Could ALL of Gods Laws REALLY Have been NAILED to HIS CROSS

[RND]

In a way this thread encapsulates the differences between Christianity and Judaism. I realize you can point to passages in the NT that say that the Torah is abolished and that G-d's covenant with Israel has been replaced by the covenant of the cross- but I see no proof of this theology in the Hebrew Bible. In fact I feel it is based on a mis-interpretation. On the other hand there are multiple passages in the Tanakh that indicate the permanence of the Eternal's commandments and covenants with Israel. Perhaps someone can briefly explain why they feel justified in believing in Paul's replacement theology.

einstein, just so you know, there are a few "Christians" out there in "Christianland" that spend less time on the kiddie rides than they do the do on the big kid's rides.

I certainly enjoy the knowledge of the permanency of the Torah and Tanakh. Jesus said He did not come to destroy them and that not one jot or title would pass until earth is gone.

 

[RND]

Why, exactly, would you interpret these passages allegorically? When I read the passages in Jeremiah, I fail to see how this applies in any way to Jesus. Furthermore, I fail to see where the prophet is stating that the Torah and its mitzvot are abolished. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit. Thanks.

You'll have to ask others for the details. I am not a Christian.


Thanks,
Eric

Eric you've consistently stated that the law has been done away with. Whether you are Christian or not I would suspect that you'd be able to offer a somewhat intelligent reason why you believe this. At least tell us "which" laws have been removed.

 

[wavy]

Too bored to resist.

Target practice time:

The previous clause says, " Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18..."

Verse 18 is talking about the "laws" of how the earthly priest was to do things. "Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless. "

Lol,...cherry picking a paraphrastic translation has absolutely no relevance to the quote I provided. Attridge doesn't use the 'NLT'...he is well qualified for translating and explicating the meaning of Hebrews himself (which is the purpose of his commentary).

He uses 'Law' (big 'L') to refer to the Torah as a whole...but you would never know this because you haven't read anything of the commentary outside of the quote I provided. But here are further quotes putting the first one in proper perspective:

A parenthetical remark suggests that the problem was not in the personnel of the Levitical priesthood, but in the whole system or law that was based upon that priesthood. This perspective is reinforced with another apparent aside (vs 12), suggesting that the change in priesthood necessitates an alteration of the whole system.
--ibid., p. 199

The Levitical priesthood, on the one hand, was established according to the 'Law' ([nomov]) and the Law was characterized by a 'fleshly commandment'...Above all, the adjective connotes the impermanence and corruptibility of the Law both in its agents and it objects.
-- ibid., p. 202, excerpt from commentary on verse 16.

With the inauguration of Christ's priesthood comes not simply an amendment of the Law, but its definitive 'abrogation'...Later the notion that the Law has been abrogated will be repeated in still other ways.
--ibid., p. 203, excerpt from commentary on verse 18

Hebrews and Paul both argue against the continuing religious validity of the Torah, although from different perspectives.
--ibid., p. 204, excerpt from excursus on 'Hebrews, Paul, and the Law'

I should know what he meant...I've read every word he wrote in this book--you have not. You're just mutilating what he says the EXACT same way you're mutilating the verse itself. In other words, you're taking your flawed construal of the verse and ASSUMING that's what my source is saying.

You even admitted to this:

Wavy: 'Why are you trying to foist that understanding onto his words?'

RND: 'Um, because that's what Paul was saying'

Correction: 'Um, because that's what I think the unknown author of Hebrews is saying'

So you're begging the question.

Eric, your source was saying the exact same thing. The "law" of the priest was abolished, not the law. "Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18"

The law, in verse 18, was abolished. I get that. Your source was right.

Sorry, no matter how many times you say so, 'the law of the priest was abolished, not the law', is not found anywhere in the quote.

Indeed, my source is right. A pity that you seem to be incapable of grasping the implications of this, however.

Forerunner Bible Commentary.

"There is a change in the efficacy of the priesthood. The former was weak and unprofitable, made nothing perfect; the latter brought in a better hope, by which we draw near to God, v. 18, 19. The Levitical priesthood brought nothing to perfection: it could not justify men’s persons from guilt; it could not sanctify them from inward pollution; it could not cleanse the consciences of the worshippers from dead works; all it could do was to lead them to the antitype. But the priesthood of Christ carries in it, and brings along with it, a better hope; it shows us the true foundation of all the hope we have towards God for pardon and salvation; it more clearly discovers the great objects of our hope; and so it tends to work in us a more strong and lively hope of acceptance with God. By this hope we are encouraged to draw nigh unto God, to enter into a covenant-union with him, to live a life of converse and communion with him. We may now draw near with a true heart, and with the full assurance of faith, having our minds sprinkled from an evil conscience. The former priesthood rather kept men at a distance, and under a spirit of bondage."

"The priesthood..."

Why are you quoting this wholly unauthoritative and irrelevant 'source' again? And right after I exposed it for what it is too?

I'm truly amazed at the level of intellectual dishonesty you have to descend to in order to deny the beating you are taking.

Matthew Henry says the same thing.

Not a fan of 18th-century commentaries, but he says no such thing regardless. You've misunderstood that too, which of course could have been predicted.

The only thing insulting your intelligence Eric is your failure to see just exactly what the source you quoted is saying. He was saying the same this as Forerunner, Matthew Henry or most other Bible scholars.

Haha, no. See above. I don't believe your google searches are adequate enough to educate you on what 'most Bible scholars' say. You don't even know the difference between an authoritative and a non-authoritative source, even after being informed.

That's exactly what verse 18 states as your source confirmed.

" Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18, the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects."

The law "supplanting" (changing) of the Levitical priesthood...

Again, no. The rhetoric employed here tells us that the 'Law' being abolished is one of the 'profound effects' of the 'supplanting of the Levitical priesthood'. These are not the same thing...again, verse 12 debars such an interpretation. The supplanted priesthood conduces to the abolition of the Law...the source is not saying the supplanting of the priesthood IS the abolition of the 'law of the priesthood' (which again, is tautologous, since even mentioning the priesthood naturally includes the prescriptions associated with it). Besides, I have already pointed out how the reference to the enactment of the law on the basis of the priesthood concerns the Hebrew people as a whole (verse 11)--it does NOT refer to laws regarding only priests. The priesthood is the Law's basis, which is why if it is changed the law must change as well.

In what way?

