Can man change Gods Law?

[Hobie]

There are many people that say they lift up Christ, yet reject Gods Law which comes from love. Can man change Gods Law or is this idea a snare which has been set up to excuse sin. The Law shows Gods love for man in keeping him from the destructiveness of sin and how to love God back and our fellowman, and by showing us His love in sending prophets and teachers to explain and illustrate His Law. So could it be as some say that Christ wiped out the Law when he came:

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

Christ himself declares that he came not to destroy the law of ten precepts, which was spoken from Sinai. He says, "Verily I say unto you,"-- making the assertion as emphatic as possible,--"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Here he teaches not merely what the claims of God's law had been and were then, but that these claims should hold so long as the heavens and the earth remain. This testimony should forever settle the question. The law of God is as immutable as his throne. It will maintain its claims upon all mankind in all ages, unchanged by time or place or circumstances. The ritual system was of altogether a different character, and typified the death of Christ as a sacrifice for the broken precepts of the moral law. "I am not come to destroy," Christ says, "but to fulfill,"--"to magnify the law and make it honorable," as Isaiah, hundreds of years before, had prophesied respecting the Messiah's work.

"To fulfill the law." In his own life the Saviour gave the children of men an example of perfect obedience. In his teachings he made clear and distinct every precept of the divine law, so who has the power to change, surely not man.

 

[Drew]

There are many people that say they lift up Christ, yet reject Gods Law which comes from love. Can man change Gods Law or is this idea a snare which has been set up to excuse sin.

We need to be clear about what we are actually talking about. When Paul talks about the "law" having been done away - and he clearly does so - he is talking specifically about the Jewish Law - the Torah -the Law of Moses.

And while "man" has not done away with the Law of Moses, Paul sees that God has, in fact, done away with it:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

The "He" here is Jesus. Paul is quite clear - the work of Jesus on the cross brings about the end of the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

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

My argument is that Jesus fulfills the Law in a manner that brings the law to an end. If I get on a plane to fly to London, when I get there, I stop flying. The purpose of flying has been fulfilled, so the flying stops.

This is what I think is happening with the Law. Jesus fulfills it in the same sense - in a way that brings it application to a close.

Again, remember, it is the Law of Moses that Jesus is referring to.

 

[elijah23]

Can man change God’s law? No, I don’t think so.

 

[ProphetMark]

Jesus was a man. He changed God's law. As far as I know, no other man can though.

 

[Drew]

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."

This saying needs to be understood in the context of a system of "apocalyptic" language that is deeply ingrained in the Hebrew literary (including Biblical) tradition.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, Torah has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Torah will remain in force basically to the end of time

 

[Drew]

I have a quick question.
you say man can not change Gods law, but Paul clearly does this, as he is just a man (not even a Prophet).

Paul announces that the Law of Moses has been abolished. But this does not mean that he is the agent responsible for the abolition of the Law. Paul's argument is that God, not Paul, has abolished the Law of Moses.

While Jesus (AS) clearly says he came to uphold Gods law.

I do not believe Jesus ever says anything like this. He says he came to fulfill the law.

There is an important distinction to be understood here. As I have already shown, there is clearly a way for the law to both fulfilled and also "retired" or abolished. So we know that fulfillment of the law can go with retirement of the Law.

I suggest that Jesus is saying "I have not come to tell you that the Law is a bad thing that needs to be done away with, I have come to complete the job of the Law, and once that job is completed, the function of the Law has come to an end and so it can then be retired.

 

[Drew]

Where does Jesus (AS) say he or God has done away with Jewish law?

In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate the setting aside of God’s Laws in favour of human ones. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws. Remember, the kosher laws are part of the Law of Moses. So we know that Jesus is abolishing at least part of the Law of Moses:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean.

So the fact that Jesus also repudiates abandonment of Torah in favour of man-made laws must not be seen as His only point in the whole chapter. It clearly is not - in addition to repudiating such add-ons, He also declares all foods clean. And that is at variance with Torah itself, not man's distortions of it.

