The Law

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine
(Eph. 2:15) Doesn’t that include the moral law?

To a very, very limited degree. It has more to do with the laws stipulations on the 'how, when, where, and who' of worship of God. Faith in Christ breaks down all those barriers and unifies the people of God by forming one new man out of Jew and gentile. That one new man being the body of Christ.

Why do you think the Law of Moses, is discriminatory?

It sets boundaries for approaching God and fellowshipping with his people based on sex and nationality. All of which disappear in the new way of faith in Christ, the New Covenant.

Do you think the Law of Moses is the same as the Law of God, or something different?

The law of Moses is a subset of all that God commands. The law of Moses is not a complete set of guidelines on how to properly follow God.

How did you determine that the dietary laws are part of the cleanliness laws?

Leviticus 15 explains how a person is made unclean by unclean foods.

How did you determine what constitutes the “worship, cleanliness, and separation lawsâ€, and that they only belong to the first covenant?

Some laws tell you how you must worship God. Some tell you how to stay set apart from unholy things for God. Some tell us how to stay clean for God. All of which qualify you for communion and fellowship with God. Faith in Christ is the qualifier now and how we draw near to God so we will not be cut off and die.

Is faith in Christ the only stipulation under the second covenant?

For being in, and staying in covenant with God, yes. There is, of course, the law of love that one in covenant with God must follow.

Are there no commandments for the Christians to follow, to use as a guide for their lives?

FC

Any rule or law or guideline that supports walking in the fruit of the Spirit is a rule or guideline for the Christian.

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Response to #261

by Former Christian
(Eph. 2:15) Doesn’t that include the moral law?
To a very, very limited degree. It has more to do with the laws stipulations on the 'how, when, where, and who' of worship of God. Faith in Christ breaks down all those barriers and unifies the people of God by forming one new man out of Jew and gentile. That one new man being the body of Christ.

On what is that based?

And how do you reconcile Rom 3:21 with Eph 2:15? That is, to you, what is the difference in what Paul is saying? He says the Law is established in Rom 3:21 and abrogated in Eph 2:15.

I am observing that the more you speak, the more you agree with Drew. That you seem to have an evolving understanding of this matter. I’m not criticizing. I merely find it interesting. My own understanding of this matter is also evolving. Times they are a changing.

by Former Christian
Why do you think the Law of Moses, is discriminatory?
It sets boundaries for approaching God and fellowshipping with his people based on sex and nationality. All of which disappear in the new way of faith in Christ, the New Covenant.

I can see where things said in the Law about not doing some of the things common among the nations can be construed as discrimination. And by the first century that discrimination was full blown and had to be dealt with by a vision given to Peter. And Paul also mentions the matter.

And there must have been some sexual discrimination in the ekklesia, because Paul mentioned it on a couple of occasions.

But I would like to see some examples of what you see in the Law itself as national and sexual discrimination.

by Former Christian
Do you think the Law of Moses is the same as the Law of God, or something different?
The law of Moses is a subset of all that God commands. The law of Moses is not a complete set of guidelines on how to properly follow God.

What is missing from the Law of Moses that was added to the Law of the Christians?

by Former Christian
How did you determine that the dietary laws are part of the cleanliness laws?
Leviticus 15 explains how a person is made unclean by unclean foods.

What verses are you referring to?

by Former Christian
How did you determine what constitutes the “worship, cleanliness, and separation lawsâ€, and that they only belong to the first covenant?
Some laws tell you how you must worship God. Some tell you how to stay set apart from unholy things for God. Some tell us how to stay clean for God. All of which qualify you for communion and fellowship with God. Faith in Christ is the qualifier now and how we draw near to God so we will not be cut off and die.

Since the moral law in the Law of Moses has to do with cleanliness from sin, does it too only belong to the first covenant?

And when you say that one can be “cut off and dieâ€, are you referring to one losing his salvation or to the initial experience of salvation?

by Former Christian
Is faith in Christ the only stipulation under the second covenant?
For being in, and staying in covenant with God, yes. There is, of course, the law of love that one in covenant with God must follow.

