Can man change Gods Law?

[Drew]

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.

I believe that you are missing a subtlety of Paul's argument. He actually sees the Law as functioning to increase sin, not decrease it. I can provide detailed arguments for this, if you like.

Paul is pretty clear at a number of places that the Law really does not "reign in" sin. So there really is no case here that the law functions to keep sin under control. Quite the opposite:

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;

Now people frequently bend this rather alarming statement into the claim that the Law merely reveals sin. This is not what Paul is saying. Here, also, we have a claim that sin actually gains power from the Law:

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law

Paul makes a similar arguments in Romans 7 -the law actually stimulates sin, not inhibit it.

 

[Packrat]

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).

Some questions.

1. Why do you call God's Law "the Law of Moses?" Moses did not create it. He handed it down from God to God's people.
2. Why do you believe God's Law was only for the Jews and a select few Gentiles within the Jewish community when we clearly see from Zechariah 14:19 that God holds everyone to it? After all, he gave his Law to Israel, but I believe that in so doing the Gentile nations would learn of God through his people and become one with them.
3. So do you believe that serving God in the Spirit means disobeying his commands? Personally, I think the New Covenant wrote God's laws on our heart so that we'd want to serve him all the more. If serving God in the Spirit means anything it means loving our fellow man and loving God enough to obey his decrees.

Let's examine

Romans 7:6 (CJB) "But now we have been released from this aspect of the Torah, because we have died to that which had us in its clutches, so that we are serving in the new way provided by the Spirit and not in the old way of outwardly following the letter of the law."

This to me is saying that we are free from legalism which was a distortion of God's Law. Jesus said that his burden is light. And though he hands us a burden, still (Matthew 11:30), he takes the heavier off from us. He has freed us from servitude to the system of the Pharisees that turned even the Sabbath day of rest into one of a convoluted system of rules. Before Jesus came our focus was entirely on obeying the letter of the law (arguably, the "written code") instead of its purpose which was love of God and love of Man. Now that Jesus has taught us differently we can obey the Letter of the Law within the parameters of love.

 

[Packrat]

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.

I believe that you are missing a subtlety of Paul's argument. He actually sees the Law as functioning to increase sin, not decrease it. I can provide detailed arguments for this, if you like.

Paul is pretty clear at a number of places that the Law really does not "reign in" sin. So there really is no case here that the law functions to keep sin under control. Quite the opposite:

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;

Now people frequently bend this rather alarming statement into the claim that the Law merely reveals sin. This is not what Paul is saying. Here, also, we have a claim that sin actually gains power from the Law:

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law

Paul makes a similar arguments in Romans 7 -the law actually stimulates sin, not inhibit it.

So you believe that God encouraged us to sin by giving us his law? Why would something that Paul called "holy" encourage us to sin? Here's what I believe concerning 1 Corinthians 15:56 -

Everything that has power has been given power by God - even Satan. So Paul could very well say that Satan's power is from God in the same way that he could say sin's power is from Torah. However, God does not approve of Satan's work in the same way that God's Torah never condoned sin. However, during Jesus' time on this earth Satan was using God's Torah against itself. He even turned the Sabbath of rest into a day of rules. So we can readily see that sin draws its power from the Torah in the same way that Satan draws his power from God and can twist anything good into evil if allowed. But God's Torah is not sinful nor did God intend for it to promote sin.

And the way we can see what the intentions of God's Torah are is by understanding its purpose: love. For Christ said that the Torah and Prophets hung on love (Matthew 22:40). If you take love out of the equation then indeed sin can derive its power from Torah. And in certain cases it can even derive its power from Torah when love is understood as its purpose.

 

[elijah23]

Can man change the Lord’s law? The way I see it, man might be able to change the Lord’s law just as soon as man can create a universe, as vast as the one we live in, with billions and billions of stars, and then be willing to die, nailed to a cross, in order to save all mankind from its sins.

 

[Drew]

Some questions.

1. Why do you call God's Law "the Law of Moses?" Moses did not create it. He handed it down from God to God's people.

The Law of Moses is the set of rules and laws given to Moses and recorded in the Pentateuch. The term "the Law of Moses" is simply a way to refer to those laws.

2. Why do you believe God's Law was only for the Jews and a select few Gentiles within the Jewish community when we clearly see from Zechariah 14:19 that God holds everyone to it? After all, he gave his Law to Israel, but I believe that in so doing the Gentile nations would learn of God through his people and become one with them.