This may seem incoherent – if Jesus criticizes the substitution of man-made laws for Torah, surely he must be affirming Torah, mustn’t He? The answer is no. It is entirely coherent for Jesus to offer an historical critique – telling the Pharisees that they tossed aside God’s laws and replaced them with human ones – and yet go on to declare the abolition of Torah itself, as He so clearly does here. Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees does not endorse the continued applicability of Torah – He is critiquing their attitude to it in the time of its applicability, which, interestingly, comes to an end in His very declaration that all foods are indeed clean – a clear overturning of Levitical food laws themselves.

 

[adam332]

Drew,
you are quite mistaken. Eating without washing your hands is not in the Torah, it's in the Mishnah. The Mishnah was what they called the oral law. It is now in writing, some rabbi finally put them on paper long after Christ was dead.

You have taken this story completely out of context. First go back a few verses, see what you find.

1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

It told you twice right off the bat that this was the "tradition of the elders", v. 3,5. Why did you keep implying he was voiding the Torah?

In case that wasn't plain enough, you should have at least listened to Jesus...
v.7 ...teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
v.8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men....
v.9 ...ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
v.13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition...

There are two contrasting accusations in this story.
Both sides accuse the other of being defiled.
The pharisees thought the disciples were defiled for eating with unwashed hand.

Christ then jumps on their case for their condemning people over man-made traditions, instead of actual commandments of God.

Do you get it now? He was telling everyone that the Pharisees man-made doctrines coming from their mouths, was more defiling than the dirty hands his disciples ate with.

No where was any kind of meat mentioned at all. You also repeatedly said that Christ said all foods are clean in your post. Not true, never was the word "clean" used. Dirt versus bad doctrine was the subject, period. You might as well use this passage to condone cannibalism, eating poisonous plants and animals, eating poop like a dog, etc... Nothing is defiling, right? Such a thought also blows the whole "your body is a temple" out of the water.

Plainly this passage gives the opposite instruction. It repeatedly upholds the commandments of God, not void them.

Sorry Drew, but this passage provides not one iota of support for your claims. It may be prudent next time to read the whole story before teaching what the story is actually about.

Adam

 

[Drew]

Drew,
you are quite mistaken. Eating without washing your hands is not in the Torah, it's in the Mishnah.

My point was simply this: The Law of Moses said certain foods are unclean - this is in Leviticus. Jesus says otherwise. Therefore, Jesus is setting aside at least this part of the Law of Moses.

You have taken this story completely out of context.

No, I have not, as I will argue in a subsequent post.

It told you twice right off the bat that this was the "tradition of the elders", v. 3,5. Why did you keep implying he was voiding the Torah?

Not the point. Yes, Jesus is critiquing the "tradition of the elders". But that does not change the fact that He goes on to declare all foods clean. And all foods are not clean, according to the Law of Moses.

Do you get it now? He was telling everyone that the Pharisees man-made doctrines coming from their mouths, was more defiling than the dirty hands his disciples ate with.

This is only part of what Jesus says. I hear this argument all the time. You are basically arguing that because Jesus critiques man-made additions to the Law of Moses, He cannot also be overturning the Law of Moses. And, of course, it is entirely possible that He is doing both. And it is clear in the following that Jesus is going beyond the issue of handwashing and overturning the Levitical kosher laws:

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?

This goes beyond the matter of handwashing - Jesus is overturning the Levitical food laws - part of the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

Sorry Drew, but this passage provides not one iota of support for your claims. It may be prudent next time to read the whole story before teaching what the story is actually about.

On the contrary, I assert that my position is quite sound.

It is commonly held that in the Mark 7 encounter over purity laws (and the parallel account in Matthew), Jesus’ central aim is to critique the Pharisees for adding man-made traditions to the pure core of Torah. I suggest that this position rests on the extremely weak implicit supposition that since Jesus begins his critique with an attack on Pharasaic add-ons, that focus must be preserved throughout the encounter. There is obviously no “rule†that prohibits a person (such as Jesus) from shifting the target of his critique from one thing to another. And this is clearly what is happening in the Mark 7 encounter.