Law of love? Are you referring to “love thy neighbor as theyself�

by Former Christian
Are there no commandments for the Christians to follow, to use as a guide for their lives?

Any rule or law or guideline that supports walking in the fruit of the Spirit is a rule or guideline for the Christian.

Isn’t that a matter of choice, to walk by the Spirit or by the flesh? What are examples of rules or laws or guidelines that you are referring to?

FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine
And how do you reconcile Rom 3:21 with Eph 2:15? That is, to you, what is the difference in what Paul is saying? He says the Law is established in Rom 3:21 and abrogated in Eph 2:15.

Faith in Christ upholds the law of Moses. The worship, separation, and cleanliness laws are upheld by faith in the work of Christ, a work that effectively makes the literal observances obsolete and no longer needed (though you can certainly still do them). And the moral law--"love your neighbor as yourself" is upheld by that same faith as we love others because of the love of God we ourselves have received in the forgiveness of sin.

Do you understand how receiving the love of God causes you to love others? That's why (godly) love is the signifying mark of the true believer--not how and when and where, and with whom you worship. That's denominationalism, and the very reason you feel you must divorce yourself from 'church', 'Christian', and 'Chrisitianity', whether you realize it or not. If you knew it's who you are that defines a Christian and not what you do (religiously speaking), you would not be afraid or ashamed to call yourself a 'Christian'.

I am observing that the more you speak, the more you agree with Drew. That you seem to have an evolving understanding of this matter.

Of course my pride wants to say I'm not formulating my beliefs as we talk about them, but the truth is I'm not adapting my beliefs as we go along. I've had lots of time and opportunity to do that already. If anything is changing it's my ability to articulate them and share them with others. The more you do it, the better you get at it.


Chiming in as I can...I'll be back.

 

[Drew]

Please tell me if the fonts are wacky:​

Romans 3:28-29 demonstrates that Paul believes that only Jews are subject to the Law of Moses. Here is the text.​

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,...​

While it is clear that there is no direct statement here to the effect “The law is only for Jewsâ€, I will argue that Paul must believe that this is indeed the case.​

This is all about the “or†at the beginning of verse 29. An “or†introduces an alternative to what has just been asserted:​

- Do you want to go to dinner or to a movie?;​

- Do you want pizza or a hamburger?​

So Paul is effectively saying this:​

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 If this were not true, that is if a man’s justification has any connection at all to doing the works of the Law of Moses, then God would be the God of Jews only. But God also justifies Gentiles.​

The rest is simple logic. If a man’s justification were indeed connected to the Law of Moses, and if Gentiles are in any sense under the Law of Moses, then Gentiles could be justified by doing those works, just like Jews. But if this were true, why does Paul tell us in verse 29 that Gentiles can be justified and express this as an alternative possibility to the thesis of verse 28? The justification of Gentiles would not be an alternative to justification by the law, it would indeed be enabled by it.​

Imagine this statement, precisely mapping to the structure of Paul’s statement:​

For we maintain that a man is eligible to become Pope apart from from criterion X. Or are only Italian men eligible to become Pope? No: Hungarian men can become Pope too.​

The point is this: No matter what “criterion X†actually is, we are forced to conclude that it is a criterion that only Italian men could satisfy.​

Paul believes only Jews are under the Law of Moses.​

 

[Drew]

Is the following only true for Jews?

9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers..." (1 Timothy 1:9-10 NIV1984)

Does the law only condemn Jews?

Yes. As I believe my arguments show, Paul believes the Law of Moses is only for Jews. There is nothing in this text that requires us to understand that the Law of Moses is for all. It is simply incorrect reasoning to argue thus:

1. All men are sinners - murderers, lawbreakers, adulterers, perverts;
2. The Law of Moses marks these things out at sin;
3. Therefore all men are under the Law of Moses.

The problem with this reasoning is precisely the "jurisdiction" issue as per my "Canada-US" argument. It is morally wrong for a Canadian to commit murder - and it is even against Canadian law. But when a Canadian commits murder, s/he is not violating American law, precisely because only Americans are "under" American law".

