Should Christians observe the OT feasts?

[Drew]

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

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I have already provided a detailed argument as to a possible, alternative reading of this text. Please see post 95.

 

[Drew]

I never said it was for sinners. I said it was for God's people. American laws are for those who live in America. Icelandic laws are for those who live in Iceland. God's laws are for God's people.

This sounds nice, but I suggest it is simply not what the Bible teaches.

In the book of Leviticus, God tells the Jewish nation to not eat certain foods and He connects this instruction to a declaration that Israel has been set apart from the nations. A very strong indication that the Law of Moses was for one nation only.

And we need to remember who was at Mount Sinai. It was the nation of Israel, incorporating, of course, the odd person who was not Jewish by "birth".

I have already argued in detail from Romans 3 why Paul sees the Law of Moses as being applicable to Jews only. I will know make an argument appealing to Romans 4:

Here is the relevant text from Romans 4:

Is this blessing then on (I)the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For (J)we say, "(K)FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11and he (L)received the sign of circumcision, (M)a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be (N)the father of (O)all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13For (P)the promise to Abraham or to his descendants (Q)that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14For (R)if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15for (S)the Law brings about wrath, but (T)where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with (U)grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to (V)all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to (W)those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is (X)the father of us all, 17(as it is written, "(Y)A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, (Z)who gives life to the dead and (AA)calls into being (AB)that which does not exist.

What is Paul's basic argument here? That the true family of God includes both Jews and Gentiles. Paul starts out by stressing that the promised blessing to Abraham's descendents was given before Abraham was marked out by circumcision as father of the nation of Israel. This is absolutely vital to Paul's argument - he wants to make a case that, despite what some Jews may think, the "real" family of Abraham, at least in the sense that is relevant to those who are justified by faith, includes both Jew and Gentile. And this same idea is repeated over and over and over in this text - Abraham's "true" descendents include both Jew and Gentile. Fine.

Now for the relevant point. It is clear beyond dispute (although I suspect you will dispute this anyway) from verse 16 that Pauls sees Jews as those who are "of the Law". If he believed that Gentiles were "of the Law" as well, his argument would not make any sense at all.

If you are right - if the Law of Moses is for both Jew and Gentile - look at what you have Paul saying in verse 16:

all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law (that is all believers, Jew or Gentile), but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham

So, please tell us, exactly who are these "of the faith of Abraham"? On your take that the Law of Moses applies to Gentile believers as well as to Jewish ones, there is no believer who is not "of the law". So who is Paul talking about when he clearly marks out a different group as being those "of the faith of Abraham"?

I politely suggest that this is the proper interpretation:

all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law (that is, Jewish believer), but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham (that is, Gentile believers who, while not "ethnic" children like Jews, do indeed share Abraham's faith).

 

[Prince]

I have already provided a detailed argument as to a possible, alternative reading of this text. Please see post 95.

ok

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this

Jesus was God in the flesh can a man say God is a product of any time knowing he is the beginning and the ending?

Revelation 1 8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, the Law of Moses has been retired.

Yes it is, a BIG challenge.

Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Law of Moses, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€.

Can you give me the exact verse from Roman in which you speak - I pretty sure I know where your going but I dont wanna guess as far as Ephesians 2:15

Ephesians 2:15 "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

Notice the word "ordinances" there is a difference in the Law and ordinaces.

TSO-
In other words; there is only one temple, one family, one way through Jesus Christ. If you think it means "the law doesn't matter anymore", your wrong. The key to the understanding of this verse is stated," contained in ordinances". There is a difference between "the law", and "ordinances within the law".

This verse is directed to the ordinances of "blood sacrifice", also called "the daily sacrifices" that are within the law. These blood sacrifices are not required anymore. ever, because Jesus Christ's blood sacrificed on the cross satisfied completely that part of the law, before our Heavenly Father

The Law itself has not been changed at all the ordinances and statutes that accompany the law have. What Jesus did was change the way we handle things when the law is broken.

Without law there is no sin - you sin when you break the law, if there was no law then there would be know need for repentance.

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15).

Untrue the way you have rendered what a Ordinance is allows you to take this posistion Paul said.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

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

Perhaps - But perhaps that would be the only way to hold to your posistion.

Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

I take this at face value - there is no mystery here.

 

[Drew]

Jesus was God in the flesh can a man say God is a product of any time knowing he is the beginning and the ending?

Revelation 1 8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

I suggest that this text (the one from Revelation) in no way challenges the assertion that Jesus was a real person who lived in a particular culture, and would interact with that culture usings its customs and norms.