The person who thinks that Jesus is not overturning the Levitical food laws is faced with an enormous challenge: the Torah clearly asserts that eating certain foods make the Jew unclean, and yet Jesus says these things:

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16"If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"

I am, frankly, mystified at why the argument does not end here – Jesus is clearly talking about food in this section and is saying that no foods defile. This is a direct challenge to the Levitical food laws. And yet some insist on trumping the plain meaning of what Jesus is saying by (apparently) appealing to the notion that the initial focus of Jesus’ critique – Pharisaic distortions to Torah – is still the central matter on the table. I am not sure how this really works – Jesus clearly is saying that all foods are clean in direct contradiction to the prescriptions of Torah.

Arguments can and do evolve – there is no rule that say “if you begin a discussion attacking item x, the rest of what you say in that encounter must be an elaboration of that critique of xâ€. Clearly the debate does indeed begin with a focus on Pharasaical add-ons to Torah. But when Jesus says that nothing that goes into the mouth defiles you, it is clear that Jesus is steering the conversation in another direction and is making the more general claim that the time of the Levitical food laws has come to an end. How can the food laws survive this claim by Jesus?

When we get statements like the following, it is obvious that the matter on the table is no longer Pharasaic distortions to Torah (which is clearly the focus of verses 1-13):

And He was saying, "(T)That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, (U)envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

This is clearly not an argument against the Pharisees adding things on to existing rules about how foods defile. If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

Clearly, Jesus is not still focused on the addition of distortions to food laws that are otherwise to be upheld. No – he is overturning the food laws. With the re-definition of the people of God to include Gentiles, there is no longer any room for symbols that set the Jew apart from the Gentile – and that is precisely what the food laws did. So now, they must be set aside. And this is what Jesus does.

 

[Packrat]

There are many levels of cleanliness, Drew. There is: cleanliness (normally imparted by bathing), ceremonial cleanliness (imparted by immersing oneself in aerated water according to the decrees of God) and spiritual cleanliness (imparted by Christ's cleansing blood). Which form of cleanliness is and is not being defiled in this passage should be examined in detail. Moreover there is the issue of "unclean" and "common."

This is in no way an easy passage unless one knows the Scriptures very well. And I don't believe there is any evidence that Christ taught against God's Torah but rather taught in favor of them by rebuking those who disobeyed them (Mark 7:7-8). We can see that the New Covenant had a number of purposes, none of which was to reject God's teachings. One of the purposes it served was to place these teachings on our hearts so that we would wish to obey them all the more and in the appropriate manner as prescribed by the love of God and man. But what does God have to say about those who disobey his commands?

Mark 7:6-8 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

I can see how parts of God's Torah were fulfilled, but in absolutely no way has all of it been fulfilled. More importantly, I don't see how fulfillment of God's teachings means that we should no longer follow God's teachings or that we're let loose to follow whatever desires of our heart we wish. Want to obey God or don't want to obey him? Well, Christ obeys God for us so I think I'll disobey him? :gah

Christ's fulfillment of the Torah means that he has visibly by the passage of time fully acted out those prophecies that prophesied of him. Now we presume that at least some of the regulations found in the Torah, such as the pouring out of blood upon the ground before you ate meat, were prophetic of Christ and awaited his fulfillment by his very acts. But in no way do his acts make us exempt from obeying God's Torah. They simply mean that he has brought a ceremonial ritual to its fullest spiritual sense. These rituals, some fulfilled and some yet to be fulfilled, still point to him and merit our obedience.

 

[Drew]

And I don't believe there is any evidence that Christ taught against God's Torah but rather taught in favor of them by rebuking those who disobeyed them (Mark 7:7-8).

I am not sure how you can deny that Jesus is overturning the kosher food law component of the Law of Moses. Jesus says this:

Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him.

Nothing means nothing. And the Law of Moses is quite clear - some things do indeed make you unclean. So I do not see how you have a workable argument here.