The 'way' is a simple review of your posts. Either you are slow or extremely intellectually dishonest. I can't quite pinpoint which one anymore after this post.

Name calling...the last bastion of the defeated. Eric, have you ever heard the old Roman legal maxim that says "He who leaves the battlefield first loses?"

It isn't name-calling. It's a description and criticism of the sloppy job you've done here. You've been defeated. Face it.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Eric you've consistently stated that the law has been done away with. Whether you are Christian or not I would suspect that you'd be able to offer a somewhat intelligent reason why you believe this. At least tell us "which" laws have been removed.

Naturally a stupid request, since it assumes I actually believe in the objectiveness and applicability of some 'law' in the bible and in the efficacy of some method of 'doing away' with it.

Truth be told, I don't care whether Christians ultimately believe some 'law' is done away with or not. The point of my contributions to this thread is to correct demonstrable exegetical errors, not theological ones.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Drew]

Right, because righteousness is by faith and not the law. See Romans 4. Paul is not saying there is no law Paul is saying that faith determines our righteouness.

You have not engaged the actual content of my post. I want to be clear about this - I made a number of detailed arguments as to why Galatians 3 requires us to see Torah as retired. You have not engaged them, and you need to in order for your position to be sustained.

Now, to be fair, perhaps the lengthy article you posted a link for addresses these questions. We shall see. I will get back to you on that. But it is a long article. And since you must have read and understood it, you should still be able to respond to what I believe are the clear and digestable arguments I have provided as to why we should see Torah as retired.

Your argument seems to be:

1. Paul's point is that we cannot be justified by the law;
2. Therefore, since this is his point, he cannot also be saying that the Law has been retired.

That would be the same false reasoning as those who say that since Jesus condemns add-ons to Torah in Mark 7 (such as handwashing), He cannot also be saying that the Torah has been retired. And Jesus does indeed make the additional point that the Levitical food laws have been overturned.

I agree that Paul is claiming that we cannot be justified by the Law. But, of course, Paul is not constrained to making a single point. He also clearly asserts the end of Torah. Please respond to my post - the actual arguments I provided. I will make this easier for you to do:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Paul would have to be a very incompetent writer if he didn't intend to suggest that the Torah has now "expired". The word "tutor" here is the well-known Greek word "paidagogos". And, as per the Net Bible definition, a paidagogos is

"a tutor i.e. a guardian and guide of boys. Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood."

By the very nature of the task of the paidagogos, his job comes to an end at some point in time - when the child becomes a man. Paul would have to be very incompetent to characterise the Law as a paidagogos (to his Greek readers who knew what the term meant), and yet not expect the reader to understand that, like the real tutor, the Law "loses its job" at some point in time.

I believe that my argument is clear and understandable. How do you respond?

And how about this:

And consider what Paul goes on to say:

26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28(There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Note the inclusivity. If Paul has just written something whereby the Torah has been affirmed as still applicable, then the Jew and the Gentile are still two distinct groups within the body - we have Torah following Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians who do not follow the Torah. But the whole spirit of what Paul says here (and elsewhere) is that there are no "sub-groups" within the people of God.

How would verses 26-28 make sense specifically as a "for" (effectively a "because") conclusion to what Paul has just said about being no longer under the tutorship of the Torah? It would hardly make sense if the Torah were still active precisely because the Torah served the purpose of demarcating the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. Many do not think of Torah as serving that function, but I suggest that Paul clearly does – and that is what matters. The relevant text for that argument is from the beginning of Romans 10.

Instead, these verses only make sense if the boundary marker between Jew and Gentile - the Torah - has been retired.

What is your comment in respect to this.

It is not my intent to badger. However, in order for your position to be sustained, you need to engage the actual content of the counterarguments presented to it.

 

[RND]

Lol,...cherry picking a paraphrastic translation has absolutely no relevance to the quote I provided. Attridge doesn't use the 'NLT'...he is well qualified for translating and explicating the meaning of Hebrews himself (which is the purpose of his commentary).

Hbr 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

This is truly interesting. When does commandment mean 'Torah' and when doesn't it? Context maybe? The "disannulling of the commandment" has nothing to do with the entire Torah. It does have everything to do with the entire context of Hebrews and specifically what Paul discusses in ch. 7.

Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

A "change" in the law. A "change" of condition. Not an "elimination" of law or condition. The "priesthood" is changed, not removed, by Jesus. Every man and woman in the body of Christ is now a "priest" which is but one major application of the law that was "changed."

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Christ is High Priest over this "royal priesthood."

Hbr 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Lastly Eric, if you read my posts carefully you'll see I use virtually all the various translations in making my points. I not one of these paranoid puppets that is part of the "KJV only crowd." Now, I see that you become quite vitriolic when you get challenged

He uses 'Law' (big 'L') to refer to the Torah as a whole...but you would never know this because you haven't read anything of the commentary outside of the quote I provided.

Yeah, I see that. These are some fine examples of how mixed-up and incorrect your source truly is and just mere examples of a fish going upstream trying to go over the Hoover Dam! However, the statement he made which I originally questioned still stands. Also, it seems your source isn't as "color blind" as one would hope....certainly Christ is color blind.

That being said it would be interesting to view each and every statement this man makes. I'd love to read his book.

A parenthetical remark suggests that the problem was not in the personnel of the Levitical priesthood, but in the whole system or law that was based upon that priesthood. This perspective is reinforced with another apparent aside (vs 12), suggesting that the change in priesthood necessitates an alteration of the whole system.
--ibid., p. 199

Which law?

Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The word nomos is used in relation to the context Paul is discussing as shown. The "priesthood" was abolished the "law" regarding the priesthood was.

The Levitical priesthood, one the one hand, was established according to the 'Law' ([nomov]) and the Law was characterized by a 'fleshly commandment'...Above all, the adjective connotes the impermanence and corruptibility of the Law both in its agents and it objects.
-- ibid., p. 202, excerpt from commentary on verse 16.

That's actually correct when discussing what law was changed (laws regarding the duties of the High Priest) and why that law (because Christ is now High Priest) was changed.

I smell a flip-flopper!

With the inauguration of Christ's priesthood comes not simply an amendment of the Law, but its definitive 'abrogation'...Later the notion that the Law has been abrogated will be repeated in still other ways.--ibid., p. 203, excerpt from commentary on verse 18

Again, that's true and exactly what Paul said. The law regarding the "priesthood" changed, it's duties, who is and isn't a priest, etc.

