter’s motivation for separate tables is grounded in the purity food laws;

3. Paul supports his argument for a single table by denying people are justified by the Torah – the Law.

4. This can only make sense if Paul understands the Torah to include food laws. If Paul thinks that the food laws are “statutes†apart from the Torah – the Law – why does he refer to the fact that people are not justified by the Law as the explanation for his position on the table fellowship issue? If he had a distinction between “Law†and “food statues†in mind, he should have said something like this: “a man is not justified by the food statute/b]….â€Â. But, of course, he does not.

Paul clearly uses the word “Law†– at least here – to include the kosher food ordnances.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Hey Drew

I will catch up tonight....Every time I get ready to sit down something pops up.....

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Now it would seem,,, you dont know the difference in sacrifices and the law itself......

Well then, you appear to leveling the same accusation at Paul:

For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

The "Law" for Paul clearly includes this rule about not muzzling an ox. It is part of the Torah - the Law, you can look it up in the Old Testament if you do not believe me. You say the Law is still in force. Therefore, you must believe that we should not muzzle an ox.

And, of course, as I believe I have been arguing, Paul properly understands that the time of the Law has come to an end - God is no longer concerned about muzzling oxen.

Actually Drew you are wrong,,,,you implied that I didnt understand the law.....The law says more then just to stone adulterers........Do you understand who is to be stoned and who is to drink bitter water???????

 

[Drew]

Actually Drew you are wrong,,,,you implied that I didnt understand the law.....

The evidence suggests that you do not, in fact, understand the meaning of the term “the Law†. You wrote this:

Leviticus 19:19 "Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

Thou shall keep what?????? statutes,,,,many of the statutes are of no effect anymore because of Christ,,,,but the law is still in effect,,,,by asking this you show your ignorance concerning the statutes tof God.......

You clearly seem to think that the thing about the cattle is a statute and not part of the Law. On what basis do you draw this conclusion? Apparently because two different words are used. But in so doing, you ignore the possibility that the term "statutes" is used to denote something that is part of the Law.

That would be like arguing that you have not broken “the law†simply because the thing you have violated is described by the term “statuteâ€Â. Do you see what I mean?

And this assumption of yours is contradicted by the Biblical evidence. In an earlier post, I showed how it was clear that Paul considered a certain “rule†about how you muzzle an ox to be a part of the Law of Moses. If you want to call it a statute, you are free to do so. But, either way, Paul considers it to be part of the Law.

Same thing with the other post I made about Galatians 2. In that material, Paul clearly considers the kosher food laws (e.g. as set forth in Leviticus) to be part of the Law of Moses. Again, you are free to call such rules “statutes†if you like, but is clear that Paul sees them – whatever they are called – as being part of the Law of Moses.

And since you keep saying that the Law is still in force, then, to preserve this view, you need to say that Jews (or perhaps everyone) should still be following the kosher food laws and observing the rules about the oxen, since Paul clearly represents these things as part of “the Lawâ¬Â.

Do you believe such “statutes†are still to be obeyed?

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Actually Drew you are wrong,,,,you implied that I didnt understand the law.....

The evidence suggests that you do not, in fact, understand the meaning of the term “the Law†. You wrote this:

Leviticus 19:19 "Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

Thou shall keep what?????? statutes,,,,many of the statutes are of no effect anymore because of Christ,,,,but the law is still in effect,,,,by asking this you show your ignorance concerning the statutes tof God.......

You clearly seem to think that the thing about the cattle is a statute and not part of the Law. On what basis do you draw this conclusion? Apparently because two different words are used. But in so doing, you ignore the possibility that the term "statutes" is used to denote something that is part of the Law.

That would be like arguing that you have not broken “the law†simply because the thing you have violated is described by the term “statuteâ€Â. Do you see what I mean?

And this assumption of yours is contradicted by the Biblical evidence. In an earlier post, I showed how it was clear that Paul considered a certain “rule†about how you muzzle an ox to be a part of the Law of Moses. If you want to call it a statute, you are free to do so. But, either way, Paul considers it to be part of the Law.