In any event, how do we know that "law" here is "the law" - the Law of Moses. Paul uses both categories: "law" as a general moral law, and the particular law known as the Law of Moses.

Gentiles and Jews alike are condemned by the same law, and the same Lawgiver and Judge. For those who 'have' the law (have knowledge of the law) the trespass is increased.

No. The Bible teaches that the particular written code known as the Law of Moses is only given to the Jews.

 

[Drew]

My analogy is better because when Jews commit murder and gentiles commit murder, even though one 'has' the law and the other doesn't, they both are condemned by the same authority.

This does not work, precisely because God has every "right" to designate a special law for Jews. Yes there is one authority, but there is no reason why that one authority cannot set the Jews under a special law to which only they (Jews) are subject.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This does not work, precisely because God has every "right" to designate a special law for Jews. Yes there is one authority, but there is no reason why that one authority cannot set the Jews under a special law to which only they (Jews) are subject.

All people everywhere are accountable to the moral law of God. If that were not true how could God condemn the world?

The people of God were accountable to the worship, cleanliness, and separation laws in addition to the moral law.

You HAVE to acknowledge a clear and distinct difference between moral and worship laws to understand the role of the law in the world. I could chase your arguments, but it would mean sorting out this matter of distinct laws. I'm not sure you're able to do that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine:It sets boundaries for approaching God and fellowshipping with his people based on sex and nationality. All of which disappear in the new way of faith in Christ, the New Covenant.

...I would like to see some examples of what you see in the Law itself as national and sexual discrimination.

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding." (Lev. 12:1-5 NIV1984)


1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.
7 Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:1,3,6-8 NIV1984)

What is missing from the Law of Moses that was added to the Law of the Christians?

Law:
“Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? (2 Chronicles 19:2 NIV1984)

Grace:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matthew 5:43-44 NIV1984)

......................................................................

Law:
"21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:21 NIV1984)

Grace:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person." (Matthew 5:38-39 NIV1984)

Jethro Bodine: Leviticus 15 explains how a person is made unclean by unclean foods.
What verses are you referring to?

(Sorry...Leviticus 11, not 15)
"24 “‘You will make yourselves unclean by these..." (Leviticus 11:24 NIV1984)

Since the moral law in the Law of Moses has to do with cleanliness from sin, does it too only belong to the first covenant?

The uncleanness of foods, and discharges, and mildews, and skin diseases in the law illustrates the uncleanness of moral sin and how it separates us from fellowship with God and his people. With New Covenant revelation, the illustrations of the first covenant are laid aside and our focus is on the reality.

And when you say that one can be “cut off and die”, are you referring to one losing his salvation or to the initial experience of salvation?

It refers to being cutoff from God and his people and the privileges of the covenant.

Former Christian:
Is faith in Christ the only stipulation under the second covenant?
Jethro Bodine:
For being in, and staying in covenant with God, yes. There is, of course, the law of love that one in covenant with God must follow.


Law of love? Are you referring to “love thy neighbor as theyself”?

Yes, along with all the fruit of the Spirit.

Isn’t that a matter of choice, to walk by the Spirit or by the flesh?

Without a doubt. The Holy Spirit is our coach speaking to our hearts, cheering us on, impressing the impulse of love for others on our hearts to motivate us to consider the welfare of others. We can suppress that voice, or acknowledge it and walk accordingly.

Jethro Bodine:
Any rule or law or guideline that supports walking in the fruit of the Spirit is a rule or guideline for the Christian.

What are examples of rules or laws or guidelines that you are referring to?

Be merciful.
Be peaceable.
Do not lie.
Don't hold grudges.
Don't hate.
Don't hold contempt for others.
Do not be proud.
Do not be jealous.
Do not envy.
Let your word be your oath.
Do not condemn.
Be humble.
Speak only good of others.
Don't be greedy.
Be faithful to your spouse.
....