I suggest that there is no Biblical evidence whatsoever that the Law of Moses was intended for Gentiles in general. Paul clearly believes otherwise - the following statement makes no sense at all unless Paul believes that the law is only for Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

 

[Drew]

2. Why do you believe God's Law was only for the Jews and a select few Gentiles within the Jewish community when we clearly see from Zechariah 14:19 that God holds everyone to it? After all, he gave his Law to Israel, but I believe that in so doing the Gentile nations would learn of God through his people and become one with them.

I will have to get back to you on Zech 14.

3. So do you believe that serving God in the Spirit means disobeying his commands?

I never wrote anything like this - all I have said is that the written code of the Law of Moses is done away with. Paul clearly believes this to be the case (I still owe you some responses re Eph 2:15 - that text clearly has Paul abolishing the Law of Moses)

Personally, I think the New Covenant wrote God's laws on our heart so that we'd want to serve him all the more. If serving God in the Spirit means anything it means loving our fellow man and loving God enough to obey his decrees.

Do you still stone adulterers?

Do you make sacrifices in the temple?

Do you refrain from eating the forbidden foods in the Law of Moses.

Let's remember what the "law" really is - it is not a vague set of principles - it is the 613 items recorded in the Pentateuch which were given to Jews and Jews only.

 

[Packrat]

The Law of Moses is the set of rules and laws given to Moses and recorded in the Pentateuch. The term "the Law of Moses" is simply a way to refer to those laws.

I completely understand that, but let's call it what it is: the Teaching of God.

I suggest that there is no Biblical evidence whatsoever that the Law of Moses was intended for Gentiles in general. Paul clearly believes otherwise - the following statement makes no sense at all unless Paul believes that the law is only for Jews only:

Intended for Gentiles in general? No, but rather intended for everyone - Jew or Gentile. I'm thinking your going to have to get back to me on Zechariah 14:19. What part of

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

doesn't make sense unless Paul believed the law was only for biological Jews? Heck, anyone can become a Jew. It seems that Ruth became a Jew simply by saying that the Jewish God would be her God and that the Jews would be her people. Who knows? Maybe it required that she marry into the Jews first? The fact is, though, that if we've been grafted in with God's people, then we are one with the Jews. We are Jews. Yes, I'm aware that there is no Jew or Gentile or Greek or whatever in Christ. That just means that all Christians are God's people. How are biological Gentiles considered God's people? Well, God can raise up stones to become the children of Abraham. How much easier would it be to include another person into God's people? There were provisions for Gentiles to become Jews even in the Torah if they so desired to become one with God's people. Those who believe in Christ's work have become one with God's people. If you call God's people "the Jews" or "Israel" then we are Jews or we are Israel.

Do you still stone adulterers?

Do you make sacrifices in the temple?

Do you refrain from eating the forbidden foods in the Law of Moses.

Do you not think that adulterers could be made righteous by faith just as Rahab was? And yet they were ordered to be stoned. We can easily see that, while Moses was forgiven of his sins and saved, the Law that he was commanded to hand down to God's people was still requiring capital punishment for certain offenses. Therefore what has changed about God's Teaching?

In answer to your question, capital punishment was to be executed upon offenders of God in different ways. Sometimes people were burned. Sometimes they were stoned. Even the manner in which they were stoned varied. Some stoning required that the community join in with the stoning. Do I believe that my community would join me in the stoning of someone? If not, then would I try to stone them myself without first taking them to trial? Would this be viewed as murder? Would it be possible for me to take someone to trial for adultery in my culture in order to prove their guilt? You see, I don't attempt to observe some of God's teachings for the very simple fact that I may not be able to observe them in the proper way. By doing so I might end up disobeying him.

One example would be the sacrifices. Do I make animal sacrifices at the temple? No, for the following reasons: 1.) The temple is no longer in existence. 2.) I am not a Cohen and therefore would be transgressing God's Torah if I were to make certain sacrifices. Yes, I realize that it is said that all Christians are the priests of God. However, God even called Israel a nation of priests and yet only those priests from the tribe of Levi were allowed to make some sacrifices.