Here is the key point: You seem to think that just because Jesus critiques people who disobeyed the Law of Moses in the past, that Jesus cannot, in the present, do away with the food laws. Such an argument does not work - it is entirely coherent for Jesus to say "you guys should have obeyed the Law of Moses (regarding food), but I am telling you that this Law is coming to an end.

Besides, Packrat, I trust you understand that Paul clearly thinks that the Law of Moses has come to an end (Ephesians 2:15 is crystal clear about this).

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

The word of God shows that the law is PASSING AWAY. It is not yet gone nor will it be until heaven and earth pass away.

But what many are missing is that firstly the law of God is not eternal- it was not from the beginning but 430 yrs AFTER the promise to abraham and it will only be until heaven and earth pass away. The new heavens and earth will not have the law.-

The law is made FOR THE WICKED.1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

It is not that the law is yet gone- it is that those who are IN CHRIST are RIGHTOUS and WE die to the law! The law does not abide on us because we died in baptism and are now alive in Christ to obey God in the Spirit not the letter.

Our calling is higher than the law we are to walk and live by faith. The law only abides on the wicked because the purpose of the law was never to make anyone perfect- nor to save anyone- but to make all guilty before God so that we would see why we need a savior. it was never meant for the rightous to live by or under.

 

[Drew]

The word of God shows that the law is PASSING AWAY. It is not yet gone nor will it be until heaven and earth pass away.

I have provided a detailed argument about what the "until heaven and earth pass away" teaching is really about. You can find it earlier on in this thread - I do not believe that Jesus is intending us to take this statement literally.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

drew- the law is made for and abides only on the wicked. Those who are not saved by faith in Christ Jesus are under the law and condemned by it. The wicked will exist until heaven and earth pass away- that is when there is no longer a need for the law because there is no more wicked for it to condemn, there is no more wicked to be in need of a saviour.

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

If the law was either 1) completely gone now for all- then there would be no reason or way for men to be saved because they would not be abiding under condemnation that comes from the law and reveals their sin. or 2) still abided on believers- then we would all still be guilty of all sins we have ever done and would have a sacrifice for none of them and we would still be in the flesh.

The new covenant is for israel and judah. one must believe to be grafted into this covenant and be freed from the first that made nothing perfect.- otherwise you abide under the law until you are born again by faith. this will be the case until heaven and earth pass away at the end when the wicked and all sinners are destroyed and need not the law any longer

 

[Drew]

drew- the law is made for and abides only on the wicked. Those who are not saved by faith in Christ Jesus are under the law and condemned by it. The wicked will exist until heaven and earth pass away- that is when there is no longer a need for the law because there is no more wicked for it to condemn, there is no more wicked to be in need of a saviour.

I agree that the Law is for the wicked. But it is incorrect to reason as you are doing. Your argument appears to be this:

1. The Law is made for the wicked;
2. There will always be wicked people;
3. Therefore, there will always be the law.

This is not a correct argument. Just because the Law is made for the wicked does not mean that law will always be around as long as there wicked people. This is like saying that since surgical technique A exists to treat sick people, then as long as there are sick people, there will always be surgical technique A. This is simply not true.

The picture we get from Paul is pretty clears - the Law of Moses was done away with at the cross:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

 

[Packrat]

And I don't believe there is any evidence that Christ taught against God's Torah but rather taught in favor of them by rebuking those who disobeyed them (Mark 7:7-8).

I am not sure how you can deny that Jesus is overturning the kosher food law component of the Law of Moses. Jesus says this:

Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him.

Nothing means nothing. And the Law of Moses is quite clear - some things do indeed make you unclean. So I do not see how you have a workable argument here.

Here is the key point: You seem to think that just because Jesus critiques people who disobeyed the Law of Moses in the past, that Jesus cannot, in the present, do away with the food laws. Such an argument does not work - it is entirely coherent for Jesus to say "you guys should have obeyed the Law of Moses (regarding food), but I am telling you that this Law is coming to an end.

Besides, Packrat, I trust you understand that Paul clearly thinks that the Law of Moses has come to an end (Ephesians 2:15 is crystal clear about this).