And as my post shows, "apocalyptic" end of the world language was widely used in that culture as a metaphorical device to invest "everyday" events with their theological significance. In short, it is entirely plausible that Jesus uses the "until heaven and earth pass away" phrase to really denote "until the present world order comes to an end". Note that this is precisely what how such end of the world language was used in the Isaiah passage I analyzed.

To repeat: when Jesus says that the Law will remain until "heaven and earth pass away", we need to interpret this saying in its proper cultural context.

I suggest that Jesus is saying that the Law will not end until there has been a significant revolution in the way the universe is ordered.

And I suggest that the revolution in question took place on the cross.

 

[Pard]

And I suggest that the revolution in question took place on the cross.

AMEN!

333

 

[Drew]

........as far as Ephesians 2:15

Ephesians 2:15 "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

Notice the word "ordinances" there is a difference in the Law and ordinaces.

I think it is clear that Paul is talking about the Law of Moses. I made a detailed argument in post 35 as to how the context drives us inexorably to the conclusion that the author of Ephesians is, in fact, writing about the Law of Moses. The fact that he uses the term "ordnance" seems inconsequential - this terms is a perfectly appropriate term to use to refer to the content of the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

Can you give me the exact verse from Roman in which you speak

Some will argue that Paul never really abolished the Law of Moses in any sense at all. I suggest that such a view is undermined by his argument of Romans 7:

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

In order to preserve this idea that the Law of Moses still applies fully, some argue that, in the above, Paul is talking about the "traditions of men" and not the "real Law of Moses" - he is saying we have been released from the "traditions of men", not from the Law of Moses.

Such a position is ruled out by what Paul immediately goes on to write:

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Clearly Paul is indeed talking about the Law of Moses "as is" - not men's distortions of it. It was the Torah - the genuine article - that contained the "do not covet" command.

 

[Drew]

TSO-
In other words; there is only one temple, one family, one way through Jesus Christ. If you think it means "the law doesn't matter anymore", your wrong. The key to the understanding of this verse is stated," contained in ordinances". There is a difference between "the law", and "ordinances within the law".

This verse is directed to the ordinances of "blood sacrifice", also called "the daily sacrifices" that are within the law. These blood sacrifices are not required anymore. ever, because Jesus Christ's blood sacrificed on the cross satisfied completely that part of the law, before our Heavenly Father

I see no actual argument here, just an assertion. What textual evidence do you have that Paul is speaking only of some sub-set of the Law of Moses. He never qualifies what He says to this effect. Again, the use of the term "ordnances" does not justify concluding that Paul is talking about a subset of the Law - the term "ordnance" could certainly be used to refer to each element of the Law of Moses.

Besides, the context argument provided in post 35 strongly supports the notion that the author of Ephesians is talking about the whole Law of Moses. If most of the Law is left intact, then the very barrier that is described as torn down remains substantially intact.

It is important to realize that the Law of Moses, as a written code, was given only to the nation of Israel.

 

[Drew]

Without law there is no sin

I think this is not Biblical. Note what Paul writes in Romans 5:

Therefore, just as through (X)one man sin entered into the world, and (Y)death through sin, and (Z)so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

13for until the Law sin was in the world, but (AA)sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (AB)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](AC)type of Him who was to come.

Paul is pointing out that sin did indeed "exist" before the Law of Moses was given. And Paul re-enforces the point that sin can indeed exist in the absence of "law" by saying that death - the consequence of sin - still held power over those who did not sin "in the way that Adam sinned", that is by breaking a commandment handed down explicitly from God.
I do not see how this text can work with the postion that without the law there is no sin. Yes, Paul says that without law, sin is not imputed. But that's a different issue. This text shows that sin does indeed exist in the absence of formal law, whether the Law of Moses or a special commandment, such as the one dispensed to Adam.

 

[Drew]

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

In defence of the position that the Law of Moses has not been abolished, some will put forward this text from Romans 3:

"31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Lawâ€

I think that Paul is saying that "true essence" of Law of Moses, which is not the "rules", is what is established. There is a difference. The "true essence" of Law of Moses is, I suggest, what Jesus is talking about in Matthew, when He says that all the Law and the Prophets "depend" on loving God and loving neighbour.

Lest ye think that this position is a pure "invention of convenience" on my part (e.g. to reconcile my position that Law of Moses has been abolished with the clear implication of the above text that suggests otherwise), I will refer to at least a few things Paul says that countenance such a distinction:

25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

And what has Paul written moments before?

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

I suggest this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualization of the Law. One of these is the set of formal practices that mark Jew from Gentile (with particular emphasis on things like Sabbath and purity laws). The other is the "essence of Law of Moses" that even the Gentile can follow. Note that Paul is talking about Gentiles, as uncircumcised men, keeping the Law.

