The Law

[Stormcrow]

The key for understanding Romans 3:31 is found earlier in the chapter:

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:19-20 (NASB)

Paul is trying to tell those who are "under the Law" in Rome (Jews, who were later expelled from Rome by Claudius Caesar), that the Law was used to show the people their sin and subsequent need of a savior.

He continues:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Romans 3:21-24 (NASB)

This following is critically important for understanding verse 31!

The Law - as a witness to Christ - was established as true and correct in and through the actions of God through Jesus Christ! This is how the entire chapter of Romans 3 is summarized in verse 31!

Faith doesn't negate what the Law said about sin, a savior, and salvation, but upholds it, even while the letter of the Law is moot in Christ!

This, I believe from my reading of it, is the point Paul is making in verse 31.

 

[Stormcrow]

Stormcrow

LOL Not being a scientist myself, I couldn’t adequately dispute it one way or another. But there are those who do. Dispute it I mean.

And would do so against all known reason and observation. If that's what you mean by your disputation of the facts as presented then, by all means, continue.

Be careful. I may just have a stroke of genius and prove that it’s your view that un-biblical. And I don’t think you could accept that.

I think we've already demonstrated who is incapable of accepting sound teaching and reason here.

FC

 

[Elijah674]

And would do so against all known reason and observation. If that's what you mean by your disputation of the facts as presented then, by all means, continue.

I think we've already demonstrated who is incapable of accepting sound teaching and reason here.

Agreed! God who wrote only His Law that never changes. Most (Rev. 17:1-5) will not have that. SO??? Eccl. 3:15 finds Obad. 1:16's ENDING OF THEM!

 

[Stormcrow]

His Law that never changes.

For as long as His law (the Old Covenant) was in effect, it never changed.

It was never in effect for Gentiles. It's no longer in effect for anyone else and hasn't been since the cross.

There is only one gospel.

 

[Drew]

The high priest and the Sanhedrin "got it." He was equating Himself with God, and using the title "Son of Man" (ben adam) and imagery of Daniel 7:13-14 to do it.

Of course, no one would understand this unless they were to see how offensive such a self-proclamation would be to an ancient Jew. We (21st century Americans) think nothing of the phrase.....

Absolutely correct. It is disturbing how few modern Christians understand the significance of this statement of Jesus to Caiaphus. In invoking the Daniel image of "coming on the clouds", Jesus is effectively saying "I am the one who, as in the Daniel text, has the right to sit on a throne next to the Ancient of Days". And since the Daniel text is also clearly Messianic, Jesus is at once claiming the Messiah role and effectively equal status with the Father.

Its all about knowing our Bibles and doing our homework. I implore readers to abandon the mushy simplicity we get in so much 21st evangelicalism.

 

[Drew]

It was never in effect for Gentiles. It's no longer in effect for anyone else and hasn't been since the cross.

I agree. Again, if people cannot, or perhaps more darkly will not, see that the Bible is an evolving narrative of God at work in the world, they will cling to this image of the Bible as presenting a set of timeless truths. And so they argue "God's Law can never change".

The Law of Moses was there for a purpose. And since that purpose was fulfilled at the cross, we should in no way be surprised that the Law was "retired".

And, of course, you are correct to assert that the Law was only ever for the Jews.

 

[Drew]

About Romans 3:31:

I am sympathetic to the general shape of Stormcrow's post (at least my take on his post). To say that the law is "established" could be Paul's way of saying that the Law occupied a central place redemption history. Remember what Paul has just said - redemption has come apart from the law. I suggest that Paul wants to make the point that even though this is so - even though both Jew and Gentile are justified apart from the law - the law is not irrelevant to what God is doing.

So perhaps we have Paul saying "we establish that the law is indeed an important player in God's redemptive activity even though it is now retired".

To anticipate an objection: If you are going to tell me that I am taking liberties with what the text actually says, then beware how such an objection can come back and bite. In Ephesians 2:15, we have Paul declaring the Law of Moses to be abolished.

 

[Stormcrow]

The point I was trying to make regarding Paul's comments in Romans 3:31 is simply this:

The law testified (witnessed) to the coming of Messiah and God's redemptive plan through Him. That testimony was upheld (the synonym for "established" in the Greek) by the actions God took in sending His Son to die for all mankind.

