(Some) Under The Law?

[GodspromisesRyes]

...this is why not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away- that is when all unbelievers will pass away and it is the wicked the law was made for in the first place we are told in tim.

You forgot the rest - until all is fulfilled.

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. 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, Torah has been retired. 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 Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"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. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

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.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

Of course, the argument here is only sketch, but I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Torah will remain in force basically to the end of time.

I did not say that torah isnot fully in force, indeed it is- upon all who are alive. All whoa re alive are wicked and the law is made for the wicked. We in Christ have DIED and that to the law and are only alive in Christ Jesus. the law is not applied to us because we are dead and ar eno more wicked but are born again from above. We walk by the SPirit and not the letter that brought death to the wicked by finding them eternally guilty. Not until heaven and earth pass away in the end will all sinners be abolished and the alw with them.

 

[tim-from-pa]

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.

Let's read further.....

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another....

Paul was not teaching that he believed otherwise. What he was saying is even without the Law there are standards and conscience dictating to a Gentile man whether he is right or wrong. So, even by those standards he is rebellious, even though the he does not have the Law to tell him that. After all, disobedience only shows our fallen nature and presupposes rebellion. The Law condemns such an attitude, and thus by that Law God has the mechanism in place to judge one who does not have the Law even though he broken his own Law. There is a Jewish belief that the Torah existed before creation. It is the Word, and Jesus is the Word.

As for you not following the rest of my previous post, I don't know what else to say. It's pretty straightforward.

 

[Drew]

Hi Tim from Pa:

I am also having difficulty understanding what you are saying in your latest post.

 

[Cyberseeker]

Now, my question is this: Was the law annulled for all people when the seed came? Or was it annulled for believers only?
I.O.W. does God consider the law still is force for unbelievers and annulled (individually) as they come to faith?

It is not a written set of rules and law anymore under the new convenant.

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 believe that the answer is "no". ... I believe that the effect of giving the law to Israel was to draw ("lure") sin, understood specifically as a personal power or agency, into Israel. Having been "localized" in Israel, it was then focused into one person - Jesus, acting as Israel on the cross.
… And therefore the law is entirely retired, having successfully achieved its purpose. No one should be observing it now.

Thanks for some good answers to my topic. I will get back to some of the other replies soon.

Cyber

 

[Cyberseeker]

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.

Lol, I love it. :biglaugh And this hi-lights the ridiculousness of the legalist mind. It was getting bad in Jesus day and its back with the modern day Judaisers. Thank God for the new covenant!

 

[(THE)]

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.

Lol, I love it. :biglaugh And this hi-lights the ridiculousness of the legalist mind. It was getting bad in Jesus day and its back with the modern day Judaisers. Thank God for the new covenant!

See those kind of questions only work with those who dont know the word....

What are you kidding ????????? you guys are funny

"A good man takes care of his animals, but wicked men are cruel to theirs (proverbs)

 

[Drew]

See those kind of questions only work with those who dont know the word....

What are you kidding ????????? you guys are funny

"A good man takes care of his animals, but wicked men are cruel to theirs (proverbs)

You are taking advantage of a fortunate co-incidence here - that it turns out that there is such a "law" in the Old Testament. All I need to do is to pick a better example. So here goes:

Where does it say in the Bible that you are not to urinate on the flag of your country in public?

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 urinate on the flag of your country in public". But does that mean its acceptable to urinate on the flag in public? 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.

Where, in this thread, has there been any argument, Biblical or otherwise, that the Law of Moses still applies? Failing finding such arguments, what actual Biblical arguments can you mount in defence of your position.

Let's see what you've got - what arguments do you offer for the continued applicability of the Law of Moses?

 

[(THE)]

See those kind of questions only work with those who dont know the word....

What are you kidding ????????? you guys are funny

"A good man takes care of his animals, but wicked men are cruel to theirs (proverbs)

You are taking advantage of a fortunate co-incidence here - that it turns out that there is such a "law" in the Old Testament. All I need to do is to pick a better example. So here goes:

Where does it say in the Bible that you are not to urinate on the flag of your country in public?

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 urinate on the flag of your country in public". But does that mean its acceptable to urinate on the flag in public? 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.

Where, in this thread, has there been any argument, Biblical or otherwise, that the Law of Moses still applies? Failing finding such arguments, what actual Biblical arguments can you mount in defence of your position.

Let's see what you've got - what arguments do you offer for the continued applicability of the Law of Moses?

You are taking advantage of a fortunate co-incidence here - that it turns out that there is such a "law" in the Old Testament. All I need to do is to pick a better example. So here goes:

co-incidence ????? that means I shouldnt be able to do it again correct?????

]Where does it say in the Bible that you are not to urinate on the flag of your country in public?

Romans 13

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

We have a law called indecent exsposure,,,and here in Romans 13 God says to obey it.....

SO no you cant take a leak on flags.....

also I havent seen any flags that werent in or on private property,,,,we have laws about desecrating private property also........... again

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Where, in this thread, has there been any argument, Biblical or otherwise, that the Law of Moses still applies? Failing finding such arguments, what actual Biblical arguments can you mount in defence of your position.

un-true you were asked to long ago provide documentation for why we the reader should view Matthew 5:17 in this manner

"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 is not what the bible says,,,,this is not what the Greek text says,,,,this is what someone (not saying you) has provided to change what Christ tried so hard to input in our brains.......

