Can man change Gods Law?

[Drew]

[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.

Do you agree that the Law of Moses consists in the 613 "rules" and practices set forth in the Pentateuch, given by God to Moses at Mount Sinai? That is what I think Paul is generally referring to when he talks about "the 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.

I very much doubt it. Here in Leviticus, we have God Himself asserting that His Law indeed does separate Jew from Gentile:

Therefore you must distinguish between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean, and you must not make yourselves detestable by means of an animal or bird or anything that creeps on the ground – creatures I have distinguished for you as unclean. You must be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the other peoples to be mine.

This is from God, not man. And God clearly uses the Law of Moses to distinguish the Jew from the Gentile.

 

[Packrat]

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.

Arguably God's Kingdom had been in existence for centuries prior with the salvation of the first man including those who came after him - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc. I'm not sure what is meant by the condemnation of sin since God accomplished this through his Torah. These are all beside the point though. Feel free to answer them if you so choose. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.

I think John 19:28 would agree with your assessment that "all" could have referred to the events of the cross or only one part of the Torah instead of all of the Torah. Let's look at it.

John 19:28 (CJB) "After this, knowing that all things had accomplished their purpose, Yeshua, in order to fulfill the words of the Tanakh, said, 'I'm thirsty.'"

As you may know the Tanakh contains the Torah and the Prophets. Here, a distinction is made between all things being accomplished (past tense) and the still-future fulfillment of the Scriptures. So the argument that the Scriptures have served their purpose and are now retired by being completely fulfilled is in error. There is still much left in the Scriptures that must be fulfilled just as there was some left to be fulfilled when "all things had accomplished their purpose [...]"

A question for you: if the little law that Paul speaks of is actually the big Law (Torah) and has been "made inoperative" then what parts in it have been made inoperative? Certainly not the rule against murder or adultery. If these are still in effect because of some "law of love" then that means that portions of the Torah are still operative to this day, being contained in this "law of love." So we can even see that not all of the Torah has been retired. So what purpose has it served and in which ways has it been retired if the regulations contained within are still in effect?

One can say, "No, no. That's the law of love that's in effect now, but the Torah has been retired." To that I would say that the Torah contained the law of love. If you retire it then you retire the law of love. See Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5.

To say that Christ was abolishing the Torah or retiring it is to ignore Zechariah 14:19 as well as the more immediate verse Matthew 5:19.

Matthew 5:19 (NIV) "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So Christ has just said that the Torah will be retired after his work on the cross and then goes on to say that those who break even the least commandment in the Torah and teaches others to do likewise will suffer a penalty in the Kingdom of Heaven? From what I know the Kingdom of Heaven refers to the spiritual kingdom of God that will be in existence for eternity. So anyone who breaks a part of the Torah and teaches others to do likewise will be least in the eternal kingdom of God. It wouldn't make sense to claim that Christ was only speaking of those who broke part of the Torah before it was retired, since this "demotion" spans an eternal kingdom. So those who broke part of God's Torah and taught others to do likewise before it was retired will be eternally demoted. Those who break part of God's Torah and teach others to do likewise after it has been retired will not be eternally demoted? Nope. I can't find any evidence of that claim in what Christ says. He says anyone and goes on to describe the eternal Kingdom of God.

Some people say that the commandments he was talking about not breaking were listed later in his monologue. I would agree at least partly with this, because the commandments he goes on to list are all found in the Torah. Contrary to popular contemporary thought, nothing was added to the Torah by Christ in Matthew 5:21-48. One example of this is Matthew 5:27-28 and Exodus 20:17. Moreover the context (e.g. verse 17) supports a reference to the entire Torah rather than to just the few commandments within it that are outlined in verses 21-48.

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.

I see your point although it is purely speculation on your part. And while I may or may not agree with your example from Isaiah I'm not going to debate it. It's already apparent to me what Christ and Paul are talking about here: Christ came not to destroy it, the Torah hasn't been "rendered inoperative," those who break the Torah and teach others to do likewise will be relegated to the least position in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Going back to John 19:28, I think it becomes easy to see that retiring the Torah and the Prophets during the time frame for which you are arguing would be illogical since their purpose had not and currently has not been completely fulfilled.

 

[Packrat]

I very much doubt it. Here in Leviticus, we have God Himself asserting that His Law indeed does separate Jew from Gentile:

Therefore you must distinguish between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean, and you must not make yourselves detestable by means of an animal or bird or anything that creeps on the ground – creatures I have distinguished for you as unclean. You must be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the other peoples to be mine.

This is from God, not man. And God clearly uses the Law of Moses to distinguish the Jew from the Gentile.

Again, any Gentile except those God destined for destruction could become a Jew. We see this with Ruth. The purpose of God setting apart his people from the pagan nations was arguably at least in part because of their pagan practices. Note that God will accept anyone as his people if they will choose to be his and follow him. Galatians 3:7, along with a host of other passages in the New Testament, tells us that we have become one with God's people because of our faith. God made a distinction between Jew and Gentile, but that distinction ended when the Gentile became a Jew. In the same way God makes a distinction even today between the believer and the unbeliever. The Jews, however, made the distinction more so biological. They were dividing the Gentile believers from the Jewish believers and this was wrong in God's eyes, for they were all believers and thus effectively God's people.