Some of God's Torah I have tried to obey in the past:

1. Love your neighbor as yourself.
2. Do not wear clothing woven of wool and linen.
3. Wear tassels on the four corners of your garments.
4. Observe the Festival of Shelters.
5. Observe the Passover & Feast of Unleavened Bread.
6. Immerse yourself in aerated water for ceremonial cleansing.
7. Love God with all your heart, soul and strength.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not murder.
10. Do not commit adultery.
11. Do not make idols.
12. Do not worship other gods.
13. Do not covet anything of your neighbor's.
14. Do not commit homosexual acts.
15. Observe the dietary rules (I've given up shrimp, crabs and pork - none of which I miss).

Eph 2:15 - that text clearly has Paul abolishing the Law of Moses)

No man can abolish God's Law. No man can contradict Christ - the Way, Truth and Life - and still be on the side of truth. Isn't that what this thread is about? Can man change God's Law? No, he can't. Paul has no say in this matter, but I believe he said it right in Ephesians 2:15 by saying that the enmity between Jews and Gentiles has been abolished and we are now made one body in Christ.

 

[Drew]

Paul has no say in this matter, but I believe he said it right in Ephesians 2:15 by saying that the enmity between Jews and Gentiles has been abolished and we are now made one body in Christ.

That is not how the text reads - the English renderings, properly understood, state that the Law is abolished as well:

when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace,

by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace

He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace

I suggest that if you showed all these sentences to experts in the english language, who have no "bias" in respect to the matter at issue, they would all agree - this is a statement by Paul that the Law of Moses has been abolished.

Please do not assume that just because enmity has been abolished, that enmity is the only thing that is abolished - language does not work that way. As statements in english, these are all equally clear - the law is an object of verb "abolish" (or nullify) as the case may be.

And it is precisley because the Law has been abolished that the enmity is also abolished - it was the Law of Moses that functioned to set the Jews apart from the Gentiles. So to bring Jew and Gentile together, the Law has to go, since it was given to Jews and Jews only.

 

[Drew]

So you believe that God encouraged us to sin by giving us his law?

This is what Paul actually does say, if we read him faitfully.

Why would something that Paul called "holy" encourage us to sin?

Excellent question. Here is my suggested answer (these ideas not mine in origin - they have been gleaned from theologian NT Wright):

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that Israel would be "blessing for the nations";

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way Israel will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful Torah is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear - Torah cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Torah is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?

6. Answer: God uses Torah to make Israel draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Torah as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of Israel.

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national Israel) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using Israel as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Torah has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making Israel more sinful, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Torah was to "lure sin into Israel" and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Torah to a close.

10. Since its task has been completed, the Torah is then retired with honour.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

drew,

to answer what you posted to me about the law not abiding until the end of the wicked, the verse that you gave doesnt help your point.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

This does not say that there is no law for anyone, or that the law does not abide on the wicked- this is speaking only to the body of Christ and how those who believe and are saved have the middle wall broken down in his flesh and we are made one. This whole chapter has nothing to do with the wicked but the saved so it cannot be used to speak to the condition the saved are under.

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

We are only free from the law because WE died to the law by the body of Christ. But paul makes it clear that when we were in the flesh we were still under the law.- We are told in romans 8 that only those who are led of the Spirit are not in the flesh. But those who are in the flesh are led by their carnal mind.

The law was for the purposes of finding all guilty before God and holding all people under sin until they believe in the savior at which time they die to the law by the body of Christ and that middle wall of partition is taken away uniting them by the Spirit in the body of Christ.

 

[Packrat]

Please do not assume that just because enmity has been abolished, that enmity is the only thing that is abolished - language does not work that way. As statements in english, these are all equally clear - the law is an object of verb "abolish" (or nullify) as the case may be.

Another English statement that can be readily understood is Christ's in Matthew 5:17. Let's put these back-to-back to see what we get:

Matthew 5:17 (NIV) "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."

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,"

Notice that these passages are both taken from the same translation. In Matthew 5:17 the "law" is capitalized. In Ephesians 2:15 it is not. So even if this translation is correct and it is not just the enmity occasioned by the Torah that was abolished then what law is being abolished? The answer is simple. "Prophets" refers to a group of writings. Therefore it is logical to assume that the "Law" also refers to a group of writings - the Torah. The Law was almost synonymous with Israel's law because Israel was to be regulated according to God's teachings as found in the Torah. However, people later changed parts of God's Law with the addition of false teachings derived from the Law (i.e. occasioned by it; sin drawing its power from the Law) that brought enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles. However, Christ taught that the purpose of God's Law was love, so he broke down the m'chitzah and abolished the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles. How? All those who believe in Christ are now considered one with God's people. That's how. I hope you realize that the m'chitzah in the temple - which divided the Gentiles from the Jews - was not constructed in accordance with God's Law but came later as a result of Israel's convoluted law.