Same thing with the other post I made about Galatians 2. In that material, Paul clearly considers the kosher food laws (e.g. as set forth in Leviticus) to be part of the Law of Moses. Again, you are free to call such rules “statutes†if you like, but is clear that Paul sees them – whatever they are called – as being part of the Law of Moses.

And since you keep saying that the Law is still in force, then, to preserve this view, you need to say that Jews (or perhaps everyone) should still be following the kosher food laws and observing the rules about the oxen, since Paul clearly represents these things as part of “the Lawâ€Â.

Do you believe such “statutes†are still to be obeyed?

I have shared what I believe on the cattle thing,,,as you so nicely presented.....

One point at a time,,, you believe that we should not stone adulterers based on the fact you believe the law is retired......But the reason Christ did not say to stone her is because the law was not being followed.....My point is if you dont understand who you are to stone and who is to partake of bitter water,,,wouldnt that make you the one who doesnt fully understand the law???????

SO do you understand what to do with adulterers based the law???????

Or would you like me to comment on the cattle thing?????????

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Actually Drew you are wrong,,,,you implied that I didnt understand the law.....

The evidence suggests that you do not, in fact, understand the meaning of the term “the Law†. You wrote this:

Leviticus 19:19 "Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

Thou shall keep what?????? statutes,,,,many of the statutes are of no effect anymore because of Christ,,,,but the law is still in effect,,,,by asking this you show your ignorance concerning the statutes tof God.......

You clearly seem to think that the thing about the cattle is a statute and not part of the Law. On what basis do you draw this conclusion? Apparently because two different words are used. But in so doing, you ignore the possibility that the term "statutes" is used to denote something that is part of the Law.

That would be like arguing that you have not broken “the law†simply because the thing you have violated is described by the term “statuteâ€Â. Do you see what I mean?

And this assumption of yours is contradicted by the Biblical evidence. In an earlier post, I showed how it was clear that Paul considered a certain “rule†about how you muzzle an ox to be a part of the Law of Moses. If you want to call it a statute, you are free to do so. But, either way, Paul considers it to be part of the Law.

Same thing with the other post I made about Galatians 2. In that material, Paul clearly considers the kosher food laws (e.g. as set forth in Leviticus) to be part of the Law of Moses. Again, you are free to call such rules “statutes†if you like, but is clear that Paul sees them – whatever they are called – as being part of the Law of Moses.

And since you keep saying that the Law is still in force, then, to preserve this view, you need to say that Jews (or perhaps everyone) should still be following the kosher food laws and observing the rules about the oxen, since Paul clearly represents these things as part of “the Lawâ€Â.

Do you believe such “statutes†are still to be obeyed?

I have shared what I believe on the cattle thing,,,as you so nicely presented.....

One point at a time,,, you believe that we should not stone adulterers based on the fact you believe the law is retired......But the reason Christ did not say to stone her is because the law was not being followed.....My point is if you dont understand who you are to stone and who is to partake of bitter water,,,wouldnt that make you the one who doesnt fully understand the law???????

SO do you understand what to do with adulterers based the law???????

Or would you like me to comment on the cattle thing?????????

OOPS sorry Drew I ment to say I havent shared what I believe concerning the cattle thing....

But let me ask you this,,,,under the old law,,,should the woman have been stoned????? careful now..

 

[Drew]

Hi NIGHTMARE:

I am not following your arguments. Besides I do not think that I can make my arguments any clearer. I will probably move on unless you wish to reframe your questions - I do not understand them.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Hi NIGHTMARE:

I am not following your arguments. Besides I do not think that I can make my arguments any clearer. I will probably move on unless you wish to reframe your questions - I do not understand them.

Drew you believe that the law is retired,,thus you try and make this point by saying we dont stone adulterers........You say the law says to stone adulterers,,,but is a incomplete esement of the law......

The law says Thou shat not comit adultery,,,,after it has been comited you dont just stone them.....

John 8:4 "They say unto Him, "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act."