Hebrews and Paul both argue against the continuing religious validity of the Torah, although from different perspectives.--ibid., p. 204, excerpt from excursus on 'Hebrews, Paul, and the Law'

Not even close. Paul, in all his letters does a masterful job of showing his readers that it isn't the law that is changed but the response to the law that has changed. This is the exact same Paul that had Timothy, a convert, circumcised so as to be a better conduit to those who were. Obviously Paul still saw the law as important elst he wouldn't have respected it.

BTW Eric, have you written Attridge yet and told him Paul didn't write Hebrews?

I should know what he meant...I've read every word he wrote in this book--you have not. You're just mutilating what he says the EXACT same way you're mutilating the verse itself. In other words, you're taking your flawed construal of the verse and ASSUMING that's what my source is saying.

That man is confused greatly making points that can be either easily refuted with scripture or backed-up with scripture. He's as people would say, "all over the map."

You even admitted to this:

Wavy: 'Why are you trying to foist that understanding onto his words?'

RND: 'Um, because that's what Paul was saying'

Correction: 'Um, because that's what I think the unknown author of Hebrews is saying'

So you're begging the question.

As I asked before have you brought this up with Attridge?

Sorry, no matter how many times you say so, 'the law of the priest was abolished, not the law', is not found anywhere in the quote.

Indeed, my source is right. A pity that you seem to be incapable of grasping the implications of this, however.

Actually Eric, as I stated Attridge was indeed making that argument.

Why are you quoting this wholly unauthoritative and irrelevant 'source' again? And right after I exposed it for what it is too?

Matthew Henry? Unauthoritative and irrelevant? Please.

I'm truly amazed at the level of intellectual dishonesty you have to descend to in order to deny the beating you are taking.

And I'm truly amazed you missed Matthew Henry.

Not a fan of 18th-century commentaries, but he says no such thing regardless. You've misunderstood that too, which of course could have been predicted.

That's exactly what Henry says. "Priesthood changed." Tell me BTW which commentaries are you fond of so I make sure to use those.

Haha, no. See above. I don't believe your google searches are adequate enough to educate you on what 'most Bible scholars' say. You don't even know the difference between an authoritative and a non-authoritative source, even after being informed.

Tell me Eric what makes Attridge more authoritative and relevant than Henry....skin color?

Again, no. The rhetoric employed here tells us that the 'Law' being abolished is one of the 'profound effects' of the 'supplanting of the Levitical priesthood'. These are not the same thing...again, verse 12 debars such an interpretation.

"Change" Eric. Not abolish.

The supplanted priesthood conduces to the abolition of the Law...the source is not saying the supplanting of the priesthood IS the abolition of the 'law of the priesthood' (which again, is tautologous, since even mentioning the priesthood naturally includes the prescriptions associated with it).

Right. The supplanting of the priesthood is indeed the abolition of the 'law of the priesthood' not the entire law Eric. Tell me Eric did removing the law of the priesthood allow other things in the law to be violated?

Besides, I have already pointed out how the reference to the enactment of the law on the basis of the priesthood concerns the Hebrew people as a whole (verse 11)--it does NOT refer to laws regarding only priests. The priesthood is the Law's basis, which is why if it is changed the law must change as well.

Learn how to read.

Such vitriol! Eric, let's try to wrestle with Paul's statement.

"If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come–one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?"

The "law" (the whole law, Mosaic) came through Moses a Levite, that's all Paul was saying here. So why was there a "need" to change to another priest?

Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

If the Priesthood" was being changed there was a necessity of the change in the function of the Priest, not in the entire law. Just because Jesus became High Priest didn't eliminate the entire Mosaic law.

The 'way' is a simple review of your posts. Either you are slow or extremely intellectually dishonest. I can't quite pinpoint which one anymore after this post.

Maybe you should see that just because you believe a certain source and you are drawn to this source just because of the color of his skin doesn't make your source "perfect" and "infallible." Attridge is all over the proverbial map.

It isn't name-calling. It's a description and criticism of the sloppy job you've done here. You've been defeated. Face it.

Eric, it is name calling and it is unnecessary. I'm sorry if you feel I've personally attacked you in some way because the source you cling to is as wrong as a an eight legged sheep but face facts. The entire law wasn't changed to usher in a new High Priest just the law dealing with the Priesthood. Read all of Hebrews with an open mind and an open heart and you'll see this is very evident.

 

[RND]

You have not engaged the actual content of my post. I want to be clear about this - I made a number of detailed arguments as to why Galatians 3 requires us to see Torah as retired. You have not engaged them, and you need to in order for your position to be sustained.

Drew, I left a great link to a very well thought out and presented study by a Messianic Rabbi that I thought you'd find helpful. I saw no need to address each and every detail of your post because of it.
GALATIANS - WAS PAUL TEACHING AGAINST THE LAW?

Now, to be fair, perhaps the lengthy article you posted a link for addresses these questions.

It does.

Your argument seems to be:

1. Paul's point is that we cannot be justified by the law;

No one was ever saved by the law Drew.

2. Therefore, since this is his point, he cannot also be saying that the Law has been retired.

Right. Just because in civilized society people still murder, rape, rob, etc. against the law doesn't mean we get rid of the law.

That would be the same false reasoning as those who say that since Jesus condemns add-ons to Torah in Mark 7 (such as handwashing), He cannot also be saying that the Torah has been retired. And Jesus does indeed make the additional point that the Levitical food laws have been overturned.

Handwashing wasn't part of the Torah.

Maybe Brian can help you with this notion as well:

ARE ALL FOODS CLEAN?

I agree that Paul is claiming that we cannot be justified by the Law. But, of course, Paul is not constrained to making a single point. He also clearly asserts the end of Torah. Please respond to my post - the actual arguments I provided. I will make this easier for you to do:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Paul would have to be a very incompetent writer if he didn't intend to suggest that the Torah has now "expired". The word "tutor" here is the well-known Greek word "paidagogos". And, as per the Net Bible definition, a paidagogos is

"a tutor i.e. a guardian and guide of boys. Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood."

By the very nature of the task of the paidagogos, his job comes to an end at some point in time - when the child becomes a man. Paul would have to be very incompetent to characterise the Law as a paidagogos (to his Greek readers who knew what the term meant), and yet not expect the reader to understand that, like the real tutor, the Law "loses its job" at some point in time.

I believe that my argument is clear and understandable. How do you respond?

