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

[Drew]

Greetings all:

Is anyone out there, other than RND, still reading this thread with interest? I am pretty sure a moderator is reading it, but perhaps is not that interested.

If anyone out there, besides my worthy opponent RND, expresses interest in our back and forth, I will continue. If not, I will limit my contributions, since in some areas I think we are at an impasse.

 

[RND]

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."

Drew, the gentiles, in fact everyone, were washed clean by the blood of Christ.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

All are made holy by His blood:

Hbr 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

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 This could not possibly be more clear - the food laws have been repealed.

No Drew the comparison is easy to see. Gentiles were considered "unclean" by the Jews. God is calling them clean by the blood of Christ.

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.

You said it, "the primary lesson."

But if one actually works the argument through, one is still driven to the conclusion that the food laws are being repealed here, even though the wider lesson may be about Peter's attitude to the Gentiles.

Peter was in a trance, in a vision, and "the primary lesson" (only lesson) is just that. In a vision God was comparing the gentiles to unclean animals.

The key here is to understand the basis of Peter's belief that Gentiles are unclean.

As was common in Peter's day.

Clearly, it is a matter of their food habits, or more generally their doing things that Torah says makes one unclean.

The Torah makes no such distinction. There was "one law" for both the Israelites and the gentiles. So the rules regarding clean and unclean applied to everyone.

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.

Right, and Peter was being shown in a vision what he believed about Gentiles was wrong.

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.

There is a huge credible reason why Peter believed what He did. Anyone that was not Jewish was considered a "dog" or unclean. The Samaritan and Canaanite woman both would have had Abraham's blood coursing through their veins and yet they were considered "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),

"One law..."

Peter clearly believes that the Gentile is unclean. So Peter must think they are unclean because they violate Torah.

Because they were never "given" the 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.

But that's just it Drew, Peter got the message.

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.

Drew, you are saying that God is saying that the gentiles are clean because God compared them to "unclean" animals and thus "unclean" animals must be clean now because the gentiles are now clean by the blood of the Lamb.

So by that same logic we can say the all manner of lawlessness is made legal because of the blood of the Lamb. Why not just say that Peter was given permission to actually eat humans? I mean if humans were being compared to unclean animals that were now OK to eat then obviously we can eat people now!

 

[Drew]

The Torah makes no such distinction. There was "one law" for both the Israelites and the gentiles. So the rules regarding clean and unclean applied to everyone.

This might be true in respect to those living in Palestine, but it is certainly not generally true. There are plenty of Gentiles - non-Jews - to whom the Torah definitely did not apply.

It is clear - the Torah is certainly not for all Gentiles. Here is proof:

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

Paul would not write about the possibility of sinning "apart from the Law" if the Law applied to all. He is drawing a distinction between Jews (or perhaps Jews and some Gentiles) and Gentiles in general. The Jew sins "under the Law", the Gentile sins "apart from the Law" - the Gentiles (most of them, anyway) are not subject to the dictates of Torah.

The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker

Although this verse is a little complicated, one thing remains clear. It is the Jew and the Jew only who has the written code. The Gentiles are indeed described as "obeying the Law", but Paul is talking about the "law" as written on the heart by the Spirit - the essence of Torah, if you will. That is a complicated on its own. But for the purposes of the present discussion, Paul clearly asserts that the written code is for Jews only.

The Gentiles are not subject to the written code of Torah, the Jews are.

Or we have this from Romans 3:

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

Paul's reasoning here is clear. He first says that one is not justified by following Torah. We all agree on this. Verse 29 would make no sense if Paul did not think that the Torah was for Jews and Jews only. If justification were based on keeping Torah, then indeed the Jew would be able to boast that Jews only can be justified. The only way that the Gentile can be justified is if Torah is not the basis of justification. And this is precisely what Paul argues here - God has provided justification "apart from the Torah".

The belief that the Torah - the written law recorded in the Old Testament - was intended for the Jews and the Gentile in general is a major error that will, of course, trip one up in all sorts of ways.

The main thrust of many of Paul's arguments that the Law has been abolished is that it puts Jew and Gentile on equal footing. While the dictates of Torah perhaps extended to Gentiles in the land, Paul clearly sees that there are Gentiles to whom Torah does not apply.