Anyone who knows how Jews viewed Gentiles will recognize that the Jews were distancing themselves from the Gentiles because of some distorted view of God's Law. This in essence was a man-made law. We see as much from Acts 10:28.

Acts 10:28 "He said to them: 'You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.'"

What was God showing Paul? He was showing Paul that the Jews distancing themselves from the Gentiles was wrong. The Torah made a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, yes, but it was not God's intention to separate the Gentiles from his people but to bring them together as one people. However, this is clear evidence that in Paul's time the only "m'chitzah" (i.e. wall of division) between Jews and Gentiles was constructed by Israel's law and not God's Law. Therefore God's Law was not creating the enmity that was abolished and it was not God's Law that was being abolished if any law was ever being abolished.

Christ tells us, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah [...]" So anyone who has already thought this has disobeyed Christ. I think you need to reconsider your reading of Ephesians and all of Paul's teachings, for Paul openly teaches even the Gentiles to obey the Torah and openly admitted that he did not teach against God's Torah as some suspected. Paul's writings may be confusing as Peter even says of the man, but I am thoroughly convinced that God's Torah is in effect today and we should be following it to the best of our ability in order to honor him and be well established in our faith by knowledge.

And it is precisley because the Law has been abolished that the enmity is also abolished - it was the Law of Moses that functioned to set the Jews apart from the Gentiles. So to bring Jew and Gentile together, the Law has to go, since it was given to Jews and Jews only.

You are partly right on your statement about God's Torah setting both Jews and Gentiles apart, but it also helped to bring them together. See Numbers 9:14. Anyone living in Israel was to follow God's Torah in some cases whether or not they were Jews. However, the last statement that God's Law had to go in order to bring Jews and Gentiles together is not a valid point. God brought Jews and Gentiles together by grafting the Gentiles in with the Jews. If we have been grafted in with God's people, Israel, then God's Torah needs not be abolished to make Jews and Gentiles one. See 1 Peter 2:9-10 and Galatians 3:7. How was this grafting in with the Jews accomplished? Galatians 3:7 says by believing. So by believing in God's promise we have become the children of Abraham, Jews and God's people. Therefore let us not set aside God's Torah which is holy.

 

[Packrat]

Oh, you know what? I realized something one or two days ago that proves that Mark 7 was not abolishing the dietary laws. Jesus is God, yes? So let's put in bold the words of God:

Leviticus 11:24 "'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening."

Mark 7:15 "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean."

Note that in Mark 7:15 Christ said this before he declared "it is finished" on the cross, so it would be another fallacy to assume that during Christ's life God's Law had been abolished if it was ever to be abolished. In other words, no one can argue that any part of the Law was changed yet - even those that argue for the abolishing of God's Law. So God's Law was still the same as it had been during the time of Moses.

So at first God says that a man is made unclean by even touching the carcass of an unclean animal. Then God says that nothing going into a man can make him unclean. If God were talking about the same things here he would be a hypocritical liar. But God is not. As we see in the latter part of Mark 7:15 what makes a man unclean does so in a spiritual fashion. God is talking about ceremonial cleanliness in Leviticus 11:24 and spiritual cleanliness in Mark 7:14. Nothing in God's dietary laws or any part of the Torah mentions ceremonial uncleanliness as a result of something being said by a man or something coming out of a man's mouth. Therefore it is completely illogical to assume that Mark 7:15 is talking about the dietary laws as being abolished.

 

[Packrat]

However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way Israel will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful Torah is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear - Torah cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

Romans 3:21 (NIV) "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify."

So the Torah could not be a blessing to the Gentiles because it testified of the righteousness given us by God? I don't know. That seems like quite a blessing to me. If I were to put this passage into my own words it would read:

The Law and the Prophets have let us know of a righteousness given by God that we cannot attain by our own observance of regulations contained within the Law. In other words, we are blessed by the Law's testifying of God's saving grace, but we are not saved by following the regulations as found in that Law. The whole chapter of Romans is making this single point: the Torah was a revelation of God giving us righteousness, but we could not obtain righteousness through our obedience to the Torah because we are guilty of keeping it imperfectly.