What "laws" pointed to Christ Drew? Was it the ceremonial law? The Health laws? How did the 7th commandment point to Christ? The 5th? What laws specifically pointed to Christ? How did the way in which a woman was declared clean or unclean point to Christ? How did the laws that spelled out what to do regarding cooking or sex point to Christ?

Not each an every aspect of the Mosaic law pointed to Christ.

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

And how about this:

And consider what Paul goes on to say:

26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28(There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Note the inclusivity. If Paul has just written something whereby the Torah has been affirmed as still applicable, then the Jew and the Gentile are still two distinct groups within the body - we have Torah following Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians who do not follow the Torah. But the whole spirit of what Paul says here (and elsewhere) is that there are no "sub-groups" within the people of God.

How would verses 26-28 make sense specifically as a "for" (effectively a "because") conclusion to what Paul has just said about being no longer under the tutorship of the Torah? It would hardly make sense if the Torah were still active precisely because the Torah served the purpose of demarcating the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. Many do not think of Torah as serving that function, but I suggest that Paul clearly does – and that is what matters. The relevant text for that argument is from the beginning of Romans 10.

Instead, these verses only make sense if the boundary marker between Jew and Gentile - the Torah - has been retired.

What is your comment in respect to this.

When you make absolute declarative statements such as "the Torah - has been retired" what am I supposed to say? Argue with you ad nauseum? If that's what you believe that's what you believe. I think the obvious and basic principles regarding God's spoken word are just as true now as when He first uttered them.

Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

It is not my intent to badger. However, in order for your position to be sustained, you need to engage the actual content of the counterarguments presented to it.

Drew, I'm not like the others. I don't need justify what I believe based on what you believe. I think it is self-evident that the basic principles of the Torah are still useful and necessary for understanding how God's government works.

Christians make a huge mistake when they think it is possible to convert a Jew or even a Muslim while at the same time insisting the long held beliefs of both of these religions based on the Torah is no longer necessary. That's what Messianics say and I happen to agree with them.

Sorry Drew, I'm not going to engage you the way Ecc 12 does. It would serve nothing constructive in my mind. You believe one thing and I believe another. But I do have say that those that think Jesus died on the cross so they could eat pork and lobster are missing the big picture.

 

[Drew]

Jesus said He did not come to destroy them and that not one jot or title would pass until earth is gone.

Here is the text from the NASB:

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.

Now, at least in this rendering, there is some ambiguity. While at one level it might seem that the law will last as long as the earth, Jesus's words also seem to suggest that a sufficient condition for the end of the Law will be the event where "all is accomplished". Perhaps you will argue that the ambiguity is resolved by putting the end of heaven and earth at the same point in the timeline as "the accomplishment of all things".

In any event, the reader who has been following this thread will know that it has been argued that Jesus was speaking in a highly metaphorical mode when he identified the passing of the Law with the end of the space-time universe.

This is clear Biblical precedent for this style of speech - I have already shown how the prophet Isaiah used "end of the world" language to describe an event that has already happened - the fall of Babylon.

And we know that Jesus cried out "It is accomplished" on the Cross, suggesting the possibilty that his death indeed signalled the end of the Torah as a prescriptive set of rules for us.

I believe such arguments have been essentially ignored.

Besides, we know that the New Testament never teaches that heaven and earth will actually pass away. Instead, writers such as Paul and John of Patmos clearly teach that it will be renewed and transformed. This is from Romans 8, where Paul clearly expresses the view that the earth will be saved, not destroyed:

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

This is another reason to be skeptical of a literal reading of Matthew 5 - Jesus knows that the earth will not pass away. Yet he speaks of the passing away of the Earth.

I suggest, building on a strong Biblical precedent, that Jesus using metaphorical end of the world language to refer to something much more mundane - the end of the present socio-political order. Jesus uses end of the world language elsewhere in the gospels to describe the coming judgement against Israel, as fulfilled in the events of 70 AD. The actual meaning of statements about stars falling from heaven is the falling of masonry as Jerusalem is sacked. Following Old Testament precedent, Jesus uses apocalyptic, end of the world, language to invest events in this present world with their theological significance.

We must be sophisticated and informed readers of the scriptures, cognizant of the cultural and literary norms of the time. Lack of such knowledge has led people to quite possibly misread Matthew 5:16-18.

The fact that there are so many other clear declarations (in the New Testament) that Torah has passed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus should lead us to carefully examine Matthew 5:16-18 to ensure that we get Jesus' intended meaning right.

 

[Drew]

While I intend to more fully address the article posted (in the form of a link) by RND, I should point out that it contains a rather obvious error. Note the material I have highlighted in bold:

Paul's point here is generally misunderstood because of a wrong view of the function of the paidagogos in ancient Greek society. This Greek word, translated "guardian" above, is translated "schoolmaster" and "tutor" in some versions. However, the key to comprehending Paul's point is to truly understand the responsibilities of the paidagogos. Here is what the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature states about the function of a paidagogos:

. . . Orig[inally] ‘boy-leader’, the man, usu[ally] a slave (Plut., Mor. 4ab), whose duty it was to conduct a boy or youth (Plut., Mor. 439f) to and from school and to superintend his conduct gener[ally]; he was not a ‘teacher’ . . . When the young man became of age, the [paidagogos] was no longer needed . . .

As you can see from the definition above, Paul is NOT referring to the Law as a teacher. Instead, he is again speaking of the judgment function of the Law. The context indicates that the Law functioned as a guardian for those convicted of sin. Since all have sinned (Gal. 3:22), this was all of humanity.

Clearly the author is incorrect in asserting that the Torah - the Law of Moses - was a guardian for anyone other than a Jew.

The Torah was for the Jew and the Jew only - Gentiles were not under it.

 

[RND]

Drew, let's assume for just a second what you are saying is true, that upon the death of Christ on the cross the "law" (which one?) was completely and utterly taken away, fair enough?

Why were so many Jews and gentiles still "keeping the law" many years after the death of Christ?

For example, when Paul was on trial he was never accused of ever once breaking the Torah and the Tanakh. We would have to logically conclude then that if Paul was never accused by the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin of "breaking the law" then he was "keeping the law." In this there is nothing ambiguous.

Another example would be that of Peter and the recollection of the conversion of Cornelius and his family. In a vision Peter was told to kill and eat all manner of unclean (common) animals. You know the story. Obviously this happened after Christ's death yet Peter was insistent that he had never eaten anything he wasn't supposed to. If eating all manner of animals was something that Christ told His disciples they could do after Hid death on the cross why didn't they?