?? ???????? ??? ????? ????????? ??? ????? ? ???? ????????· ??? ????? ????????? ???? ????????....which means

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

So im all for looking at Romans or the Torah of anything you think you can provide that will prove the law being retired..... But when Christ is speaking we should shut up and listen.....and Christ Himself is saying,,, He did not (retire) (destroy) (abolish) the law ,,,dont even think about it .....Think not

 

[Drew]

[Romans 13

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

We have a law called indecent exsposure,,,and here in Romans 13 God says to obey it.....

No. You are taking too many liberties here. In order for your point to be sustained, you assume that the government in question will pass a law against descecrating a flag. You cannot make such an assumption - perhaps there is no law aganst desecrating a flag in certain countries. And you assume that one has to commit indecent exposure to urinate on a flag. I think that is highly debatable.

The point is this: There are other informing sources for our action beside prescriptive law. I take it as self-evident that if you take a reasonably sane and mentally healthy individual and give them a loaded and suggest they shoot a puppy with it, their refusal to do so will decidedly not be based on the existence of a law prohibiting such actions. Instead, their refusal to pull the trigger will be grounded in a general sense of compassion and respect for life. I suspect that you are out of touch with the mainstream of humanity if you think that without laws, we would all go wild and wreak destructive carnage on the world.

You know full well that I have completely and satisfactorily addressed the matter of Matthew 5:17. The text is open to the interpretation that I have offered. I am not, as you will now know, in any sense suggesting an alternate translation.

As for other assertions about the retiring of the Law, there are many. Here is one from Romans 7:

Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. 4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

A clear and unambiguous statement that the time of the law has come to an end and the time o the Spirit has begun.

 

[(THE)]

[Romans 13

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

We have a law called indecent exsposure,,,and here in Romans 13 God says to obey it.....

No. You are taking too many liberties here. In order for your point to be sustained, you assume that the government in question will pass a law against descecrating a flag. You cannot make such an assumption - perhaps there is no law aganst desecrating a flag in certain countries. And you assume that one has to commit indecent exposure to urinate on a flag. I think that is highly debatable.

The point is this: There are other informing sources for our action beside prescriptive law. I take it as self-evident that if you take a reasonably sane and mentally healthy individual and give them a loaded and suggest they shoot a puppy with it, their refusal to do so will decidedly not be based on the existence of a law prohibiting such actions. Instead, their refusal to pull the trigger will be grounded in a general sense of compassion and respect for life. I suspect that you are out of touch with the mainstream of humanity if you think that without laws, we would all go wild and wreak destructive carnage on the world.

I believe the rest of your post does not merit a response. You know full well that I have completely and satisfactorily addressed the matter of Matthew 5:17.

I suspect that you are out of touch with the mainstream of humanity if you think that without laws, we would all go wild and wreak destructive carnage on the world.

Where do you think I live???

Bay area,,,,California bro,,,dont get much more mainstream then this........

I take it as self-evident that if you take a reasonably sane and mentally healthy individual and give them a loaded and suggest they shoot a puppy with it, their refusal to do so will decidedly not be based on the existence of a law prohibiting such actions. Instead, their refusal to pull the trigger will be grounded in a general sense of compassion and respect for life.

I agree......Most people are good......But whatever they decide God has a law against this,,,and this person unless they repent will be held accountable.....In our court and the court of God.....

I suspect your out of touch with spirituality,,,and seem not to understand the law is present in many people....Christ is the law and the overall goodness in man.........It is the essence of Christ that has been passed down into the hearts of men that keep man from doing this....

Surely you are not giving credit for good to man......Who do you think gave man his general sense of compassion and respect for life???????? The law (aka Christ)

 

[Drew]

I suspect your out of touch with spirituality,,,and seem not to understand the law is present in many people....Christ is the law and the overall goodness in man.........It is the essence of Christ that has been passed down into the hearts of men that keep man from doing this....

And I suspect that you have no credible response to texts like these which clearly show the retirement of the Law of Moses:

1. The Romans 7 text I just posted;
2. The Ephesians 2 text I have already posted;
3. That text from Galatians 3 which refers to the law being there "until" faith;
4. The Romans 10 statement about how Christ is the end of the Law;
5. Jesus' clear overturning of the Levitcal food laws in Mark 7;
6. Jesus' statement that He is the new cornerstone of the temple, clearly suggesting that He is overturning the existing temple practices that are central to the Law;
7. Jesus' intentional breaking of the Sabbath law, symbolically enacting its end;

There may be more. Let's discuss the scriptures, and leave speculations about my "spirituality" out of it.

So which text do you wish to discuss?

 

[Drew]

But when Christ is speaking we should shut up and listen.....and Christ Himself is saying,,, He did not (retire) (destroy) (abolish) the law ,,,dont even think about it .....Think not

Things are obviously not that simple.

I could use your own logic to undermine the position that you hold. You say we should "shut up and listen" when Jesus says something. OK. Well Jesus said this:

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him

The context is a discussion related to the kosher purity laws. Those laws - part of the Law of Moses - very clearly assert that certain foods make the Jew unclean, defile the Jew. Jesus squarely and clearly denies this.

You say we should "shut up and listen". So, do you agree with Jesus or not about the question of foods that defile?

I fully agree that I need to give a more substantial defence as to why we can read Jesus in Matt 5 as not endorsing the continued existence of the Law.