I'm not sure I'm seeing how the sins of Gentiles were collectively placed on the head of Israel. All men are alike and all have transgressed God's Torah. The idea of the Torah encouraging sin does not fit with the concept of "luring sin into Israel." The Gentiles sinned against God's Torah and the Jews would then have sinned even more against God's Torah. So while sin is distributed amongst the Gentiles it also becomes increasingly worse amongst the Jews who are encouraged to sin by God. No offense to you since you didn't come up with this doctrine, but this is ludicrous. You don't draw venom out of the peripheral areas of a wound by putting more venom into the central part of the wound.

 

[Physicist]

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.

So the ten commandments no longer apply? My Bible says the the laws remain until the end of the world and second coming.

 

[Drew]

drew,

to answer what you posted to me about the law not abiding until the end of the wicked, the verse that you gave doesnt help your point.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

This does not say that there is no law for anyone, or that the law does not abide on the wicked- this is speaking only to the body of Christ and how those who believe and are saved have the middle wall broken down in his flesh and we are made one. This whole chapter has nothing to do with the wicked but the saved so it cannot be used to speak to the condition the saved are under.

I have no idea what your actual argument is.

The text reads as it reads. There is a verb "abolish", and one of the objects of that verb is, yes, the law.

We need to take the text as it reads - Paul asserts that the Law of Moses is abolished. And this makes perfect sense in the context of an argument that is about how Jew and Gentile have been brought together.

What has divided Jew from Gentile? The Law of Moses, which was for Jews only. How are Jew and Gentile made to be on the same footing?

Abolish the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

So the ten commandments no longer apply? My Bible says the the laws remain until the end of the world and second coming.

Actually the 10 commandments indeed do not apply. Remember, the 10 commandments, and the rest of the Law of Moses was only ever given to Jews.

At least not as a written code that should inform behaviour. The Christian model is one where, after the Cross, Jews no longer need the 10 commandments - the Spirit is now "loose in the world" and it is the Spirit, not a written code, that functions as the informing source for how we should live.

And I suggest that your Bible does not really say that the Law remains until the end of the world. I have addressed the relevant texts (from Matthew) in detail earlier in this post. Jesus is using a kind metaphorical language very common in the culture of his time. This tradition of metaphorical "end of the world" imagery to describe events that do not actually mean the end of the world has been largely missed in the church, leading to all sorts of misreadings of the Bible (e.g. the notion of a rapture event, which I assert is not taught in the Bible).

 

[Packrat]

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

Such an argument is still flawed since when Jesus spoke those words he had yet to be buried in a rich man's tomb or even rise from the grave. Moreover the Feast of First Fruits (commonly seen as Pentecost) had yet to come to completion and the Festival of Trumpets was not fulfilled yet either. So we see that when Jesus said, "It is accomplished," he could not have meant that the Torah no longer served its purpose. I've heard this argument before, and I continue to disagree with it for the reasons I've given above.

Paul clearly teaches for God's Law and Jesus clearly teaches for God's Law, because he is God and its multipurpose still remains. It instructs us in spiritual truths that have passed, are present and have yet to come. It also teaches us proper conduct toward our fellow man and toward God. To say that the Torah serves only to instruct prophetically and once those prophecies have been fulfilled the Torah no longer has a purpose is a fallacy.

To even say that those prophetic texts in the Torah that have been fulfilled are no longer needed to be observed is a fallacy as well. Jesus indicates that the Torah will remain intact, without a single regulation or decree by God missing, until all has been accomplished.

The most one, who is bent on disobeying the Torah, could do is to argue that the Torah could still remain intact while not obligating people to obey it. But this line of reasoning is not supported by the context.

 

[Drew]

Such an argument is still flawed since when Jesus spoke those words he had yet to be buried in a rich man's tomb or even rise from the grave.

I think the argument is fine. Jesus' death accomplished the condemnation of sin, enabling God to initiate a new round of creative activity and inaugurate the kingdom. Jesus' moment of death on the cross marks a clear point of completion of the long plan to deal with the Adamic sin problem. Therefore it is entirely coherent to assert that when Jesus says the Law will last until all is accomplished, He is indeed referring to the events of the Cross.

Another line of argument: Even if we forget about Jesus' statement on the cross, we can reasonably see Jesus' statement about how the Law will not pass away until all is accomplished as referring to Jesus' work in totality - announcing the Kingdom, dying on the cross, and being raised.