What's interesting is how many people don't think this is somehow religious enough, or is behavior that doesn't really distinguish a believer from an unbeliever, and instead think outward 'religious' doings (the 'how,when, where, and with whom' of worship) are the focal point and emphasis of being a believer that pleases God and is what counts, showing one to belong to Him. Of course, those things have their place, but that belief is probably the biggest deception among those who follow Christ (or any religion). That's what the Israelites thought about circumcision and all the worship laws, but they neglected the matter of 'love your neighbor as yourself' but were confident that they were doing right and were pleasing to God.

 

[Elijah674]

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding." (Lev. 12:1-5 NIV1984)


1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.
7 Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:1,3,6-8 NIV1984)



Law:
“Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? (2 Chronicles 19:2 NIV1984)

Grace:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matthew 5:43-44 NIV1984)

......................................................................

Law:
"21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:21 NIV1984)

Grace:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person." (Matthew 5:38-39 NIV1984)





(Sorry...Leviticus 11, not 15)
"24 “‘You will make yourselves unclean by these..." (Leviticus 11:24 NIV1984)




The uncleanness of foods, and discharges, and mildews, and skin diseases in the law illustrates the uncleanness of moral sin and how it separates us from fellowship with God and his people. With New Covenant revelation, the illustrations of the first covenant are laid aside and our focus is on the reality.



It refers to being cutoff from God and his people and the privileges of the covenant.



Yes, along with all the fruit of the Spirit.




Without a doubt. The Holy Spirit is our coach speaking to our hearts, cheering us on, impressing the impulse of love for others on our hearts to motivate us to consider the welfare of others. We can suppress that voice, or acknowledge it and walk accordingly.



Be merciful.
Be peaceable.
Do not lie.
Don't hold grudges.
Don't hate.
Don't hold contempt for others.
Do not be proud.
Do not be jealous.
Do not envy.
Let your word be your oath.
Do not condemn.
Be humble.
Speak only good of others.
Don't be greedy.
Be faithful to your spouse.
....

What's interesting is how many people don't think this is somehow religious enough, or is behavior that doesn't really distinguish a believer from an unbeliever, and instead think outward 'religious' doings (the 'how,when, where, and with whom' of worship) are the focal point and emphasis of being a believer that pleases God and is what counts, showing one to belong to Him. Of course, those things have their place, but that belief is probably the biggest deception among those who follow Christ (or any religion). That's what the Israelites thought about circumcision and all the worship laws, but they neglected the matter of 'love your neighbor as yourself' but were confident that they were doing right and were pleasing to God.

You mean these ones of Obad. 1:16? MANKIND will soon enough find out, huh!

[13] Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity;
[14] Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape; neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress.
[15] For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
[16] For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and [[they shall be as though they had *not been.]]

--Elijah

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Response to #263

Faith in Christ upholds the law of Moses. The worship, separation, and cleanliness laws are upheld by faith in the work of Christ, a work that effectively makes the literal observances obsolete and no longer needed (though you can certainly still do them). And the moral law--"love your neighbor as yourself" is upheld by that same faith as we love others because of the love of God we ourselves have received in the forgiveness of sin.

Interesting idea. Faith upholds the Law. Which would interpretively be in keeping with the idea of Rom 3:31. But I’m unclear how that also answers Eph 2:15.

Do you understand how receiving the love of God causes you to love others?

I only understand that we are able to love others because God showed us the way by his own love for us. And those who are in Christ can love perfectly so long as they are walking by the Spirit.

That's why (godly) love is the signifying mark of the true believer--not how and when and where, and with whom you worship. That's denominationalism, and the very reason you feel you must divorce yourself from 'church', 'Christian', and 'Chrisitianity', whether you realize it or not. If you knew it's who you are that defines a Christian and not what you do (religiously speaking), you would not be afraid or ashamed to call yourself a 'Christian'.

I do wish I could present the idea of former Christian in a way you could understand.

Of course my pride wants to say I'm not formulating my beliefs as we talk about them, but the truth is I'm not adapting my beliefs as we go along. I've had lots of time and opportunity to do that already. If anything is changing it's my ability to articulate them and share them with others. The more you do it, the better you get at it.