In other words, God validated the witness of the law even though the law itself was - like a witness to a car crash not actually involved in the event - only peripherally involved (as a "tutor") in His redemptive plan.

Seen in this light, we can - like Paul - assert with certainty that the law has long since served its purpose and has been retired.

There is, therefore, no contradiction between Romans 3:31 and other passages that clearly attest to the law's retirement. That's how I read it, anyway.

 

[Former Christian]

Stormcrow

The key for understanding Romans 3:31 is found earlier in the chapter:

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:19-20 (NASB)

Well, I guess people don’t all understand the bible alike. I would tend to emphasize in response, “so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to Godâ€. The words “every†and “world†have different meanings to different people. Of that I’m aware. I take the words in their literal meaning. And Paul is saying that even the Law says that none are justified through the works of the Law. But it does reveal sin. Originally, the Jews were intended to keep the Law and thereby reveal it to all the nations by their keeping of it. Israel was chosen to be a witness to the world of God and his Law.

Deuteronomy 4:
1 ¶ "Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.
2 "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
3 "Your eyes have seen what the LORD has done in the case of Baal-peor, for all the men who followed Baal-peor, the LORD your God has destroyed them from among you.
4 "But you who held fast to the LORD your God are alive today, every one of you.
5 "See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it.
6 "So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’
7 "For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him?
8 "Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?
(NASB)

Paul repeats what he said in vs. 19 in vs. 28.

Romans 3:
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
(NASB)

It is interesting that neither the Law nor the OT speaks of justification in quite the way Paul does. Nor does Jesus. It’s a doctrine unique to him. But obviously they must allude to it. Because Paul quotes the OT to make his point. Whether Jesus followed the Law so that he could fulfill the Law, or just changed the Law to fulfill his agenda, seems to be in question by some. Nevertheless, in Rom 4 Paul shows that the law of faith precedes the Law of Moses as seen in the example of Abraham, and is thus the real basis of the Law. In Heb 11:3, Paul takes it back to Abel.

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessedby the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Romans 3:21-24 (NASB)

I agree that righteousness apart from the Law is the point of Paul in Romans, and can be seen in the Law and the Prophets that emphasizes faith in God over just keeping the Law for Laws sake. And that this part of Paul’s argument leads naturally to the conclusions that follow. In the view I present, there is only disagreement with the modern versions as to how the Genitive verb should be translated in vs. 22. Faith in Christ is better translated as faith of Christ.

Faith doesn't negate what the Law said about sin, a savior, and salvation, but upholds it, even while the letter of the Law is moot in Christ!
This, I believe from my reading of it, is the point Paul is making in verse 31.

I agree. But that doesn’t solve the dilemma of the contradiction between Rom 3:31 where Paul says the Law is (present tense) established by the Law of faith and Eph 2:15 where Paul says the Law has been (aorist past tense) abolished for the sake of unity between Israel and the other nations (KJV and the modern translations). A contradiction unless one can show that a further change occurred between the time Paul wrote Romans and the time Paul wrote Ephesians, and what that change was.

LOL Not being a scientist myself, I couldn’t adequately dispute it one way or another. But there are those who do. Dispute it I mean.
And would do so against all known reason and observation. If that's what you mean by your disputation of the facts as presented then, by all means, continue.

LOL Obviously not what I mean. You’ve been around. You’re a man of reason. You know that nothing is indisputable. Otherwise, science as it’s currently understood wouldn’t exist. The apparent progress of science is predicated on the idea that no fact is indisputable, only most probable according to what is currently known. In spite of the current state of affairs in Western education wherein theory means law of nature.

Be careful. I may just have a stroke of genius and prove that it’s your view that un-biblical. And I don’t think you could accept that.
I think we've already demonstrated who is incapable of accepting sound teaching and reason here.