John 8:5 "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?"

By using the word "adultery" verse 8 show us that this woman was married,,,,,, or committed to be married,,,,,so basically she is someones wife........

So what is his/her punishment Drew????????

Deuteronomy 22:22; "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."

Deuteronomy 22:23, 24; "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her;" [23] "Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; The damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." [24]

So the punishment is death for the male and the female,,,,,,So were the scribes and pharisees following the law by bring this woman to Chrsit??????? NO they were not following the law,,,if they had been they would have also brung the male....how can they catch her in the act but not the male????

SO they have broken the law,,,and tried to trick Christ at the same time.......

So if you really understand the law,,then you understand that the requirements had not been met to stone this woman.........

If you let the male go then the woman does not fall under Deuteronomy 22:22;

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."

The woman falls under Numbers 5:23

Numbers 5:23, 24; "And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter :" [23] "And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter." [24]

So the scribes and the pharisees arent even following the law......

After all was said and done,,,what did Christ say to the woman Drew??????? He said::

John 8:11 "She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Sin no more,,,,,the law isnt retired and Christ just told this woman to sin no more meaning follow the law......

Whats so hard to understand???? lets look at what Paul said concerning the law......

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Romans 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

This is exactly what your saying Drew,,,,,That the because of faith/grace the law is retired,,,,,Paul says God forbid.........

Surely the law is in effect it is what we base our everyday living off of,,,,,,Christ dying on a cross does not erase the ten commandment or the simple laws we use to govern....

Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

When this happen ------- He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. [50] And, behold, the veil of the Temple was rent in twain form the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;" [51]

all of the ordinance and sacrificial ritual that deal with blood and animals are done away with....

SO does Christ dying on a cross mean all laws are done away with????

God forbid.........

 

[Drew]

Drew you believe that the law is retired,,

That is correct. And in doing so, I am only agreeing with someone else who has clearly stated that the written code of the Torah has been retired - Paul. And while Jesus never explicitly declares the Law to be retired, His words and his action clearly show that this is so.

I trust that you understand that the term "Law" as used by a first century Jew like Jesus or Paul would specifically denote the written code of the Law of Moses. It is this that has been retired. Things get complicated here because Paul (in Romans 3:31) also asserts that "the law" has been established. But when he writes that, he is referring to something other than the written code - the 613 "rules" in the Mosaic Law.

If you believe that the Mosaic Law is still in force, I think you are backing a horse that cannot win.

 

[Drew]

You say the law says to stone adulterers,,,but is a incomplete esement of the law......

Now I think I see the problem. As per my last post, you are perhaps saying that, as per Romans 3:31, "the Law" is established. Fair enough - but this "law" that is established is not the Law of Moses - it is Paul's way of referring to the action of the action of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

In the preceding verse, he has introduced this concept of a "law" of the Spirit of Life - and you would be smoking some serious weed if you expect me to say that this law is retired - it clearly has been established. In my previous posts, I never talked about the sense in which there is a "law" that has been established. But that omission was motivated by not wanting things to get too complicated, since I thought we were talking about the written code. But now this "law that has been established" has been explicitly i out in the open. My point all along was the the written code of Torah has been retired. Now note what Paul says next. In the following verse, the term "Law" clearly denotes the Law of Moses - which he elsewhere states has been retired.

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

 

[Drew]

So were the scribes and pharisees following the law by bring this woman to Chrsit??????? NO they were not following the law,,,if they had been they would have also brung the male....how can they catch her in the act but not the male????

SO they have broken the law,,,and tried to trick Christ at the same time.......

So if you really understand the law,,then you understand that the requirements had not been met to stone this woman.........

First of all, the fact that the Pharisees were "breaking the Law" is an entirely independent matter of Jesus' position regarding the status of the Law. Many of the things that Jesus says and does show that He believes that the Torah is no longer in force. So whether the Pharisees were following the law or not is irrelevant - the Law has been done away with. Nothing Jesus says in the "woman caught in adultery" episode has any force in countering my assertion that Jesus believes that the Law of Moses has been retired. If they had brought the man along, the result would have been the same - Jesus would not let them stone either of them.