The key point is that this "end of the world language" was routinely used in the Jewish tradition to denote "commonplace" events such as the overthrow of Babylon. To take Jesus' statement "until heaven and earth pass away" literally is to ignore the Biblical context in which such language was used.

 

[Drew]

Another English statement that can be readily understood is Christ's in Matthew 5:17. Let's put these back-to-back to see what we get:

Matthew 5:17 (NIV) "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."

Again, it is important to understand that fulfillment of the Law can also mean its end, just as in the example of airline travel - when you fulfill the purpose of travelling, the trip comes to an end. And Paul points out in Romans 10 that Jesus is the end of the Law. So, as a first point, there is no conceptual problem with saying that fulfillment entails the Law coming to an end.

Note that the word rendered "abolish" here is the greek word "kataluo" which has a "destroy" sense. I think Jesus is saying "I have not come to destroy the Law as if it is a bad thing that we need to get rid of, instead I come to achieve what the Law was aiming for. And once I achieve it, the Law can be retired". Now Jesus does not say (here anyway) that the Law is to be retired, but the point is that what He says does not in any rule out such a reading. Now, in the following from Paul:

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,"

....the greek word rendered as "abolish" is a different word. Note what the NET commentators say about this word as used in Eph 2:15:

Or “rendered inoperative.†This is a difficult text to translate because it is not easy to find an English term which communicates well the essence of the author’s meaning, especially since legal terminology is involved. Many other translations use the term “abolish†(so NRSV, NASB, NIV), but this term implies complete destruction which is not the author’s meaning here. The verb ???????? (katargew) can readily have the meaning “to cause someth. to lose its power or effectiveness†(BDAG 525 s.v. 2, where this passage is listed), and this meaning fits quite naturally here within the author’s legal mindset. A proper English term which communicates this well is “nullify†since this word carries the denotation of “making something legally null and void.†This is not, however, a common English word. An alternate term like “rendered inoperative [or ineffective]†is also accurate but fairly inelegant. For this reason, the translation retains the term “nullifyâ€; it is the best choice of the available options, despite its problems.

Why am I making this argument? Even though you did not challenge me on this, I can imagine that some might say that my position is problematic because, on the one hand, I have Paul “abolishing†the Law in Ephesians 2:15 and yet Jesus denies that He is abolishing the Law in the Matthew text.
Well, I suggest that there is no problem. The greek word rendered as “abolished†in both these texts, at least in some translations, is not the same word.

I suggest that Jesus is saying “I have not come to destroy the Law, that is, do away with it a manner that suggests it was a bad thing, rather I have come to bring it to its good conclusion – and then it is retired.â€

This is also what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2:15, if you accept the argument of the NET scholars above. In other words, the Greek word Paul uses here is consistent with the argument that Paul sees Jesus as fulfilling the goal of the Law of Moses, and thereby effecting its retirement.

 

[Drew]

Matthew 5:17 (NIV) "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."

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,"

Notice that these passages are both taken from the same translation. In Matthew 5:17 the "law" is capitalized. In Ephesians 2:15 it is not.

I doubt this really works - if you look at multiple translations, both verses manifest capitilization in some translations and not others.

So even if this translation is correct and it is not just the enmity occasioned by the Torah that was abolished then what law is being abolished? The answer is simple. "Prophets" refers to a group of writings. Therefore it is logical to assume that the "Law" also refers to a group of writings - the Torah. The Law was almost synonymous with Israel's law because Israel was to be regulated according to God's teachings as found in the Torah. However, people later changed parts of God's Law with the addition of false teachings derived from the Law (i.e. occasioned by it; sin drawing its power from the Law) that brought enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles.

It appears that you are arguing that the "law" that is abolished in Ephesians 2 is not the Law of Moses but rather a distortion of the Law of Moses. But this appears to be more or less speculation on your part.

I would suggest that when Paul uses the word "law" here, he uses in it in the sense that he almost always uses it - as a reference to the Law of Moses, not to some distortion to that Law. You seem to think that context justifies your seeing "law" here as this distorted version of the Law of Moses. But the context allows to read "law" here as simply the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses, in virtue of its specificity to the Jew, indeed was something that "split" Jew from Gentile. And therefore, the "abolition" of the Law of Moses would indeed bring Jew and Gentile together.