Unfortunate. Since the only enduring benefit of a forum would be the renewing of one’s mind, which implies change in mind. Not a better exercise of rhetoric of what you already believe. Nevertheless, most forums are soapboxes for debates on different points of view.

Response to #267

You HAVE to acknowledge a clear and distinct difference between moral and worship laws to understand the role of the law in the world. I could chase your arguments, but it would mean sorting out this matter of distinct laws. I'm not sure you're able to do that.

I would agree with that except for one little problem. The only real distinction I’ve seen you make is between the moral law and the rest of the law. And if that’s the only distinction, there’s no real reason to think the perceived distinctions in the Law are anything more than interpretations.

Response to your post #268 forthcoming when I’ve had a chance to consider it.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Response to #264

The interpretation is interesting and reasonable. But couldn’t Paul just as easily being saying that in relation to justification, the Law is a hindrance to being justified by the Law of faith? Seeing as neither the Jews nor Gentiles at that time considered the Gentiles to be under the Law? Or that Paul is saying simply that there is one standard that all are Justified under, the Law of faith? Being in the view I present the faith of Christ, not our faith in Christ.

Romans 3:30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. (NASB)

Response to #265

1. All men are sinners - murderers, lawbreakers, adulterers, perverts;
2. The Law of Moses marks these things out at sin;
3. Therefore all men are under the Law of Moses.

The problem with this reasoning is precisely the "jurisdiction" issue as per my "Canada-US" argument. It is morally wrong for a Canadian to commit murder - and it is even against Canadian law. But when a Canadian commits murder, s/he is not violating American law, precisely because only Americans are "under" American law".

I can understand that reasoning to be sound in relation to nations of the same kind. Each nation is free to create its own laws. But are we talking about nations of the same kind? Are the Gentiles really free to make their own laws, seeing as God has given a Law in one of those nations, and the Laws aren’t the creation of man? That is, can we say that after Israel was chosen by God to be the carrier of the Law and through whom the Messiah would come, that Israel was thereafter a nation of the same kind as the other nations?

To call the Law the Law of Moses seems to have the implication that Moses gave that Law and it was his own creation. The secular world certainly believes that, putting Israel and the rest of the nations on even ground. And if on even ground, you certainly have reason to propose that the Law of Moses is certainly only for the Jews.

In any event, how do we know that "law" here is "the law" - the Law of Moses. Paul uses both categories: "law" as a general moral law, and the particular law known as the Law of Moses.

Well then, is it agreed that the Law being referred to in Rom 3:28-31 is indeed the Law of Moses? Now, what of the Law in Eph 2:15? What category of Law is that? We do need to be clear in our terminology here. Otherwise we’ll just be going in circles.

Response to #266

by Jethro Bodine
My analogy is better because when Jews commit murder and gentiles commit murder, even though one 'has' the law and the other doesn't, they both are condemned by the same authority.

This does not work, precisely because God has every "right" to designate a special law for Jews. Yes there is one authority, but there is no reason why that one authority cannot set the Jews under a special law to which only they (Jews) are subject.

Now there’s an interesting idea. Different strokes for different folks. Laws tailor made to fit whomever. Well, that idea would certainly explain a lot regarding Christianity.

FC

 

[farouk]

Free



On the contrary. I’m following that thread more closely than any other thread that I have experienced on this forum.

I have not yet seen an idea that is persuasive, to me at least, regarding the apparent contradiction between Rom 3:31 and Eph 2:15, that doesn’t require interpretively nullifying one verse or the other. Drew’s dual law idea is the most interesting interpretive idea so far presented, in my opinion. But his most recent posts leave me unclear as to his understanding.

Nor have I yet to see an idea that satisfactorily explains why, if the Law is not for Christians, then why it doesn’t follow that the bible, that is based on that Law, is for Christians. As it stands, the view of Roman Catholicism, that the bible is for Christians because the Church says it is, seems to me to be the only reasonable answer thus far presented. And that idea isn’t presented on this, a Protestant forum.