Let's be careful here. I hope you are not arguing like this:

1. A woman is caught in adultery for which the Law prescribes stoning;

2. The Pharisees only seek to have the woman stoned when they should seek the stoning of both man and woman if the Law is to be followed;

3. Therefore - and this is where the error would be - we can conclude that the reason why Jesus did not endorse the stoning is because the Pharisees were not following the law properly.

That would be incorrect logic. Statement 3 is not a logically necessary implication of statements 1 and 2. I suggest that even if the Pharisees has brought the man along as well, Jesus would still have not allowed the stoning to proceed. Why? Because as per other things Jesus does and says (and I can get into these things if you like), we know that Jesus believes that the Law of Moses was being retired through His (Jesus’) own work.

 

[Drew]

Romans 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

This is exactly what your saying Drew,,,,,That the because of faith/grace the law is retired,,,,,Paul says God forbid.........

My recent posts should make it clear that my position is entirely consistent with what Paul says here - He is not talking about the Law of Moses being established, he is talking about the "law" of "the Spirit of life" being established.

Its complicated - Paul has two "laws" in mind, one that is retired - the Law of Moses as expressed in the 613 rules - and the "law of the Spirit", which has been established.

I have already explained how the Matthew 5 text is consistent with the assertion that the Law of Moses has been retired - see page 1 of this thread.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Drew you believe that the law is retired,,

That is correct. And in doing so, I am only agreeing with someone else who has clearly stated that the written code of the Torah has been retired - Paul. And while Jesus never explicitly declares the Law to be retired, His words and his action clearly show that this is so.

I trust that you understand that the term "Law" as used by a first century Jew like Jesus or Paul would specifically denote the written code of the Law of Moses. It is this that has been retired. Things get complicated here because Paul (in Romans 3:31) also asserts that "the law" has been established. But when he writes that, he is referring to something other than the written code - the 613 "rules" in the Mosaic Law.

If you believe that the Mosaic Law is still in force, I think you are backing a horse that cannot win.

Do you ever sin or trangress against the law Drew???????? If what you say is true then you dont....

Rom. 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

The definiton of sin,,is to trangress the law,,,,so when Christ told the woman that had been caught in the act of adultery,,,,What Christ was saying was go and dont trangress the law anymore,,,,,

Now why would Christ tell someone not to trangress a law that is retired?????

Things get complicated here because Paul (in Romans 3:31) also asserts that "the law" has been established. But when he writes that, he is referring to something other than the written code - the 613 "rules" in the Mosaic Law.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

I believe it is simple,, but we can flip 3 chps over and get the same thought...

Romans 6:1 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?


Romans 6:2 "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

 

[Drew]

Do you ever sin or trangress against the law Drew???????? If what you say is true then you dont....

If by "the Law" you are referring to the written code of the Law of Moses, then my answer is, following Paul and Jesus, that the Law of Moses is no longer in force. So the question cannot be answered. If you are asking me if I have ever "grieved the Spirit" and not followed its promptings, then my answer would be "yes", I have sinned in that sense.

Rom. 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

The definiton of sin,,is to trangress the law,,,,

I think you are mistaken. Paul says where there is no law, there is no transgression. But there still be sin even in the absence of a law. Paul says so right here:

for until the Law sin was in the world,..

Clearly Paul believes that even before the Torah was given, people sinned. So one can sin in the absence of law. Sin and transgression are not the same.

 

[Drew]

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

You and I might find it complicated but we need to honour what Paul has actually written. He clearly believes that the Law of Moses is retired and has been "replaced" with the "law of Spirit of life":

Here is statement from Paul about a "law" that has been established:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death

....and here is a statement from this same Paul that the Law of Moses has been abolished:

by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,

Is Paul's concept of 2 laws complicated and confusing? Perhaps.

Biblical? Definitely.