 

[Drew]

Drew, let's assume for just a second what you are saying is true, that upon the death of Christ on the cross the "law" (which one?) was completely and utterly taken away, fair enough?

I am not sure what you mean by "which one". I believe that I have been clear that I believe the entire written code of Torah has been "retired"

Why were so many Jews and gentiles still "keeping the law" many years after the death of Christ?

Because they failed to understand that Torah had indeed been retired. One of the major themes of Galatians is Paul's rebuke of Jews for slipping back into following Torah.

For example, when Paul was on trial he was never accused of ever once breaking the Torah and the Tanakh. We would have to logically conclude then that if Paul was never accused by the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin of "breaking the law" then he was "keeping the law." In this there is nothing ambiguous.

This is not a valid way to reason about this. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We do not really know the full extent of accusations brought against Paul. Can you point me to specific texts where Paul was indeed under accusation specifically by Jewish authorities. Of course, a Romans authority would not care about obedience to Torah.

Another example would be that of Peter and the recollection of the conversion of Cornelius and his family. In a vision Peter was told to kill and eat all manner of unclean (common) animals. You know the story. Obviously this happened after Christ's death yet Peter was insistent that he had never eaten anything he wasn't supposed to.

I am confused about your point here. It seem clear that this account supports the notion that Levltical food laws are indeed retired:

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
You seem to think that since Peter has been abstaining from foods prohibited by the Law, this means the Law was still in force. The obvious response to this is that Peter mistakenly believed Torah remains in force. We know from Galatians that Paul rebukes Peter for his effort to separate Jew from Gentile regarding eating arrangements - clearly Peter is stuck in thinking that Torah still is in force (with its conditions re eating food) and Paul is straightening him out.

Here in the Acs text, the "voice" sets Peter straight - all foods are now clean. This constitutes an overthrowing of the Levitical food laws. How could it mean anything else since Peter obviously recognizes some of the food in the sheet as being unclean according to the prescriptions of Torah?

If eating all manner of animals was something that Christ told His disciples they could do after Hid death on the cross why didn't they?

How do we know they did not each such foods. The New Testament is not an exhaustive account of all behaviours of all followers of Jesus.

 

[RND]

I am not sure what you mean by "which one". I believe that I have been clear that I believe the entire written code of Torah has been "retired"

You do understand that part of the Torah was audibly spoken right?

Exd 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

Because they failed to understand that Torah had indeed been retired. One of the major themes of Galatians is Paul's rebuke of Jews for slipping back into following Torah.

Paul and Peter were some of those "keeping the law." Were they confused? Also, Paul isn't indicting the law he is questioning the motivation of the Galatians.

This is not a valid way to reason about this. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We do not really know the full extent of accusations brought against Paul. Can you point me to specific texts where Paul was indeed under accusation specifically by Jewish authorities. Of course, a Romans authority would not care about obedience to Torah.

Sure, Acts 23 to 25 detail the trouble Paul was having with the Jews and Romans. More specifically Paul was accused of breaking the "Jewish Law" and found innocent of the charges.

Acts 25:5-10

So he (Festus) said, "Those of you in authority can return with me. If Paul has done anything wrong, you can make your accusations." After spending eight or ten days with them, he (Festus) went down to Caesarea, and the next day he convened the court and ordered that Paul be brought before him. On Paul's arrival in court, the Jewish leaders from Jerusalem gathered around and made many serious accusations they couldn't prove. Paul denied the charges. "I am not guilty," he said. "I have committed no crime against the Jewish laws or the Temple or the Roman government." Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me there on these charges?" Paul answered: "I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well."

I am confused about your point here. It seem clear that this account supports the notion that Levltical food laws are indeed retired:

The comparison was in calling gentiles common and unclean.

You seem to think that since Peter has been abstaining from foods prohibited by the Law, this means the Law was still in force.

Yes, that's right. Peter was very intimate with Jesus and spent 3 1/2 years with Him. If anyone were to know that common animals where no allowed it certainly would be Peter.

The obvious response to this is that Peter mistakenly believed Torah remains in force.

Mistaken? After spending so much time with Christ? How is it that those that never spent a minute with Christ say that Peter was mistaken?

We know from Galatians that Paul rebukes Peter for his effort to separate Jew from Gentile regarding eating arrangements - clearly Peter is stuck in thinking that Torah still is in force (with its conditions re eating food) and Paul is straightening him out.

This had nothing to do with eating it had everything to do with perception. Peter was eating with Gentiles but the Jewish law prohibited Jews from eating with gentiles.

Gal 2:13-14, 16 - NLT

"When he (Peter) first arrived, he (Peter) ate with the Gentile Christians, who don't bother with circumcision. But afterward, when some Jewish friends of James came, Peter wouldn't eat with the Gentiles anymore because he was afraid of what these legalists would say." When I (Paul) saw that they were not following the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter in front of all the others, "Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you trying to make these Gentiles obey the Jewish laws you abandoned?

"And yet we Jewish Christians know that we become right with God, not by doing what the law commands, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be accepted by God because of our faith in Christ--and not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be saved by obeying the law."

In other word Peter was involved in "do as I say not as I do."

Here in the Acs text, the "voice" sets Peter straight - all foods are now clean. This constitutes an overthrowing of the Levitical food laws. How could it mean anything else since Peter obviously recognizes some of the food in the sheet as being unclean according to the prescriptions of Torah?

The comparison being made is that the food on the blanket was "all" common and thus "unclean" and was representative of the gentile nations.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

How do we know they did not each such foods. The New Testament is not an exhaustive account of all behaviours of all followers of Jesus.

It is fairly evident in my mind. Paul's trial, Peter's vision and trance, the fact that they kept all of the Torah regarding sabbath, etc., seems to indicate that weren't shaking off their Hebraic roots but they were embracing the Torah the way it's intended.

No one has ever been saved by keeping the law, but that doesn't mean there is no law.

 

[wavy]

RND,

You have lost my interest. But a few final points.

Your 'irrelevant and unauthoritative' source was the so-called 'Forerunner Commentary', not Matthew Henry. If you retrace your steps and read, you will realize that you quoted this commentary again. Also, I don't know what in the world the color of anyone's skin has to do with this.

Secondly, I am not 'clung' to one source. My purpose in continuing to quote it was to show how you've misrepresented it, and I have done so.