That was a joke. You believe in reason above all, as seen in this, “And would do so against all known reason and observation.â€. As does Drew, “Its all about knowing our Bibles and doing our homework. I implore readers to abandon the mushy simplicity we get in so much 21st evangelicalism.†It would take a stroke of genius on my part to convince you (or Drew) differently than what you’ve already determined to be true by your exercise of reason. Seeing as for many years I have not seen things in the way of reason above all, not since I was an Atheist, I’m way out of practice. And I’m starting to regret that. Not only because of the biblical discrepancy in view here, but because Christian apologists in general tend to have the same view of reason above all that you do. Whether they realize it or not, whether or not they claim help from a supernatural source. 21st century evangelism may indeed be mushy simplicity. I don’t know since I wasn’t converted through them, nor have I paid much attention to them since conversion. But it is certain that Christian apologists are far from being mushy or simplistic. And they don’t all understand the bible alike either.

We need to be careful our exercise of reason doesn’t turn into unreasoning arrogance based on what our past reasonings have determined. The progress of science is being hindered by the unreasoning arrogance of many within the ranks of modern science. I offer Richard Dawkins as the chief example, only because he’s presently in the public eye. An Atheist who believes all religion is a mental illness that needs to be eradicated. Even Bertrand Russell, the chief apologist against Christianity in the last generation didn’t go so far. Dawkins is neither open minded nor scientific, and about as arrogant as they come. Something he tries to hide behind an apparent pleasant demeanor. Fellow Atheist Neil deGrasse Tyson, tried to nicely tell him he was perhaps going too far, and was told to, well, the response, though put forth in a jovial way, can’t be repeated on this Christian forum.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

by Stormcrow
It was never in effect for Gentiles. It's no longer in effect for anyone else and hasn't been since the cross.

I agree. Again, if people cannot, or perhaps more darkly will not, see that the Bible is an evolving narrative of God at work in the world, they will cling to this image of the Bible as presenting a set of timeless truths. And so they argue "God's Law can never change".

While I understand that line of reasoning, I have to maintain that it pretty much nullifies the OT as being anything revelatory. Not in the sense that it was revelatory to the Jews. But that it continues to be revelatory to Christians. The whole OT is based on the Law of Moses. Just because there are references of abuse in that faith in God was often circumvented by keeping the Law, doesn’t mean that that the whole OT isn’t based on faith in God (Abel through Abraham) and the Law. And the fact that the OT is quoted frequently in the NT shows that the NT is also based on the same thing that is the basis of the OT. Based on the idea of a progressive revelation, or an evolving narrative as you call it, the idea that the Law has been abrogated is a non-sequitur. Simply because it nullifies not only the OT, but it nullifies itself, through its nullification of the NT. And since there has been no alternative view presented that Paul in Eph 2:15 indeed claimed that the Law had been abrogated, only general claims that the claim is untrue, I must assume that it is exactly what Paul claimed.

I have to ask, If the bible isn’t presenting timeless truths, then what does the bible have to do with us? Are we just to get out of the bible whatever we can glean through our own exercise of our own individual minds, simply because we happen to believe that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour of mankind, simply because we have chosen to believe that this particular biblical idea is indeed a timeless truth?

About Romans 3:31:

I am sympathetic to the general shape of Stormcrow's post (at least my take on his post). To say that the law is "established" could be Paul's way of saying that the Law occupied a central place redemption history. Remember what Paul has just said - redemption has come apart from the law. I suggest that Paul wants to make the point that even though this is so - even though both Jew and Gentile are justified apart from the law - the law is not irrelevant to what God is doing.

So perhaps we have Paul saying "we establish that the law is indeed an important player in God's redemptive activity even though it is now retired".

To anticipate an objection: If you are going to tell me that I am taking liberties with what the text actually says, then beware how such an objection can come back and bite. In Ephesians 2:15, we have Paul declaring the Law of Moses to be abolished.

In Romans, Paul deals with one matter only. Justification by faith apart from the Law of Moses, together with the application of that justification in the lives of those justified through walking by the spirit. In Ephesians, Paul is dealing with redemption and how it passes to the nations along with Israel. And Paul, in dealing with two different things, states two different things about the Law of Moses. Two contradictory things. The Law established and the Law abrogated are in no way complementary.

