(Some) Under The Law?

[Drew]

This incorrect reasoning has appeared before. Let me be as clear as I can: It is simply incorrect to suggest that the absence of a prescriptive law against X means that it is acceptable to do X.

Nice quote, but where in the bible does it say this? I'm not out to follow after Bohemian thought no matter how nice it sounds. The Law's standards are still in effect. The Law is the righteousness of God and is not absent, but in every wise present today.

Where does it say in the Bible that you are not to kick puppies?

The "where does it say that in the bible" is not a valid argument.

Again, the Law of Moses never tells us "thou shalt not kick puppies". But does that mean its acceptable to kick puppies? Of course not.

Prescriptive law is not the only guide available to human beings. The Holy Spirit serves that role now that the Law of Moses has been retired.

 

[Free]

There are certain principles for living which should be gleaned from the Law but that in no way means the actual laws themselves are still in effect.

 

[Drew]

There are certain principles for living which should be gleaned from the Law ....

Absolutely. Perhaps I should have been clear that I agree entirely with this qualification to the statements that I have made about the law. They certainly can be seen as source material from which to discern appropriate principles for living.

 

[Free]

lol I was responding to tim_from_pa but your post beat mine.

 

[(THE)]

I have seen many bibles and many manuscripts and have yet to come across any that contain the wording "Do not think that I have come to tell you that the law was a bad thing to be overturned, but rather understand that I come to bring it to an end by doing on the cross what the law sought to do all along"

This reaks very much of someone attempting to prove Christ destroyed the law by directly changing scripture.....If able can you take each word back to the greek and show why this verse should be read the way you have provided?????

No. You have misrepresented what I said.

Despite what many wish were true, this saying of Jesus, read in isolation, is actually ambiguous. It could be read as saying, among other things, that the Law is still to be applied. It could also be read in a way that has Jesus saying that the law has come to an end.

When I drive my car to Montreal, I have a goal: getting to Montreal. Do I continue driving once I get there? No. My purpose has been fulfilled, so I stop driving.

I believe that Jesus is saying that His life "fulfills" the Law in this very same sense -a sense which has the Law ceasing to be in force.

Im not trying to mis-represent you...you clearly said that Matthew 5:17 should be read like this

"Do not think that I have come to tell you that the law was a bad thing to be overturned, but rather understand that I come to bring it to an end by doing on the cross what the law sought to do all along"

Now if your going to debate with me on this subject ,,,cool,,,,but this obvious altered and mangled version of Matthew 5:17 just wont cut it.....

I see you decided not to use the Greek text,,,,to provide translation into your version of Matthew 5:17,,,,wise choice,,,, because you do not get this::::

"Do not think that I have come to tell you that the law was a bad thing to be overturned, but rather understand that I come to bring it to an end by doing on the cross what the law sought to do all along"

From this,,,,,

Mh nomishte oti hlqon katalusai ton nomon h touV profhtaV: ouk hlqon katalusai alla plhrwsai.

but what you get is

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or Prophets I have not come to abolish them but fulfill them.....

so where is this all of these added words from your text coming from??????????

a bad thing to be overturned, but rather understand that I come to bring it to an end by doing on the cross what the law sought to do all along"

understand I have come to bring a end??????

the law sought to do all along??????

come on friend,,,,these things have obviousy been added,,,and whomever did this,,,didnt even do a good job......

When I drive my car to Montreal, I have a goal: getting to Montreal. Do I continue driving once I get there? No. My purpose has been fulfilled, so

this is what usally happens when we try to fit God into our little human analogy box....

Sorry but there is no way you are able to capture the fulfillment of the blood sacrifices and ordianances ,,by using a college roadtrip.....

But if you want to look at the text....we can have a go at hit....

 

[(THE)]

There are certain principles for living which should be gleaned from the Law but that in no way means the actual laws themselves are still in effect.