FC

FC:

This post, which relates to this forum, was posted by you on the other thread. Let's keep on topic.

In Romans 3.31, Paul has just been talking about the Lord Jesus, through His death at the Cross, declaring God's righteousness 'that he might be just, and the justifier, of him which believeth in Jesus'. The righteous demands of the law are not set aside, but rather, in a wondrous way, established, so that the sinner is justified and God's holy and righteous law is also vindicated.

In Ephesians 2.15, Paul is talking about the enmity and separation which existed both between sinners and God, and between Jews and Gentiles, being done away with through faith in the blood of Christ at the Cross.

 

[Drew]

All people everywhere are accountable to the moral law of God. If that were not true how could God condemn the world?

No one, least of all me, is denying that all humans are under a kind of moral law! I have been quite clear that they are. However, only Jews are subject to the Law of Moses, including its "moral parts".

The fact that it also true that Gentiles are under a "moral law" against murder no more places the Gentile under the Law of Moses than is a Canadian under the American law against murder.

 

[Drew]

You HAVE to acknowledge a clear and distinct difference between moral and worship laws to understand the role of the law in the world.

No one is denying that one can categorize some elements of the Law of Moses as "ceremonial" and some as "moral".

But - and this is really key - as I believe I have shown, Paul asserts that only Jews are under the Law of Moses, and he never makes the "ceremonial" vs "moral" distinction that you do.

I could chase your arguments, but it would mean sorting out this matter of distinct laws. I'm not sure you're able to do that.

1. Neither Paul, nor any Biblical author ever break the Law of Moses into "parts
and treat these parts differently;

2. The fact that I, as a Gentile, am under the "moral law" of not committing murder no more means that I am under the Law of Moses than it does that I, as a Canadian, am under an American law against murder, even if I am under some other law against murder (either a Canadian law or even a "moral" law).

 

[Free]

No one, least of all me, is denying that all humans are under a kind of moral law! I have been quite clear that they are. However, only Jews are subject to the Law of Moses, including its "moral parts".

The fact that it also true that Gentiles are under a "moral law" against murder no more places the Gentile under the Law of Moses than is a Canadian under the American law against murder.

Agreed, hence my post #253, which perhaps wasn't all that clear. There is a Moral Law which exists because God exists and is not dependent on the moral components in the Law of Moses. Murder is still murder regardless of what is stated in the Law of Moses. This is why even though the Law of Moses doesn't apply to Gentiles, and perhaps not to Jews any longer, there is still a Moral Law that is binding on all.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...as I believe I have shown, Paul...never makes the "ceremonial" vs "moral" distinction that you do.


1. Neither Paul, nor any Biblical author ever break the Law of Moses into "parts
and treat these parts differently;

Which of these two laws, "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18 NIV1984), or "3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation" (Deut. 23:3 NIV1984) represents what Paul was talking about that divides Jew and Gentile but which gets taken out the way in order to unify Jew and Gentile in Christ?

15...by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two..." (Ephesians 2:15 NIV1984)

And which of those two laws represents what Paul was talking about when he said, "31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law" (Romans 3:31 NIV1984)?


And which law, "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18 NIV1984), or "10 Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death." (Numbers 3:10 NIV1984) represents what the author is talking about in the following passage about the law that gets laid aside as weak and useless?

"18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." (Hebrews 7:18-19 NIV1984)


You see, the Bible really does make a distinction in laws. It's absolutely necessary to understand the difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law in the first covenant to understand it's role now for us in the New Covenant.

2. The fact that I, as a Gentile, am under the "moral law" of not committing murder no more means that I am under the Law of Moses than it does that I, as a Canadian, am under an American law against murder, even if I am under some other law against murder (either a Canadian law or even a "moral" law).

I tried to point this out to you but I guess you missed it. Your analogy is no good because we know that both the gentile and the Jew who murders, or steals, etc. is judged by the exact same command, Judge, and lawgiver. We don't even need to argue this point. So how does your analogy of the exact same law being administered by two different Executive and Judicial systems somehow prove that Jews and gentiles are NOT accountable to and condemned by the exact same (moral) law, given by the exact same Lawgiver, and condemned by the exact same Judge?