Any Jew worth his salt would immediately, and rightly, protest that circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of Law of Moses (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Law of Moses was for Israel alone (I suspect some of you will challenge me on this!). In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that there is an aspect of Law of Moses that the Gentile does not possess - the Gentile is characterized as "not having the Law".

Allthough things get complicated, if we are to take Paul seriously here, we have to see him as discerning two aspects of Law of Moses - the one that demarcates the Jew from the Gentile (including, e.g., circumcision) and the one that "gets written on the heart of the Gentile" (and the believing Jew, of course).

Note also how such an interpretation allows us to make sense of clear statements that Law of Moses has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that it has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31). The Law of Moses that has been abolished is the one that marked the Jew from the Gentile - all the "rules and regulations", and the Law of Moses that has been established is the one written on the heart of Jew and Gentile alike who have faith in Christ - the imperative to love God and love neighbour.

Consider also this from Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Yet again, we have Paul with two faces to Law of Moses. Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of Law of Moses but did not arrive "at that law" - the true essence of the Law of Moses. I suspect my worthy opponents here will suggest that I am implying the existence of two Law of Mosess, when there is in fact only one, and that the Jew here failed to "arrive at the 'good way' of doing that Law of Moses" because they pursued it in a specifically legalistic manner.

Fair enough, but my point about the Law of Moses is not that there are two entirely distinct Law of Mosess, but rather that the "Law of Moses of rules and regulations" is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of Law of Moses. It is because the Jew pursued the "rules and regulations" and forgot the heart that the problem arose. And, as per Romans 10 (just a few breaths later), they did so not so much from a legalistic error, but rather from a "racial exclusion" error:

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God

From these texts, we see that Paul's view of Law of Moses is complex and OT promises about the Law of Moses being written on the heart can indeed be reconciled with the notion that Law of Moses, as a system of regulations and practices, has indeed been retired.

 

[God&DogGirl]

Here I was about to say "sure, I don't think it would be wrong to honor traditions from the OT, I mean Jesus did" but there's a big debate so I'll back out.

 

[Drew]

Here I was about to say "sure, I don't think it would be wrong to honor traditions from the OT, I mean Jesus did" but there's a big debate so I'll back out.

Its good to know that some other people are reading the arguments.

 

[Prince]

I think it is clear that Paul is talking about the Law of Moses. I made a detailed argument in post 35 as to how the context drives us inexorably to the conclusion that the author of Ephesians is, in fact, writing about the Law of Moses. The fact that he uses the term "ordnance" seems inconsequential - this terms is a perfectly appropriate term to use to refer to the content of the Law of Moses.

Ephesians 2:15 "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

I think it is clear that Paul is talking about the Law of Moses

Paul didnt say law of Moses, those are your words not his. Paul said

even the law of commandments contained in ordinances

We have "Laws" we have "statutes and we have ordinaces - notice what God said to Abraham.

Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

You seem to combine all these things as one when they are not.
Here is a small excert WSBG

Simply put (and briefly): A "Law" is something that God says that we are not to do; a "Statute" and an "Ordinance" is something that God says that we are to do. And a "Statute" is more grave than an "ordinance." Laws are committed, but Statutes and Ordinances are violated. You committed murder (by killing), but you violated the Passover (by not keeping it), etc. The exception to this (in wording only) would in the 4th and 5th Commandments (Keep the Sabbath Day holy & Honor mother and father), but this is in wording only; for, to dishonor mother and father is TO NOT honor them, and to NOT keep the Sabbath Day holy is to not do the commandment to keep it holy "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. ...thou shalt not do any work...." (Ex 20:8-10a). So that it could be taken as 'though shalt not dishonor mother and father' ....

 

[Prince]

Here I was about to say "sure, I don't think it would be wrong to honor traditions from the OT, I mean Jesus did" but there's a big debate so I'll back out.

Dont back out you should speak your mind, learning comes from many angles

 

[Drew]

Ephesians 2:15 "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"



Paul didnt say law of Moses, those are your words not his. Paul said

even the law of commandments contained in ordinances

We have "Laws" we have "statutes and we have ordinaces - notice what God said to Abraham.

Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

You seem to combine all these things as one when they are not.
Here is a small excert WSBG

Simply put (and briefly): A "Law" is something that God says that we are not to do; a "Statute" and an "Ordinance" is something that God says that we are to do. And a "Statute" is more grave than an "ordinance." Laws are committed, but Statutes and Ordinances are violated. You committed murder (by killing), but you violated the Passover (by not keeping it), etc. The exception to this (in wording only) would in the 4th and 5th Commandments (Keep the Sabbath Day holy & Honor mother and father), but this is in wording only; for, to dishonor mother and father is TO NOT honor them, and to NOT keep the Sabbath Day holy is to not do the commandment to keep it holy "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. ...thou shalt not do any work...." (Ex 20:8-10a). So that it could be taken as 'though shalt not dishonor mother and father' ....