Thirdly, I don't understand the reason for you asking if I've written H. W. Attridge to tell him Paul is not the author of Hebrews. Are you trying to say that's what he believes? Because surely you'd be mistaken...

Lastly, concerning 'vitriol', I can assure you that you've offered nothing to 'challenge' here--which is why I won't waste any further time than this responding to your post.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[RND]

You have lost my interest. But a few final points.

Sorry for loosing it. I honestly didn't know I was in charge of it. I'll try to be more carefully next time.

Your 'irrelevant and unauthoritative' source was the so-called 'Forerunner Commentary', not Matthew Henry.

Did you miss the Matthew Henry quote I supplied? Here it is again.

"There is a change in the efficacy of the priesthood. The former was weak and unprofitable, made nothing perfect; the latter brought in a better hope, by which we draw near to God, v. 18, 19. The Levitical priesthood brought nothing to perfection: it could not justify men’s persons from guilt; it could not sanctify them from inward pollution; it could not cleanse the consciences of the worshippers from dead works; all it could do was to lead them to the antitype. But the priesthood of Christ carries in it, and brings along with it, a better hope; it shows us the true foundation of all the hope we have towards God for pardon and salvation; it more clearly discovers the great objects of our hope; and so it tends to work in us a more strong and lively hope of acceptance with God. By this hope we are encouraged to draw nigh unto God, to enter into a covenant-union with him, to live a life of converse and communion with him. We may now draw near with a true heart, and with the full assurance of faith, having our minds sprinkled from an evil conscience. The former priesthood rather kept men at a distance, and under a spirit of bondage."

If you retrace your steps and read, you will realize that you quoted this commentary again.

Actually, if you retrace your steps you'll see that I indeed quote Matthew Henry.

Also, I don't know what in the world the color of anyone's skin has to do with this.

It seems to me that you are dismissing the commentaries of writers not the same color as Attridge.

Secondly, I am not 'clung' to one source. My purpose in continuing to quote it was to show how you've misrepresented it, and I have done so.

No misrepresentation at all. I complimented on your source when he was dead on and pointed out the fallacious nature of some of his points. Sorry you took such exception but that's the facts.

Thirdly, I don't understand the reason for you asking if I've written H. W. Attridge to tell him Paul is not the author of Hebrews. Are you trying to say that's what he believes? Because surely you'd be mistaken...

Based on the quotes you supplied it appears that he is associating Hebrews with Paul. But this again is an extremely minor point in relation to his argumentation that there is no more law.

Lastly, concerning 'vitriol', I can assure you that you've offered nothing to 'challenge' here--which is why I won't waste any further time than this responding to your post.

Really? You seemed to have been completely gung-ho to argue and fight for your point when you thought it was on your side.

 

[Drew]

Paul and Peter were some of those "keeping the law." Were they confused? Also, Paul isn't indicting the law he is questioning the motivation of the Galatians.

Clearly, Paul is telling the Galatians to not return to doing Torah:

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothingâ€â€if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

A clear and unambiguous critique of continued observation of the Torah - the Law of Moses. If you are going to argue that Paul is merely rebuking the reliance on Torah for justification - and that Torah otherwise should be followed, consider what Paul goes on to say here:

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

Note the past tense. The Torah had a purpose, and now that the Seed has come, that purpose has come to an end. To continue to follow a law whose purpose has been fulfilled seems hardly sensible.

By the way, I never said that Paul was indicting the Law, however he is quite clear that it is to be no longer followed.

Quite a number of people, including you I believe, make the following erroneous argument:

1. Paul denies that Torah is the basis for justification;

2. When Paul clearly declares the end of the Torah, we must understand him to mean that it has come to an end only in respect to being seen as the mode of justification. However, it is still to be followed.

Point number 1 is indeed true - Paul repeatedly denies that Torah justifies. But it does not follow that this all he has to say about Torah. He also declares that it has come an end in several places:

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

As I have already argued, other things that Paul writes in Galatians make it clear that he is not merely speaking about the "judgement" function coming to an end.

And he have this from Ephesians 2:

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. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility

The two parties here are the Jew and the Gentile. And Paul clearly states that the Torah has been abolished. It is the Torah that functioned as "barrier", as an ethnic charter that lead the Jew to (falsely) believe that salvation was for Jews and Jews only.

And he have this from Romans 10:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

What is Paul's critique of the Jew? That they sought to establish a righteousness that was for Jews and Jews only. And that was based on their belief that the Torah was an ethnically-specific promise of ultimate justification for them and them alone. Paul says "no" - Christ brings the age of the Torah - in the form of a written code for Jews and Jews only - to an end. And now justification is available for everyone, that is Jew and Gentile alike.

And there is this from the lips of Jesus in Mark 7:

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'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

This is a clear declaration of the end of the Levitical food laws. Why does Jesus need to go inside the house to explain the parable? Because he knows that He will not be misunderstood - the Jews will correctly see this as breaking Torah and will be enraged to the point of seeking his death. And his time had not yet come.

There are, of course, all manner of explanations as to why each of the above do not amount to a declaration of the end of Torah. I am more than happy to show why those alternatives do not work.

Some of the alternatives are:

1. In Ephesians, Paul is declaring the end of man-made distortions of Torah, not Torah itself.

2. In Mark 7, Jesus is simply rebuking man-made handwashing laws and is not overturning the food laws of Leviticus 11.

These explanations ultimately do not work.

 

[RND]

Clearly, Paul is telling the Galatians to not return to doing Torah:

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothingâ€â€if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

A clear and unambiguous critique of continued observation of the Torah - the Law of Moses.

Drew, first off we should at least be willing to recognize that the "Torah" is not just the law of Moses but the entire Pentateuch. That includes every commandment spoken by God. The word "Torah" simple means teaching, whether verbal or otherwise.

Obviously, in my mind Paul is simply saying what he says in many of his letters, chiefly that is law keeping is not a means to salvation.

If you are going to argue that Paul is merely rebuking the reliance on Torah for justification - and that Torah otherwise should be followed, consider what Paul goes on to say here:

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

Note the past tense. The Torah had a purpose, and now that the Seed has come, that purpose has come to an end. To continue to follow a law whose purpose has been fulfilled seems hardly sensible.

Right, the "law" (Mosaic) the system of sacrifices, holy days and feasts was added because of transgressions. Because of "sin." By Christ's sacrifice He made unnecessary the sacrifice of bulls, goats and lambs. Yet we are still to offer "spiritual" sacrifices.