Your agreement with Stormcrow is touching I’m sure. But it doesn’t solve the dilemma of a contradiction within the writings of Paul. I continue to await your exposition of your dual law theory. But from what you’ve said in response to Stormcrow, I gather it doesn’t refer to two different laws being spoken about in Rom 3:31 and Eph 2:15.

FC

 

[Stormcrow]

But it doesn’t solve the dilemma of a contradiction within the writings of Paul.

That's because there is no contradiction.

 

[Former Christian]

Stormcrow

If you've interpreted it to not be a contradiction, then to you there is no contradiction. And most of Christianity agrees with you obviously. But that doesn't solve the dilemma for me, because to me the contradiction is obvious. Established and abolished are not synonymous terms. And thus far I've seen nothing to counteract what is obvious. It's the same Law of Moses that is being referred to in both passages. Unless, you or Drew have reason to believe that two different laws are being referred to.....

FC

 

[Stormcrow]

The Law established and the Law abrogated are in no way complementary.

Read Romans 3:31 again:

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. Romans 3:31 (NASB)

So tell me, how is it that Roman Jews could establish the law in 50 AD that God had already established with Moses on Mt. Sinai some 1,300 years earlier?

The answer is they could not and did not. This verse is not addressing the establishment of anything. The Greek word "histemi" has more than one meaning. You might want to check into that.

Here's how the HCSB Reverse Interlinear interprets the verse:

Do we then cancel the law through faith? Absolutely not! On the contrary, we uphold the law. Romans 3:31 (HCSB)

The God's Word paraphrase puts it this way:

Are we abolishing Moses' Teachings by this faith? That's unthinkable! Rather, we are supporting Moses' Teachings. Romans 3:31 (GW)

In what way is the law supported by faith? By agreeing with it's witness that we are sinners in need of a savior! That's the point Paul made earlier in the chapter!

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Romans 3:21-24 (NASB)

The law testified of Christ's coming and He came! The law was true: it's purpose was fulfilled!

When a witness takes the stand, he is on the stand to testify for as long as is needed to ascertain that what he says is true. When his veracity (truthfulness) is established, he is
no longer needed! He is asked to step down.

The act of God sending His Son to die for us and our faith in that act affirm that what the law witnessed of Christ is true, therefore the testimony of the law is no longer needed. It was asked to "step down" at the cross.

Thus, there is no contradiction.

 

[Elijah674]

Psalms 119
[126] It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law.

:fight:fight

And forum: You are finding this time taking place as we speak! Matt. 24:21 + Isa. 5:4-5 was the Lord's last opportunity for these lawless teaching ones who have had every opportunity.
God now turns to others who are not seen in Isa. 5 of the Lord's Vineyard.

Isa.5

[1] Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
[2] And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
[3] And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, [[judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard]].
[4] What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?

(and Law???)

wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought [[it forth wild]] grapes?
[5] And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: [[I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:]]
[6] And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
[7] For the [[vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house]] of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
[8] Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!

And the Rev. 17:1-5 ones?? You just watch.

--Elijah

 

[Drew]

While I understand that line of reasoning, I have to maintain that it pretty much nullifies the OT as being anything revelatory. Not in the sense that it was revelatory to the Jews. But that it continues to be revelatory to Christians. The whole OT is based on the Law of Moses. Just because there are references of abuse in that faith in God was often circumvented by keeping the Law, doesn’t mean that that the whole OT isn’t based on faith in God (Abel through Abraham) and the Law. And the fact that the OT is quoted frequently in the NT shows that the NT is also based on the same thing that is the basis of the OT. Based on the idea of a progressive revelation, or an evolving narrative as you call it, the idea that the Law has been abrogated is a non-sequitur.

I do not follow your reasoning at all. Here is my response:

1. The Old Testament is explicitly about God's dealings with the nation of Israel, but, as per Paul's analysis in Romans 4, it is not really "just about the Jews". Remember, in Romans 4, we are told that Abraham is the father of all who believe in God, not just Jews.

2. The Law of Moses was part of a plan of redemption that was fulfilled at the cross. So the Law of Moses was retired at the cross. But even though the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and was for the Jews only, this, of course, does not mean that the plan, including the giving of the Law of Moses and its later retirement, are not deeply relevant to all humanity. In fact, in Romans 11, Paul is quite explicit that the fate of humanity as a whole, and that of Israel, are deeply intertwined.