I think you are basically avoiding the force of my argument and instead proposing a very questionable argument based on this distinction between an "ordnance" and the rest of the Law. Just because this phrase appears in scripture:

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

....does not establish that the word "ordnance" must always be used in a manner such that it is understood to be different from "law". Here is the text rendered in the NASB:

by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,

This certainly reads as though Paul believes that the Law of commandments is expressed through "ordnances". This would mean that these ordnances, far from being different from "law" as you seem to be suggesting, are, in fact, the very way that the "law" is expressed.

It is misrepresentative to suggest that I am putting the worlds "Law of Moses" in Paul's mouth. I am arguing for such an interpretation, not merely asserting it.

As far the WSBG stuff is concerned, I think you need to make the case that "ordnance" is always "exclusive of law" - the material you provides simply asserts something. In any event, in the NASB at least, it is pretty clear that Paul sees "ordnances" as being the very vehicle by which "law" is expressed - law contained in ordnances. So even if the WSBG "definition is generally true, it seems clear that here at least, Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) sees the ordnances as being basically the same thing as the content of the "Law of commandments"

In any event, you still need to engage my context argument from post 35 - it is the entire Law of Moses that functioned to mark the Jew out as distinct from the Gentile. The entire argument about the barrier between Jew and Gentile being destroyed falls entirely apart if the major elements of the Law of Moses remain in place.

 

[Prince]

[/FONT]
I think this is not Biblical. Note what Paul writes in Romans 5:

Therefore, just as through (X)one man sin entered into the world, and (Y)death through sin, and (Z)so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

13for until the Law sin was in the world, but (AA)sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (AB)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](AC)type of Him who was to come.

Paul is pointing out that sin did indeed "exist" before the Law of Moses was given. And Paul re-enforces the point that sin can indeed exist in the absence of "law" by saying that death - the consequence of sin - still held power over those who did not sin "in the way that Adam sinned", that is by breaking a commandment handed down explicitly from God.
I do not see how this text can work with the postion that without the law there is no sin. Yes, Paul says that without law, sin is not imputed. But that's a different issue. This text shows that sin does indeed exist in the absence of formal law, whether the Law of Moses or a special commandment, such as the one dispensed to Adam.

I think this is not Biblical

Dont be so quick Drew, If you have read any of my post I use scripture always, sometimes I think we forgot about some scripture, did you foget about this one?

Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

Do you still think my comment is unbiblical?

 

[Drew]

Here is another argument in support of the position that the Law of Moses has indeed "expired":

Some will argue that Paul’s position on the Law of Moses is that it is still in force and that statements that appear to suggest its expiry are really intended to help the reader understand that it is Christ, and not the Law of Moses, which justifies, although the Law of Moses remains in force. Some texts are indeed consistent with such an understanding.

But others are not and make it quite clear that Paul sees the Law of Moses as having been retired. Consider this from Galatians 3:

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.

Just in case there is any doubt that “law†here refers specifically to the Law of Moses, note the meaning that Paul ascribes to the word “law†a few sentences back:

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

Clearly, Paul is here using “law†to denote the set of command and prescriptions that were delivered to the Jews at Sinai – he is not talking about a “law†that is for Gentiles.

Paul would have to be a very incompetent writer if he didn't intend to suggest that the Law of Moses 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.

Yet we have every reason to believe that Paul is using the term "paidagogos" in the proper sense - the sense where the tutor's job comes to an end at a certain point. Just as the tutor's job ends when the boy becomes a man, the Law's job comes to an end once "faith has come" as Paul explicitly states.

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 Law of Moses has been affirmed as still applicable, then the Jew and the Gentile are still two distinct groups within the body - we have Law following Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians who do not follow the Law. 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 Law of Moses were still active precisely because the Torah served the purpose of demarcating the Jew as distinct from the Gentile (I will support this elsewhere). Many do not think of the Law of Moses 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 Law of Moses - has been retired.

I am going to politely suggest that the only reason such texts can be read as not indicating the expiry of the Law of Moses is to make the implicit assumption that Paul is a bad writer not in command of his argument and its terms. Thus, to believe that the Law of Moses is still in force, we need to believe the following:

1. Paul's choice of the paidagogos metaphor is misleading, since proper use of the metaphor would imply that the Law of Moses, like the tutor's job, expires.