I you say so,,,but I happen to believe the law of thou shalt comit no murder and thous shalt not steal are still in effect.....

ok tell me "Thou shalt comit no murder" is this still in effect???????????????????

a (YES) OR (NO) answer will do........... :help

 

[Drew]

Hello (THE):

My intent was never to offer an alternate translation. I was, instead, offering an alternate interpretation. And I see counterargument (yet) to undermine the possible interpretation I have offered.

 

[Drew]

ok tell me "Thou shalt comit no murder" is this still in effect???????????????????

a (YES) OR (NO) answer will do........... :help

I'll take a shot.

No. This law is no longer in effect.

But, it is demonstrably false logic that to conclude that my position forces me to a place where murder is seen to be acceptable.

 

[Drew]

this is what usally happens when we try to fit God into our little human analogy box....

Sorry but there is no way you are able to capture the fulfillment of the blood sacrifices and ordianances ,,by using a college roadtrip.....

You are simply dismissing my analogy without valid reason. There is clearly a legimate way to marry the concept of fulfillment with that of abolition.

Since you do not like my analogy, I will address the matter more directly.

Jesus can be understood to "fulfill" the Law in the specific sense that the Law had, as its ultimate goal, the defeat of sin on the cross. When that goal was achieved, the law was fulfilled. But, since the goal has been achieved, there is no further need for the Law. So it is retired.

 

[(THE)]

ok tell me "Thou shalt comit no murder" is this still in effect???????????????????

a (YES) OR (NO) answer will do........... :help

I'll take a shot.

No. This law is no longer in effect.

But, it is demonstrably false logic that to conclude that my position forces me to a place where murder is seen to be acceptable.

When one speaks truth,,,,this postion that you have found yourself in doesnt exist....

I have forced you to do nothing Drew,,,,,but it is your answer to a simple yes or no question that has trapped you in your own error.....

false logic???? I asked a question but by me being the one asking,,,it presents you with the burden of answering logic.....

SO if false logic is being used surely its not me using it..........

 

[Drew]

[quote="(THE)":sh9z7ngi]ok tell me "Thou shalt comit no murder" is this still in effect???????????????????

a (YES) OR (NO) answer will do........... :help

I'll take a shot.

No. This law is no longer in effect.

But, it is demonstrably false logic that to conclude that my position forces me to a place where murder is seen to be acceptable.

When one speaks truth,,,,this postion that you have found yourself in doesnt exist....[/quote:sh9z7ngi]
It does exist, it is entirely coherent and correct to assert that the absence of a law against some behaviour is not an implicit endorsement of the acceptabilty of that behaviour.

Every day, millions, if not billions of people do things (or refrain from doing things) for a reason other than the prescriptive effect of some law.

I have forced you to do nothing Drew,,,,,but it is your answer to a simple yes or no question that has trapped you in your own error.....

You have provided no argument at all in support of your assertion that I am in error. Where, in the Bible or elsewhere, is there any support for the assertion that the absence of a law against murder leads to the conclusion that murder is acceptable.

You appear to be assuming that law is the only informing source for our actions. Please justify that assumption. This will be a difficult task since Paul clearly argues that the Spirit replaces "law".

 

[Drew]

In Mark 7, Jesus clearly retires the Levitical food laws when He says this:

"Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him;

This is a direct challenge to the Law of Moses, which clearly states that certain foods do indeed defile the Jew. Is Jesus saying that the Law of Moses was a "mistake"? No. The big picture is one where, as per Paul's argument in Romans 10, Christ is the "end" of the Law of Moses - the "destination" to which Torah was leading. With the work of Jesus completed on the cross, the Law of Moses has done what God intended it to do.

And so it is retired with honour.

 

[(THE)]

When one speaks truth,,,,this postion that you have found yourself in doesnt exist....[/quote]
It does exist, it is entirely coherent and correct to assert that the absence of a law against some behaviour is not an implicit endorsement of the acceptabilty of that behaviour.

I have forced you to do nothing Drew,,,,,but it is your answer to a simple yes or no question that has trapped you in your own error.....

You have provided no argument at all in support of your assertion that I am in error. Where, in the Bible or elsewhere, is there any support for the assertion that the absence of a law against murder leads to the conclusion that murder is acceptable.