And yet, there is absolutely nothing wrong with marking the day of Pentecost or the Day of Atonement and remember what these feast meant and pointed to. In fact, I see them as still valuable today because they still point to Christ's second coming.

By the way, I never said that Paul was indicting the Law, however he is quite clear that it is to be no longer followed.

Well, that's the only thing I can conclude you might be saying Drew. Paul never said that the law was "no longer [to be] followed" he was saying that the promise of salvation was never by the law.

Quite a number of people, including you I believe, make the following erroneous argument:

1. Paul denies that Torah is the basis for justification;

Which is true.

2. When Paul clearly declares the end of the Torah, we must understand him to mean that it has come to an end only in respect to being seen as the mode of justification. However, it is still to be followed.

Yep.

Point number 1 is indeed true - Paul repeatedly denies that Torah justifies. But it does not follow that this all he has to say about Torah. He also declares that it has come an end in several places:

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

As I have already argued, other things that Paul writes in Galatians make it clear that he is not merely speaking about the "judgement" function coming to an end.

Paul is simply saying to the Galatians the same thing he told the Romans.

Rom 4:13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Faith has always been by promise, not by the law. Read the "faith hall of fame" to see all those who have been justified by faith and not law keeping. In fact Drew, this is such a common theme throughout all of Paul's letters it's hard to miss.

Let's put it this way, does one obey the speed limit because it's the right thing to do or just so they won't get a ticket?

And he have this from Ephesians 2:

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. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility

The two parties here are the Jew and the Gentile. And Paul clearly states that the Torah has been abolished. It is the Torah that functioned as "barrier", as an ethnic charter that lead the Jew to (falsely) believe that salvation was for Jews and Jews only.

Let's go back a few verses:

"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"

The only way a "stranger" (gentile) was able to participate in the sanctuary service was to become an adopted Israelite - a change in citizenship by observing the law of commandments in the ordinances. With Christ, we become members of Israel and "fellowcitizens" with the saints, not through the law. Paul is not saying here it is now OK to break the law, he is simply saying that the Mosaic commandments regarding the sacrifice of bulls, goats and lambs have been put away through Christ.

"For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"

"Abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations" refers to the duties of the High Priest and the laws that strangers were not allowed to participate in.

And he have this from Romans 10:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

What is Paul's critique of the Jew? That they sought to establish a righteousness that was for Jews and Jews only. And that was based on their belief that the Torah was an ethnically-specific promise of ultimate justification for them and them alone. Paul says "no" - Christ brings the age of the Torah - in the form of a written code for Jews and Jews only - to an end. And now justification is available for everyone, that is Jew and Gentile alike.

Right, I certainly agree with this Drew. The Jews attempted to shut up heaven unto themselves without allowing the strangers in to see.

And there is this from the lips of Jesus in Mark 7:

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'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

This is a clear declaration of the end of the Levitical food laws.

No, he was saying that the tradition of ritual hand washing (which became an obsession with the religious leaders of Christ's day were unnecessary.

Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

The disciples had "fault" found in them for eating with unwashed hands. Jesus said they were rejecting the commandment of God in favor of their "tradition."

Mar 7:8 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.

Why does Jesus need to go inside the house to explain the parable? Because he knows that He will not be misunderstood - the Jews will correctly see this as breaking Torah and will be enraged to the point of seeking his death. And his time had not yet come.

Drew, Jesus was speaking directly to the Pharisees in Mark 7.

There are, of course, all manner of explanations as to why each of the above do not amount to a declaration of the end of Torah. I am more than happy to show why those alternatives do not work.

Maybe you'd be best trying to see how all the puzzle pieces fit instead of trying to justify why you eat pigs.

Some of the alternatives are:

1. In Ephesians, Paul is declaring the end of man-made distortions of Torah, not Torah itself.

No, Paul is simply saying that the "regulations and commandments" contained in the law which were used to shut out the gentiles from the kingdom of God were fulfilled in Christ. He certainly wasn't saying the "entire" Torah" was eliminated.

2 Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This included the entire "Torah and Tanakh" Drew because when Paul wrote this that was the only scriptures they had.

2. In Mark 7, Jesus is simply rebuking man-made handwashing laws and is not overturning the food laws of Leviticus 11.

I think Jesus was going much, much deeper Drew. He was pointing to "all" of the traditions that the Jews had developed that shut up the kingdom of heaven to all men.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.*

These explanations ultimately do not work.

Not when you don't want them to they won't! But keep this in mind Drew. The laws were not written for just the Jews. They were written for the entire Israelite nation and were specifically done to point all men and all nations to the Lord:

Deu 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6 Keep therefore and do [them]; for this [is] your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation [is] a wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation [is there so] great, who [hath] God [so] nigh unto them, as the LORD our God [is] in all [things that] we call upon him [for]? 8 And what nation [is there so] great, that hath statutes and judgments [so] righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

 

[Drew]

I am not sure what you mean by "which one". I believe that I have been clear that I believe the entire written code of Torah has been "retired"

You do understand that part of the Torah was audibly spoken right?

Exd 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

I am not sure how this is relevant. When Paul refers to "nomos" or "Law", he almost invariably is referring to all the laws that were given to the Jews to follow. When I use the word "Torah", I am referring to the 613 (?) identifiable rules or laws in the Old Testament.

We do not really know the full extent of accusations brought against Paul. Can you point me to specific texts where Paul was indeed under accusation specifically by Jewish authorities. Of course, a Romans authority would not care about obedience to Torah.

Sure, Acts 23 to 25 detail the trouble Paul was having with the Jews and Romans. More specifically Paul was accused of breaking the "Jewish Law" and found innocent of the charges.

Acts 25:5-10

So he (Festus) said, "Those of you in authority can return with me. If Paul has done anything wrong, you can make your accusations." After spending eight or ten days with them, he (Festus) went down to Caesarea, and the next day he convened the court and ordered that Paul be brought before him. On Paul's arrival in court, the Jewish leaders from Jerusalem gathered around and made many serious accusations they couldn't prove. Paul denied the charges. "I am not guilty," he said. "I have committed no crime against the Jewish laws or the Temple or the Roman government." Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me there on these charges?" Paul answered: "I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well."