 

[Drew]

In defence of the position that the Torah has not been abolished, some will put forward this promise from the book of Jeremiah

"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.â€Â

I see this text differently. I do not see this is a promise that the "rules of Torah" are written on people's hearts. I see it as a promise that the "true essence" of Torah, which is not the "rules", get written on the heart. There is a difference. The "true essence" of Torah is, I suggest, what Jesus is talking about in Matthew, when He says that all the Law and the Prophets "depend" on loving God and loving neighbour. And, I suggest, this what Paul is talking about in Romans 3:31 when he writes about establishment of "the law".

Lest ye think that this position is a pure "invention of convenience" on my part (e.g. to reconcile my position that Torah has been abolished with the clear implication of the above text that suggests otherwise), I will refer to at least a few things Paul says that countenance such a distinction:

25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

And what has Paul written moments before?

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

I suggest this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualization of the Law. One of these is the set of formal practices that mark Jew from Gentile (with particular emphasis on things like Sabbath and purity laws). The other is the "essence of Torah" that even the Gentile can follow. Note that Paul is talking about Gentiles, as uncircumcised men, keeping the Law.

Any Jew worth his salt would immediately, and rightly, protest that circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of Torah (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Torah was for Israel alone (I suspect some of you will challenge me on this!). In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that there is an aspect of Torah that the Gentile does not possess - the Gentile is characterized as "not having the Law".

Although things get complicated, if we are to take Paul seriously here, we have to see him as discerning two aspects of Torah - the one that demarcates the Jew from the Gentile (including, e.g., circumcision) and the one that "gets written on the heart of the Gentile" (and the believing Jew, of course).

Note also how such an interpretation allows us to make sense of clear statements that Torah has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that it has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31). The Torah that has been abolished is the one that marked the Jew from the Gentile - all the "rules and regulations", and the Torah that has been established is the one written on the heart of Jew and Gentile alike who have faith in Christ - the imperative to love God and love neighbour.

Consider also this from Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Yet again, we have Paul with two faces to Torah. Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of Torah but did not arrive "at that law" - the true essence of the Torah. I suspect my worthy opponents here will suggest that I am implying the existence of two Torahs, when there is in fact only one, and that the Jew here failed to "arrive at the 'good way' of doing that Torah" because they pursued it in a specifically legalistic manner.

Fair enough, but my point about the Torah is not that there are two entirely distinct Torahs, but rather that the "Torah of rules and regulations" is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of Torah. It is because the Jew pursued the "rules and regulations" and forgot the heart that the problem arose. And, as per Romans 10 (just a few breaths later), they did so not so much from a legalistic error, but rather from a "racial exclusion" error:

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

From these texts, we see that Paul's view of Torah is complex and OT promises about the Torah being written on the heart can indeed be reconciled with the notion that Torah, as a system of regulations and practices, has indeed been retired.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

In defence of the position that the Torah has not been abolished, some will put forward this promise from the book of Jeremiah

"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.â€Â

I see this text differently. I do not see this is a promise that the "rules of Torah" are written on people's hearts. I see it as a promise that the "true essence" of Torah, which is not the "rules", get written on the heart. There is a difference. The "true essence" of Torah is, I suggest, what Jesus is talking about in Matthew, when He says that all the Law and the Prophets "depend" on loving God and loving neighbour. And, I suggest, this what Paul is talking about in Romans 3:31 when he writes about establishment of "the law".

Lest ye think that this position is a pure "invention of convenience" on my part (e.g. to reconcile my position that Torah has been abolished with the clear implication of the above text that suggests otherwise), I will refer to at least a few things Paul says that countenance such a distinction:

25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

And what has Paul written moments before?

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

I suggest this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualization of the Law. One of these is the set of formal practices that mark Jew from Gentile (with particular emphasis on things like Sabbath and purity laws). The other is the "essence of Torah" that even the Gentile can follow. Note that Paul is talking about Gentiles, as uncircumcised men, keeping the Law.