2. Paul has been doubly incompetent in his choice of the metaphor, since his "now that faith has come" statement would be naturally seen as corresponding to the condition of the boy reaching manhood, triggering the release of the paidagogos.

3. Paul writes a very weak and contradictory conclusion in 26 - 28, since he argues that the Jew and Gentile are indistinguishable from each other in the family, yet the Jew retains this massive set of rules, festivals, and practices that they alone are to follow. This is hardly being "non-distinct" from the Gentile.

 

[Drew]

Dont be so quick Drew, If you have read any of my post I use scripture always, sometimes I think we forgot about some scripture, did you foget about this one?

Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

Do you still think my comment is unbiblical?

Yes I do think your comment is unBiblical. You are simply not dealing with the Romans 5 text. You need to explain how any person would write what Paul wrote - that sin was in the world working death even before the Law and where no explicit commandment was broken (that's what it means to sin in a manner unlike Adam) - and also believe that "without law there is no sin".

Now as to your text: Just because there cannot be transgression without law does not mean that there cannot be sin without law. You appear to assume that "sin" and "transgession" mean the same thing. This is not the case, as borne out by the very Romans 5 text whose implications you have yet to engage. Paul, at least, sees sin as being very real even in the absence of Law.

But there's more. This text from Romans 7 shows that Paul sees sin as something that certainly exists apart from the Law of Moses, and that the Law of Moses does not function to "create sin" but simply to reveal it:

On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "(P)YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

The important distinction is this: just because "law" reveals sin, does not mean that sin does not exist without law. Romans 5 shows that Paul believes that sin does indeed exist even in the absence of law.

 

[Drew]

Another argument to the effect that the Law of Moses has been "retired":

Consider the healings of those who, by virtue of the specific nature of their malady were considered “unclean†and were effectively excluded from membership in the people of God (by the dictates of the Law of Moses). Healings of lepers and the women with the menstrual problem are pointed examples.

Such healings are often taken to be merely “evidence†of Jesus’ supernatural powers. They mean a lot more than this. By healing such people, Jesus sends a powerful symbolic message – the old markers for membership in the true people of God are being done away with. Those who were on the outside are now on the inside. And the parable of wedding feast demonstrates that the reverse is also the case – Jews can find themselves outside the true family of God.

Both Jesus and Paul, each in their own way, re-draw the boundary markers that demarcate the true people of God.

And this amounts to abolishing at least large chunks of the Law of Moses. It is the Law of Moses that marks certain people out as unclean and sets them outside the people of God (at least temporarily). So when Jesus renders them clean, He effectively bypasses the Temple route for purification.

I am not sure how this can be interpreted as anything other than a setting aside of the Law of Moses (or at least a large chunk of it).

 

[Prince]

Yes I do think your comment is unBiblical. You are simply not dealing with the Romans 5 text. You need to explain how any person would write what Paul wrote - that sin was in the world working death even before the Law and where no explicit commandment was broken (that's what it means to sin in a manner unlike Adam) - and also believe that "without law there is no sin".

Now as to your text: Just because there cannot be transgression without law does not mean that there cannot be sin without law. You appear to assume that "sin" and "transgession" mean the same thing. This is not the case, as borne out by the very Romans 5 text whose implications you have yet to engage. Paul, at least, sees sin as being very real even in the absence of Law.

But there's more. This text from Romans 7 shows that Paul sees sin as something that certainly exists apart from the Law of Moses, and that the Law of Moses does not function to "create sin" but simply to reveal it:

On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "(P)YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

The important distinction is this: just because "law" reveals sin, does not mean that sin does not exist without law. Romans 5 shows that Paul believes that sin does indeed exist even in the absence of law.

Yes I do think your comment is unBiblical.

Lets stop for a moment because if we cant come to an agree ment on this then how wil we ever go into further detail..

I said - without the law there is no sin

you said

I think this is not Biblical

I showed you the verse that says this

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath for where no law is there is no transgression​

Transgression
Original Word: παράβασις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: parabasis
Phonetic Spelling: (par-ab'-as-is)
Short Definition: a transgression
Definition: a transgression, overstepping, deviation


3847 parábasis (from 3844 /pará, "contrary" and bainō, "go") – properly, an "overstepping" (BAGD); a deliberate going over "the line." 3847 ("a stepping over the line") in the NT refers to the willful disregard (breaking) of God's law which defies His drawn-lines (boundaries); an arrogant "over-stepping

All I have done is quote scripture, but yet you say my words or unbiblical?, but my words are not my words they are the word of Paul inspired thru the spirit, would this not mean your calling the bible unbiblical?