You appear to be assuming that law is the only informing source for our actions. Please justify that assumption. This will be a difficult task since Paul clearly argues that the Spirit replaces "law".[/quote]

of whose actions?????? long before I break a law the spirit/conscience is there......but thats for me and many christians.....If I break the law then there must be atonement,,,atonement for what????? transgressing the law.....

Every day, millions, if not billions of people do things (or refrain from doing things) for a reason other than the prescriptive effect of some law.

yup and every day millions if not billions do these (or refrain from doing thing) because of the law,,,,whether it is the law of God or the law man.......

People that do not believe are still under the law,,,they are under the law of the land that has been passed down........

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

Do we make void the law ?????????? Im thinking No.....

 

[Drew]

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

Do we make void the law ?????????? Im thinking No.....

I am glad you brought up this text. Sorry for the length of what follows:

In defence of the position that the Torah has not been abolished, some will put forward this text fron Romans 3. It is a very interesting text and needs to be dealt with.

I see this text as a promise that the "true essence" of Torah, which is not the "rules", get written on the heart. There is a difference. The "true essence" of Torah 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 Torah 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 Torah" 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 Torah (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Torah was for Israel alone. In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that there is an aspect of Torah 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 Torah - 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 Torah has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that it has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31). The Torah that has been abolished is the one that marked the Jew from the Gentile - all the "rules and regulations", and the Torah 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 Torah. Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of Torah but did not arrive "at that law" - the true essence of the Torah. I suspect my worthy opponents here will suggest that I am implying the existence of two Torahs, when there is in fact only one, and that the Jew here failed to "arrive at the 'good way' of doing that Torah" because they pursued it in a specifically legalistic manner.

Fair enough, but my point about the Torah is not that there are two entirely distinct Torahs, but rather that the "Torah of rules and regulations" is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of Torah. 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 Torah is complex and OT promises about the Torah being written on the heart can indeed be reconciled with the notion that Torah, as a system of regulations and practices, has indeed been retired.

 

[(THE)]

In Mark 7, Jesus clearly retires the Levitical food laws when He says this:

"Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him;

This is a direct challenge to the Law of Moses, which clearly states that certain foods do indeed defile the Jew. Is Jesus saying that the Law of Moses was a "mistake"? No. The big picture is one where, as per Paul's argument in Romans 10, Christ is the "end" of the Law of Moses - the "destination" to which Torah was leading. With the work of Jesus completed on the cross, the Law of Moses has done what God intended it to do.

And so it is retired with honour.

It cant,,,God has given us health laws,,,,He has told us what we can an cannot eat......NOw if you eat those things your are not defiling yourself,,,your soul is not in danger and you are not headed for hell......

The health laws are for our health,,,to keep our body strong breaking them will not defile you....

See if you take a step back and read the prior verse you will see Christ telling us to pay attention,,,and when he says this it means sharpen up....

Matthew 15:10 "And He called the multitude, and said unto them, "Hear, and understand:"

I think this one got by ya.......

Mark 7:15 "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."

Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

If I go outside and eat a dead pig,,,im breakin g a health law,,,,,,if I die at that moment whether my soul goes to heaven or hell will not depend on that dead pig ...why??????

Mark 7:15 "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."

Please rightly divide the word of God,,,the health laws were not to preserve the soul but the body.....

 

[(THE)]

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

Do we make void the law ?????????? Im thinking No.....

I am glad you brought up this text. Sorry for the length of what follows:

In defence of the position that the Torah has not been abolished, some will put forward this text fron Romans 3. It is a very interesting text and needs to be dealt with.

I see this text as a promise that the "true essence" of Torah, which is not the "rules", get written on the heart. There is a difference. The "true essence" of Torah 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 Torah 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 Torah" 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 Torah (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Torah was for Israel alone. In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that there is an aspect of Torah 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 Torah - 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 Torah has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that it has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31). The Torah that has been abolished is the one that marked the Jew from the Gentile - all the "rules and regulations", and the Torah 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 Torah. Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of Torah but did not arrive "at that law" - the true essence of the Torah. I suspect my worthy opponents here will suggest that I am implying the existence of two Torahs, when there is in fact only one, and that the Jew here failed to "arrive at the 'good way' of doing that Torah" because they pursued it in a specifically legalistic manner.