Let's look at some translations of

Ephesians 2:15 (NIV) "by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,"

Uh oh. That's a big no no. Christ already said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." If Christ makes a difference between "abolish" and "fulfill" by saying that he has come to accomplish one and not the other then they must be different. However, most Christians treat them the same. After all, doesn't it make sense that a law which was made for a sin-stricken world would remain in effect to regulate our behavior until that world passed away? It wouldn't make any sense for a law made for a sin-stricken world to be done away with when there is still sin. Knowing this the more logical conclusion is that Christ was not speaking metaphorically when he spoke of God's Law remaining until heaven and earth passed away. Sin remains. One day God's Law (i.e. Teaching/Torah) will be done away with, but not when sin still remains. In fact we see it still in effect in Zechariah 14:19 during the (I presume) Millennial Reign of Christ. Not only this but God is obligating even Gentiles to follow it.

Ephesians 2:15 (Young's Literal) "the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,"

Hmmm.. That seems more reasonable. In fact there's a new word here that the other translation seemed to overlook. It's "enmity." Let's look at another.

Ephesians 2:15 (CJB) "by destroying in his own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances. He did this in order to create in union with himself from the two groups a single new humanity and thus make shalom,"

This says the same thing as Young's Literal. However, part A of the verse still does not quite explain part B of the verse. Notice that he does not say that the Torah caused the enmity but that the enmity was occasioned by the Torah. But what is this enmity that the Torah occasioned? Let's go back a verse and check it out again.

Ephesians 2:14-15 (CJB) "For he himself is our shalom - he has made us both one and has broken down the m'chitzah which divided us by destroying in his own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances. He did this in order to create in union with himself from the two groups a single new humanity and thus make shalom,"

What is a m'chitzah? It's a divider. In this case it was the partition in the temple which divided the Jews from the Gentiles. Paul is speaking about Christ abolishing the m'chitzah (the dividing wall - the enmity which divides two peoples) between the Jews and the Gentiles to indicate that we have become one people.

I know that the Torah made a distinction between Israelites and Gentiles, but in some instances it also tried to include in Israel's festivals to the Lord the Gentile sojourners in Israel. Now those who believe in Yeshua (i.e. Jesus) should no longer call themselves Gentiles but have become one with Israel. We have become God's people. Therefore we should follow God's Torah all the more since we have become one with his true Israel.

As for Jesus "abolishing," "overturning," or otherwise "doing away with" any part of God's Torah... it was not his purpose. He came to fulfill. He did. At least a lot of the Torah. He is coming again, I believe, to fulfill the rest of it. I think you may have overlooked what I said about there being various levels of cleanliness: physical, ceremonial and spiritual. Which of those levels of cleanliness is Jesus saying cannot be defiled by something entering into a man's mouth? Is he talking about ceremonial cleanliness (such rules of which are found in the Torah) or is he talking about spiritual? Because he goes on to say that what comes out of a man's mouth is what defiles him. Jesus' conclusion appears to be more of a spiritual issue - not a ceremonial one. It would be a thin argument to say that, after Jesus had finished rebuking the Pharisees for replacing God's Torah with their own teachings, Jesus was then replacing God's Torah. The Pharisees' tradition of washing their hands for ceremonial cleanliness was not found in the Torah.

 

[Drew]

Ephesians 2:15 (NIV) "by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,"

Uh oh. That's a big no no. Christ already said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." If Christ makes a difference between "abolish" and "fulfill" by saying that he has come to accomplish one and not the other then they must be different.

I have already addressed this - see earlier in this thread. It is demonstrably coherent to assert both the abolition of the Law and its fulfillment.

 

[Drew]

After all, doesn't it make sense that a law which was made for a sin-stricken world would remain in effect to regulate our behavior until that world passed away?

It would make sense, if not for the gift of the Spirit:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Paul clearly discerns that the Spirit, not the Law of Moses, now regulates the life of the believer.

Besides, the Law of Moses was only for Jews anyway (as well as the handful of Gentiles who were integrated into their society).