If you deny this, it is no wonder that you do not understand how Paul's argument in Galatians (and Ephesians) is that Torah has come to an end, precisely because it is only through ending the ethnic-specificity of Torah that all can be brought together in Christ.

 

[Drew]

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?

No. You are ignoring my argument and simply restating your position.

I have already made a case - not just a claim, but an actual argument - that Paul's statement in Galatians 3 declares the abolition of the Law, and is not simply redressing the view that the Law justifies. You ignore the content of that case and merely re-asserting the very position that my argument works against.

Your post from Romans 4 does not make your case - the fact that we are justified by faith and not by law-following does not magically transform Paul's clear declarations that the Torah has been abolished into something else.

Paul means what he says - the Torah is abolished:

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.

 

[Drew]

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.

You are mistaken to imply that I am in error here.

From wikipedia:

According to rabbinic tradition, the Torah contains the 613 mitzvot (מצוות, "commandments"), which are divided into 365 negative restrictions and 248 positive commands

I agree that these are found in the Pentateuch. Even though I did not state this, my statement was consistent with that truth. I have a correct understanding of what the Torah is - at least one that agrees with Rabbinic tradition.

Question for you: Can you please tell us what is in Torah, over and above these 613 rules? If you say "nothing", we are in agreement about Torah is. I am interested to know what in the Pentateuch, other than these 613 laws, you see as constitutive of Torah.

 

[Drew]

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.

My points are clearly expressed and entirely coherent. You may not agree with what I am asserting, but that is an entirely different matter. I challenge to tell me one thing that is incoherent in the 10 point model I have described.

 

[Drew]

There are those who will argue that Paul’s declarations about the Law coming to an end leave the Torah entirely intact in terms of being a set of prescriptive behaviours we should pursue. Some who hold this position maintain that Paul is only declaring the end of the judgement function of Torah. Here is an expression of this view, in specific relation to the Galatians 3 statements about how we are no longer under the guardianship of the Torah.

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. When forgiveness came through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Yeshua, we were no longer subject to the guardianship of the Law; we were no longer under its penalty for disobedience. However, this did not mean that the Law's role as God's standard of right conduct had been voided.

There are a wide range of reasons for being sceptical of such an interpretation (not to mention that is an error to claim that all emen are under the Torah). First of these is that, unless there are truly compelling reasons to the contrary, the statement that we “are no longer under the supervision of the Law†reasonably suggests that the Law has been fully retired, not that it continues to be a prescriptive obligation for us, with only one specific aspect of it done away with – its function of conferring on us a specific penalty for it disobedience.

The problem with this view is more strongly seen in Ephesians 2:

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

I will continue to bring up this text, since I think it is perhaps the clearest proof that the Torah has indeed been abolished. To return to the point, what writer would clearly assert that the Torah, as set of rules and regulations has been abolished, and yet expect the reader to continue to think that it is still in force, in any prescriptive capacity? It would be a deeply confused, inarticulate writer who would use this direct statement of abolition, clearly in reference to the prescriptions of Torah, and really mean that it is only the judgement function of the Torah that has changed. Why not some other function, like the function of giving us knowledge of sin? – Paul, at several places, ascribes such a function to Torah.

Failure to give Paul due credit for being a competent and clear thinker is probably the biggest reason for the survival of the clearly erroneous view that Torah is still in force. By assuming he would use “abolition of Torah†language to only denote the end of its judgement function is to suggest that he is less competent than a high school student. If a high school student wrote Ephesians 2:14-15 intending the reader to understand that we are still expected to follow the prescriptions of Torah, he would, rightfully, be given a failing grade. I repeat: no competent writer, least of all the highly educated Pharisee Paul, would write Ephesians 2:14-15 and not expect the reader to get the plain sense of his words – the Torah, as a written code, has been retired.

Imagine that a certain society was under a prescriptive law that, for example, people are not allowed to drive cars on Sunday. Now imagine that the government “abolished this law with its commandments and regulationsâ€Â. No reasonable person would think that the prohibition against Sunday drive persists in any sense at all that could remotely be called a law.

And yet this is precisely what we are being asked to believe – that while in both Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 the end of the law is clearly declared, it still continues to survive, as a law.