So you see that the Torah made a distinction between Jews (God's people) and Gentiles (not God's people), but this distinction ended when the Gentile became one with God's people. This concept is not contrary to the Torah. The Torah's distinction between God's people and the pagan peoples does not necessitate the Torah's abolition in order to bring Gentile believers (who are God's people) together with God's people.

We even see in Acts 15:20 that once the Gentiles became believers (i.e. one with God's people) Paul commanded they observe the practices God explicitly gave to his people - the Jews. What does the Torah say about what constitutes being of God's people? I believe it is the individual choosing God and God choosing that individual. Both choices are necessary. Jacob and Esau had the same mother and father but only Jacob was counted in the Jewish lineage. Why? God chose Jacob and not Esau. As a result Jacob chose God and Esau did not. Esau's line, I think, formed the Edomites instead of the Israelites. Now God has chosen every man. Therefore any man who chooses God will be counted among God's people.

 

[Drew]

Arguably God's Kingdom had been in existence for centuries prior with the salvation of the first man including those who came after him - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.

I don't see much of a case for this. One of Jesus' repeated teachings was that His (Jesus') own entry into the world inaugurated the Kingdom of God. So while, of course, God was at work before Jesus' time, the Scriptures are quite clear - with Jesus, the kingdom is inaugurated.

I'm not sure what is meant by the condemnation of sin since God accomplished this through his Torah.

Again, I very much doubt this - Paul tells us when sin was condemned, and it was at the cross:

For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

In fact, this text shows that the Law of Moses simply did not have the capability to condemn sin.

 

[Packrat]

I don't see much of a case for this. One of Jesus' repeated teachings was that His (Jesus') own entry into the world inaugurated the Kingdom of God. So while, of course, God was at work before Jesus' time, the Scriptures are quite clear - with Jesus, the kingdom is inaugurated.

I can see your point, but I'd like to see the passages before I concede to anything. We may be just talking about two different shades of gray. Because in my mind Moses was part of the Kingdom and therefore the Kingdom was in existence, albeit in a smaller form. Unless I'm mistaken Jesus said the Kingdom would come in power which is not the Kingdom coming but rather the Kingdom coming in a fuller sense.

I'm not sure what is meant by the condemnation of sin since God accomplished this through his Torah.

Again, I very much doubt this - Paul tells us when sin was condemned, and it was at the cross:

For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

Yeah. God had already condemned sin in the Torah, because he is not a sinful God. I guess it just matters what our view of "condemn[ing] sin in the flesh" is.

To further my point about the Torah not setting apart Gentile believers from Jewish believers: I think any belief of God in the Torah saying that Gentile followers should be set apart from biological Jewish followers would be like one thinking that God says there should be a distinction between his people and his people. It doesn't make any sense. It is currently my opinion that Ephesians 2:15 claims that Christ broke down the enmity between Jew and Gentile Believer. Part B of verse 15 reads:

"He did this in order to create in union with himself from the two groups a single new humanity and thus make shalom," Notice that the verse says "in union with himself [...]"

Pagans are not unified with the body of Christ. Therefore it is clear Paul is talking about Gentile and Jewish believers becoming one. Ephesians 2:11-12 of the same chapter furthers this point. We are now Israel. Let us honor God by being obedient to his Torah which contains in it the regulations written upon the believer's heart and by which we should live.

 

[Packrat]

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.

Something I find very interesting in Matthew 5 is that Jesus' use of the word "abolish" seems to be used in unison with the concept of rendering inoperative because he goes on to proclaim that anyone who disobeys part of the Torah and teaches others to do likewise (i.e. to effectively render inoperative parts of the Torah) will be demoted to being least in the Kingdom. So I think the passage in Matthew 5 already shows us that God's Torah was neither meant to be destroyed nor rendered inoperative.

 

[Drew]

I can see your point, but I'd like to see the passages before I concede to anything.

Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the (C)wilderness of Judea, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

And there are more such texts. Besides, I would argue that it is fairly evident that Jesus' entire ministry constitutes "God becoming king" - there are a myriad of texts, not least Daniel 7, quoted by Jesus before Caiaphus, that place Jesus in the role of an enthroned king.

 

[Packrat]

I can see your point, but I'd like to see the passages before I concede to anything.

Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the (C)wilderness of Judea, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

And there are more such texts. Besides, I would argue that it is fairly evident that Jesus' entire ministry constitutes "God becoming king" - there are a myriad of texts, not least Daniel 7, quoted by Jesus before Caiaphus, that place Jesus in the role of an enthroned king.

Personally I could go either way on this point. I'm just curious what "at hand" implies. Is it coming? Has it come already by being at hand? If an object is in close proximity to my hand then that would imply it has already come and I don't need to go look for it.

On another point I'm beginning to think more and more that Ephesians 2:14-15 is speaking about the m'chitzah as being symbolic of the Jewish man-made law and that law being abolished in the body of Christ (the believing Church). The whole context of the passage supports this. It's actually very clever of Paul. The m'chitzah wasn't constructed by the Torah but was constructed by man-made law. Therefore it would be the man-made law - which separates Jewish and "Gentile" believers - which is being rendered inoperative by being abolished. Pretty cool stuff.