3. The retirement of the Law of Moses is anything but a "non-sequitir". The Law was given to the Jews and, through the Jews, the Law played a central role in bringing salvation to all the world (Romans 11 is all about this). The fact that Gentiles were never under the law does not mean that the "progressive" revelation of what God was up to in His giving of the Law to the Jews is not relevant to Gentiles. They get salvation based on what happened to the Jews!!:

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles,

Paul's basic position is that God used the Law of Moses to "trip up" the nation of Israel specifically because this "tripping up" was necessary to lead to the cross. Now this is "progressive" revelation in the sense that the writers of the OT probably never knew what God was doing.

But what God was doing is most certainly relevant to Gentiles.

 

[Drew]

Psalms 119
[126] It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law.

:fight:fight

And forum: You are finding this time taking place as we speak! Matt. 24:21 + Isa. 5:4-5 was the Lord's last opportunity for these lawless teaching ones who have had every opportunity.

I take it you object to those of us who believe that the Law of Moses has been retired.

Fair enough. But I politely suggest you many need to make the effort to improve the clarity of your posts. I often have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Drew]

I have to ask, If the bible isn’t presenting timeless truths, then what does the bible have to do with us?

This idea that the Bible is a collection of timeless truths is so deeply embedded in people's minds that it may be nigh unto impossible for them to let go of this pre-conception.

Let me try to explain myself more fully. I am asserting that the proper way of thinking about the Bible is to see at as a narrative - a story. As such, it evolves, it has a plot that entails change (as all plots do). So for example, if we see the Bible as a narrative, we are at least open to the possiblity that the Law of Moses gets written out of the plot at some point. However, if we see the Bible as a set of timeless truths, we will read each element of the Law of Moses as some eternal guideline that will never be revoked.

Do you understand the general idea?; if you do not, I may be the guilty party for not explaining myself clearly enough.

Now, to your question: If the Bible is indeed not a compendium of timeless truths, how can it be relevant to us today?

Well, if we see ourselves as participants in the unfolding narrative, then the Bible becomes normative for us to the extent that we properly situate ourselves in the plot and try to bring the narrative forward to its conclusion.

Do you see what I am saying?

 

[reba]

yup i see

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Fulfillment of the Law Through Faith


Faith fulfills the lawful requirements to love (not harm other people):

We uphold, or 'fulfill' the law when we love our fellowman. We don't break the law when we love others. We 'keep' the law when we love others and do them no harm through the deeds of the flesh:

'8...he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.' (Romans 13:8-10 NIV1984)

We love others through our faith in Christ:

6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (the epitome of the righteousness of law) has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:6 NIV1984)



Faith fulfills the lawful obligations of the first covenant system of sacrifice, temple, and priesthood:

16 “This is the (New) covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary." (Hebrews 10:16-18 NIV1984 parenthesis mine for contextual clarity)


The first covenant laws for relating to God and staying in fellowship and covenant with God were not destroyed, or abrogated, they were fulfilled, once and for all with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Who needs to use a system of sacrifice whose sin has forever and totally been removed through the New Covenant, Jesus Christ????? It's an obsolete and unneeded system of relating to God that the people of God don't need anymore in order to stay in covenant with God. Faith in Christ is the New Covenant that does that. If you stay in faith, you stay in Covenant...just as those who obeyed the former regulations (seemingly) stayed in covenant with God through the old way.


So, that is what it means for faith in Christ to be the the fulfillment, or keeping, or upholding, of the law. Our faith expressed in our love for others 'keeps' the lawful requirement to love others and do them no harm. Our faith expressed in our confidence in the sacrifice God has provided for atonement of sin 'keeps', or upholds the lawful requirements for sacrifice the law requires and removes all further obligations to the old system of sacrifice for relating to God.


This is another subject that the church has made so complicated, but, once a person sees the truths right in the plain words of scripture, is really so very uncomplicated and simple.

 

[Stormcrow]

All excellent points, Jethro.

And Drew, keep up the good work!