Any Jew worth his salt would immediately, and rightly, protest that circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of Torah (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Torah was for Israel alone (I suspect some of you will challenge me on this!). In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that there is an aspect of Torah that the Gentile does not possess - the Gentile is characterized as "not having the Law".

Although things get complicated, if we are to take Paul seriously here, we have to see him as discerning two aspects of Torah - the one that demarcates the Jew from the Gentile (including, e.g., circumcision) and the one that "gets written on the heart of the Gentile" (and the believing Jew, of course).

Note also how such an interpretation allows us to make sense of clear statements that Torah has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that it has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31). The Torah that has been abolished is the one that marked the Jew from the Gentile - all the "rules and regulations", and the Torah that has been established is the one written on the heart of Jew and Gentile alike who have faith in Christ - the imperative to love God and love neighbour.

Consider also this from Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Yet again, we have Paul with two faces to Torah. Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of Torah but did not arrive "at that law" - the true essence of the Torah. I suspect my worthy opponents here will suggest that I am implying the existence of two Torahs, when there is in fact only one, and that the Jew here failed to "arrive at the 'good way' of doing that Torah" because they pursued it in a specifically legalistic manner.

Fair enough, but my point about the Torah is not that there are two entirely distinct Torahs, but rather that the "Torah of rules and regulations" is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of Torah. It is because the Jew pursued the "rules and regulations" and forgot the heart that the problem arose. And, as per Romans 10 (just a few breaths later), they did so not so much from a legalistic error, but rather from a "racial exclusion" error:

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

From these texts, we see that Paul's view of Torah is complex and OT promises about the Torah being written on the heart can indeed be reconciled with the notion that Torah, as a system of regulations and practices, has indeed been retired.

The Mosaic law says thou shalt not steal,,,,,is this still in effect????

Romans 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."

If you do not know the law,,,then you use common sense....So in truth common sense becomes the law,,,this is why they are a law to themselves.....Most people have some idea of right and wrong, even if they dont know the law....So by nature (common sense) they do things contained in the law.....

Romans 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;)"

Even people and nations that dont have the law have common sense and a conscience.....
Those that do not have the law will lean towards there common sense and a conscience,,,apologys and to accuse or excuse.......

The Mosaic laws sayd thou shalt not covit,,,,is this law still in effect????????

Romans 2:25 "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision."

If you comit yourself to obeying the law,,,,and then turn right around and break the law,,,then your notion/things you have done for the law become in vein......It goes right back to Romans 2:14

Romans 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."

I would rather not have the law and do by nature the things contained in the law,,,then have the law and break it and become uncircumcised........

Romans 9:30 "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith."

NOt much commentary needed,,,,,but I will add even the gentiles that died before Christ came ,,were given the chance to believe on Christ.......


The Mosaic law says thou shal not comit murder,,,is this retired????

 

[Drew]

The Mosaic law says thou shalt not steal,,,,,is this still in effect????

No it is not. At least not as a "rule". The picture that Paul gives us is one where the believer is given the Holy Spririt, and is to be guided by that. To think in terms of "living by rules" is to miss the point of one of the great aspects of covenant renewal - the writing of the law on the heart. Now what I am saying here is a little bit of a simplification, and I am not suggesting that we should look to the Old Testament for "guidance". But, the life of the believer this side of the cross should not be primarily "rule driven". Now I can understand a number of objections to this answer, even from those who share my view that Torah is retired. I would need to write much more to fully express my position on this. But one thing I think is beyond scriptural doubt - the Law of Moses, as a written code, has been done away with.

And please do not ask me if this means that I believe its ok to rob a bank.

Romans 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."

If you do not know the law,,,then you use common sense....So in truth common sense becomes the law,,,this is why they are a law to themselves.....Most people have some idea of right and wrong, even if they dont know the law....So by nature (common sense) they do things contained in the law.....

Romans 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;)"

Even people and nations that dont have the law have common sense and a conscience.....

I think you have misunderstood these verses. Paul is not talking about "people in general" here, he is talking about Gentile Christians in particular. Big difference. I will post a detailed argument for this tomorrow.