Fair enough, but my point about the Torah is not that there are two entirely distinct Torahs, but rather that the "Torah of rules and regulations" is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of Torah. 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 Torah is complex and OT promises about the Torah being written on the heart can indeed be reconciled with the notion that Torah, as a system of regulations and practices, has indeed been retired.

I will read respond and catch up later on tonight if possible.....headed out,,,to watch the game...MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL.....

 

[Drew]

It cant,,,God has given us health laws,,,,He has told us what we can an cannot eat......NOw if you eat those things your are not defiling yourself,,,your soul is not in danger and you are not headed for hell......

The health laws are for our health,,,to keep our body strong breaking them will not defile you....

No. The "health" argument is a red herring. The Law of Moses says that certain foods make you unclean (defile you):

'Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.

What does Jesus say?:

"Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him;

Jesus' teaching clearly brings the age of the Levitical food law to an end.

 

[Drew]

See if you take a step back and read the prior verse you will see Christ telling us to pay attention,,,and when he says this it means sharpen up....

Matthew 15:10 "And He called the multitude, and said unto them, "Hear, and understand:"

I think this one got by ya.......

Mark 7:15 "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."

Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

How does this undermine my argument - if anything, it re-enforces it. The Old Testament law states that certain foods defile. Jesus says that nothing that goes into your mouth defiles you.

I do not know how He could have been more clear - the time of the Levitical food laws has come to an end.

If I go outside and eat a dead pig,,,im breakin g a health law,,,,,,if I die at that moment whether my soul goes to heaven or hell will not depend on that dead pig ...why??????

Mark 7:15 "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."

Please rightly divide the word of God,,,the health laws were not to preserve the soul but the body.....

I politely suggest that you have provided no argument at all against my position. And I suggest that the soul / body distinction is something you bring to the relevant texts. Nothing in the Levitical food laws, or in what Jesus says for that matter, draw such a distinction.

You may well be breaking a health law if you eat a dead pig. I am not sure what that has to do with the Law of Moses.

It is quite simple. The Levitical food laws state that eating certain foods made the Jew unclean - defiled him.

Jesus says that nothing that you eat can defile you.

Can you explain how you (apparently) read Jesus as saying "Nothing, except ofcourse all those foods mentioned in Leviticus, can defile you by entering your body.

Jesus has chosen his words carefully. The issue is "defilement", or being rendered unclean, not health per se. The Levitical law states some food defile, Jesus says none do.

So I am not sure how one can argue the position that the food laws are still in force.

Remember- when Jesus says "no foods can defile you", He is obviously not saying "Its OK to eat a rotting pig, or its ok to eat broken glass".

He is addressing the very specific matter of defilement, as per the Old Testament.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I'll take a shot.

No. This law is no longer in effect.

But, it is demonstrably false logic that to conclude that my position forces me to a place where murder is seen to be acceptable.

Then, if there is no Law, then a person can't be judged by God if they do murder.

Let me explain the difference between being "under the Law" and "under grace"

Under the Law, murder is wrong and the penalty is death.

Under grace, the same Law says murder is wrong, but the penalty was taken by Christ.

Under the Law, one took their own punishment. Under grace, the punishment is taken by Christ. So, when one is "under the Law", the implied meaning is that they are willing to take on the consequences themselves. When they are "under grace" Christ takes that punishment, but the standards are the same.

If there is no Law standard needed any longer, then there is no standard of righteousness and thus, no death of Christ is needed, and Christ died in vain. Like the Laws of physics, the Law of righteousness does not change. What changes is the source of righteousness to fulfill the requirements of that Law.

 

[Drew]

Then, if there is no Law, then a person can't be judged by God if they do murder.

Paul clearly believes otherwise - the presence of Law is not a necessary pre-condition for God to execute judgement:

All 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.

I could not really follow the rest of your post.