Paul does not believe that Torah remained in force, especially since he so clearly declares its abolition in several places, perhaps most clearly in Ephesians 2. The phrase "the law of the Jews" should not simply be assumed to be Torah. It is not used elsewhere by Paul to refer to the Torah - he generally uses the simple term "nomon" for that. Besides I am not sure if there is any significance to the specificity of denying that he has committed a crime. You do raise an interesting point, but I think that the evidence is ovewhelming that Paul saw Torah as retired.

Besides, a neutral observer will say to himself "If the Acts 25 material is seen as a suggestion that Paul kept Torah, then Paul clearly contradicts himself here in Ephesians 2":

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.

I think this is the Achilles heel of the position that Torah remains in force. Paul clearly is talking about Torah here (not distortions of it) and he clearly declares its abolition.

Besides such direct statements, we should not overlook Paul's broader argument which I will summarize following:

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 full sin, 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.

 

[Drew]

I am confused about your point here. It seem clear that this account supports the notion that Levltical food laws are indeed retired:

The comparison was in calling gentiles common and unclean.

No. Here is the text again:

10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

I do not see how there is any ambiguity here.

1. Peter is presented with food;
2. He is commanded to eat;
3. He clearly sees that some of the food is impure in respect to Torah food laws;
4. The voice tells him that all the foods are clean.
5. This could not possibly be more clear - the food laws have been repealed.

Now, it is indeed true that the primary lesson here for Peter, as we learn later in the chapter, is that Peter abandon his belief that the Gentiles are somehow unclean. But if one actually works the argument through, one is still driven to the conclusion that the food laws are being repealed here, even though the wider lesson may be about Peter's attitude to the Gentiles.

The key here is to understand the basis of Peter's belief that Gentiles are unclean. Clearly, it is a matter of their food habits, or more generally their doing things that Torah says makes one unclean. The Gentiles indeed eat things or otherwise do things that the Torah would describe as making a man, at least a Jewish man, unclean. But what is important is what Peter believes. There is no credible explanation as to why Peter would deem a Gentile to be unclean except that the Gentile did not keep Torah- it is Torah which tells the Jew how one becomes unclean.

Even if it is true that Gentiles are not actually made unclean by violating the provisions of Torah (since it is for Jews only), Peter clearly believes that the Gentile is unclean. So Peter must think they are unclean because they violate Torah.

Let's return to your assertion that Peter is being taught that Gentiles are not unclean. Clearly God is using the sheetful of animals to make this point. Given that we know that Peter believes the Gentiles to be unclean in virtue of their not keeping Torah, the last thing God would want to do is to present Peter with a bunch of animals, some of which are still unclean for Peter (as a Jew) to eat, and expect Peter to get the message that Gentiles, who eat these unclean animals, are clean.

In fact, such a strategy would actually re-inforce Peter's idea that the Gentile are unclean. What worse way could there be to convince Peter that the Gentiles are unclean than to offer him the very unclean animals that he (Peter) knows that the Gentiles eat? So, of course, Peter is told - all these animals are clean. It is only by that truth - that all animals are now clean - that Peter will be encouraged to see those "screech-owl eating" Gentiles as clean.

 

[RND]

I am not sure how this is relevant.

Well, I think it's extremely relevant. God spoke the words of His covenant with Israel (all that came out of Egypt)and Israel agreed to perform the words of His covenant. Those words were then written on stone with the finger of God and later placed in the Ark of the Covenant and covered with the Mercy Seat. All important sysmbolism.

When Paul refers to "nomos" or "Law", he almost invariably is referring to all the laws that were given to the Jews to follow.

That's just it Drew, those "laws" you speak of were given to the nation of Israel, not just the Jews and they were to be observed by all those in the land, including the gentiles.

When I use the word "Torah", I am referring to the 613 (?) identifiable rules or laws in the Old Testament.

Well, that would explain a lot. The "Torah" is not just the 613 mitsvah (Mosaic law) the Torah is the entire 5 books of the Pentateuch of which the mitsvah is a part of. Ask any Jew or Messianic and you will see that the "Torah" is the entirety of the teaching of God.

Paul does not believe that Torah remained in force, especially since he so clearly declares its abolition in several places, perhaps most clearly in Ephesians 2.

Drew, if this were true Paul could have been tried for breaking the mitsvah and subsequently stoned. Clearly, Festus knew any charges against Paul by the Jews were untrue. So obviously Paul didn't believe the mitsvah no longer mattered because he obviously observed it because if he hadn't observed it he come have been tried.

The phrase "the law of the Jews" should not simply be assumed to be Torah.

Who should we attribute it too?

It is not used elsewhere by Paul to refer to the Torah - he generally uses the simple term "nomon" for that. Besides I am not sure if there is any significance to the specificity of denying that he has committed a crime. You do raise an interesting point, but I think that the evidence is ovewhelming that Paul saw Torah as retired.

He wasn't tried for breaking it so it should be obvious he was "keeping" it.

Besides, a neutral observer will say to himself "If the Acts 25 material is seen as a suggestion that Paul kept Torah, then Paul clearly contradicts himself here in Ephesians 2":

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.

I think this is the Achilles heel of the position that Torah remains in force. Paul clearly is talking about Torah here (not distortions of it) and he clearly declares its abolition.

Again Drew, Jesus was the "High Priest" and by his sacrifice He joined the two separate compartments of the sanctuary, the Holy place and the Most Holy place. That's what is meant by "the dividing wall of hostility." It is with his flesh, His sacrifice, that the "commandments and regulations" of the old sanctuary service of the priest was done away with.

Besides such direct statements, we should not overlook Paul's broader argument which I will summarize following:

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

Abraham's "seed" as in Christ Jesus.

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;

Israel = Jesus.

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.

Drew, oh my. The "blessing" to all nations is through Christ by which the sacrifice and oblation ceases.

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.

Brother, it works on the Jew and the gentile to this day!

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

Through Jesus.

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.

Jesus draws all the world unto Himself Drew. Jesus is the "new covenant."

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)

All are drawn to the sacrifice of Christ.

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 full sin, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

Drew, what exactly are you saying here? Your argument is incoherent. The world was reconciled back to God through the Son.

Rom 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

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.

That wasn't the purpose of the law Drew, the purpose of the law has always been the same. To point the "sinner" to Christ.

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

Rom 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Drew, I really don't follow these ten points you are trying to make. They seem to be saying that....well, they seem to be saying....I don't know what you are saying. Very disjointed and incoherent.

 

[RND]

double post