I truly hope this isn't just a matter of the law being different to you because it has a different name for the Jews than it did for the gentiles.

Help me understand what you think the (dangerous?) implications are to thinking that God's commands 'do not murder', 'do not steal', etc. that the gentiles understand by nature cannot possibly be the same law as delivered to the Jews (because it's identified differently?). What are you afraid of?

 

[Elijah674]

Which of these two laws, "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18 NIV1984), or "3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation" (Deut. 23:3 NIV1984) represents what Paul was talking about that divides Jew and Gentile but which gets taken out the way in order to unify Jew and Gentile in Christ?

15...by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two..." (Ephesians 2:15 NIV1984)

And which of those two laws represents what Paul was talking about when he said, "31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law" (Romans 3:31 NIV1984)?


And which law, "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18 NIV1984), or "10 Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death." (Numbers 3:10 NIV1984) represents what the author is talking about in the following passage about the law that gets laid aside as weak and useless?

"18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." (Hebrews 7:18-19 NIV1984)


You see, the Bible really does make a distinction in laws. It's absolutely necessary to understand the difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law in the first covenant to understand it's role now for us in the New Covenant.




I tried to point this out to you but I guess you missed it. Your analogy is no good because we know that both the gentile and the Jew who murders, or steals, etc. is judged by the exact same command, Judge, and lawgiver. We don't even need to argue this point. So how does your analogy of the exact same law being administered by two different Executive and Judicial systems somehow prove that Jews and gentiles are NOT accountable to and condemned by the exact same (moral) law, given by the exact same Lawgiver, and condemned by the exact same Judge?

I truly hope this isn't just a matter of the law being different to you because it has a different name for the Jews than it did for the gentiles.

Help me understand what you think the (dangerous?) implications are to thinking that God's commands 'do not murder', 'do not steal', etc. that the gentiles understand by nature cannot possibly be the same law as delivered to the Jews (because it's identified differently?). What are you afraid of?

+ the Rev. 18:4 of being 'A PARTAKER of her Sins'?? There is still sin by breaking God Law! 1 John 3:4 And COME OUT OR EALSE??? Sure sounds DANGEROUS unless God is using satan's false rubber bullets, huh?

--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

+ the Rev. 18:4 of being 'A PARTAKER of her Sins'?? There is still sin by breaking God Law! 1 John 3:4 And COME OUT OR EALSE??? Sure sounds DANGEROUS unless God is using satan's false rubber bullets, huh?

--Elijah

The commands of God's law have to be discerned as to what is still needed to be kept literally and what is not in order to know what commands we will be condemned by if we don't keep them, and which ones we will not be condemned by.

Every man has to settle this matter in his own mind.

I just want to know what is so dangerous about suggesting that 'do not murder' for the gentile and 'do not murder' for the Jew are from the one law of God. What are the implications of such a belief? Are there real implications that we need to fear for truth's sake?

 

[Former Christian]

Farouk

Response to #272

This post, which relates to this forum, was posted by you on the other thread. Let's keep on topic.

The topic of the your thread is tattoos. The question was, “Who has a faith based tattoo?†It’s your thread, so you can define what is on and off topic. But in my defense, I merely posted a response to that question, that in the view I present tattoos are inappropriate for the Christian lifestyle, and why. Nevertheless, if the idea presented in that post is inappropriate to you, something becoming more and more common in Christianity as even your poll is indicating, and thus off topic, then just consider it a vote against the use of “Christian†tattoos in your poll. Under “No, I don't, and don't like the ideaâ€.

What you posted here is merely a response to Drew, assuming that would be the end of that discussion there. Why didn’t you add the other post concerning what the Law says about tattoos to this thread? Maybe because I’m about the only one left, maybe because I’m a former Christian rather than a Christian, that is still contending that the Law, the whole Law, is still for the believer today? Including that which has been fulfilled by Christ, as it’s the Gentile that benefits by Christ’s death also, by what he fulfilled?

But I’m still open to being persuaded that the bible still means something more today than just whatever Christians interpret it to mean. So I’m still open to understand that Rom 3:31 and Eph 2:15 doesn’t constitute a blatant contradiction in regard to the Law, right in the middle of Paul’s own writings so that he’s contradicting himself.

I should qualify my response concerning tattoos, because at one time I was into tattoos. But nothing faith based. Just regular secular body art. That’s the context of what it meant to me at the time. How tattoos are viewed in modern secular America. The Law merely presents a charge against using tattoos in relation to religion, as it was being used in the surrounding nations when the Law was given. I guess one could say that it doesn’t apply today in that the nations surrounding America, other than in Africa and South America, maybe Australia among the aborigines, don’t use it in relation to religion today. And the Christians who wish to use it in relation to their religion as a witness to their faith. If that’s the kind of context one wishes to understand the bible. Through the lens of the 21st century believer. Not sure how far Drew and Stromcrow would go to agree with any part of that assessment.

At the time I had tattoos I saw nothing wrong with it. Because I was told, and believed what I was told at the time, that the Law isn’t for today. Where the Law was mentioned in the bible, even by Jesus Christ and Paul, I just ignored it as something for our Jewish brethren. The ten commandments meant nothing to me. If I had been provoked by what I thought was a good reason, whether as revenge for harm toward someone I loved or in self-defense, I would have murdered without hesitation. That possibly may seem extreme to you, but it wasn’t to me at the time. I was just taking the idea at face value. That’s how I understood the Law at the time. I was in complete agreement at that time with what Drew and Stormcrow are saying today. That’s how I applied it at the time. Later, after my mind was changed about the Law, I had the tattoos removed. No easy task, believe you me. Not something I would wish on my worst enemy. Maybe there are better ways to remove tattoos today than at that time. But that was only about 15 years ago, so I kind of doubt it.

So if you think my attitude against tattoos is the result of bias, maybe you’re right. In regard to the pain involved in having them removed if one changes their mind as to their usefulness in relation to their religion, definitely. In regard to an inward fear of returning to my former understanding of the Law, maybe. In regard to my current understanding that the Law is an integral part of the bible, which apart from it, the bible means nothing at all to anyone in the 21st century, except what they can glean out of it by personal interpretation, is that a near phobia? Perhaps. But I’m fighting that phobia the best I can, on behalf of the idea of open mindedness.

In Romans 3.31, Paul has just been talking about the Lord Jesus, through His death at the Cross, declaring God's righteousness 'that he might be just, and the justifier, of him which believeth in Jesus'. The righteous demands of the law are not set aside, but rather, in a wondrous way, established, so that the sinner is justified and God's holy and righteous law is also vindicated.

In Ephesians 2.15, Paul is talking about the enmity and separation which existed both between sinners and God, and between Jews and Gentiles, being done away with through faith in the blood of Christ at the Cross.

You’re saying that in Rom 3:31, the Law has been established by what is said about justification previously. And you’re saying that in Eph 2:15, what is abolished is the enmity and separation between Jew and Gentile, not the Law itself. Am I understanding you correctly?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Response to #273

No one, least of all me, is denying that all humans are under a kind of moral law! I have been quite clear that they are. However, only Jews are subject to the Law of Moses, including its "moral parts".
The fact that it also true that Gentiles are under a "moral law" against murder no more places the Gentile under the Law of Moses than is a Canadian under the American law against murder.

Query: Where is the (or a) moral law for Gentiles defined? Obviously not just in the conscience, as the conscience differs from person to person, nation to nation. Among the Gentiles, and even among the Christians.

Response to #274

But - and this is really key - as I believe I have shown, Paul asserts that only Jews are under the Law of Moses, and he never makes the "ceremonial" vs "moral" distinction that you do.

A clarification: You have only asserted that the Law of Moses is only for the Jews. It has obviously not as yet been shown to everyone’s satisfaction. Personally, I’m still open to being persuaded. So don’t quit on us now.

FC