The Law

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Response to #278

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

Makes the commands of God just a little dependent on our own subjectivity, don’t you think?

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..

Doesn’t that imply that the Law of Moses isn’t just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles as well? Isn’t that the very thing that Drew and Stormcrow are challenging? Surely, if they’re right, wouldn’t that make what you are claiming a very dangerous idea, at least to them?

FC

 

[Elijah674]

Jethro Bodine

Response to #278




Makes the commands of God just a little dependent on our own subjectivity, don’t you think?



Doesn’t that imply that the Law of Moses isn’t just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles as well? Isn’t that the very thing that Drew and Stormcrow are challenging? Surely, if they’re right, wouldn’t that make what you are claiming a very dangerous idea, at least to them?

FC

Sure it does. But just the Laws that God gave that were still to be around! Health +!
But NEVER are these ones the Eternal Covenant of the Ten that God alone Penned, Spoke, & RE/Wrote in the Born Again heart + Mind!:yes

And God has [[DOCUMENTED]] why Abe had been called well before he ever was. Note that in Gen. 12 that he even was an Gentile soul winner. (oh, and Abe was a Gentile then himself huh?!;))

But the verse if believed, proves the point..
Gen. 25
'.... and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
[4] And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
[5] Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

 

[Drew]

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?

Your implication here is not correct. Yes, there are elements of the law that explicitly speak of a division between Jew and Gentile. But that certainly does not logically force us to conclude that those elements of the law that do not draw such a distinction are universal.

Consider these two possible expressions of American Law:

1. Murder is a capital crime;
2. Only American citizens may vote.

Using your line of reasoning, we would conclude that a Canadian is under law number 1. Which, of course, he is not. Just because law 2 is explicit about an "American vs the rest of the world" distinction does not mean that law 1 is a universal law!

Yes, Canadians have their own law against murder. But a Canadian is simply not under American law.

All of the Law of Moses is for Jews and Jews only.

 

[Drew]

A clarification: You have only asserted that the Law of Moses is only for the Jews.

No. I have argued the point in detail in the following posts: 215, 217, 264.

None of these posts have been engaged.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Your implication here is not correct. Yes, there are elements of the law that explicitly speak of a division between Jew and Gentile. But that certainly does not logically force us to conclude that those elements of the law that do not draw such a distinction are universal.

Consider these two possible expressions of American Law:

1. Murder is a capital crime;
2. Only American citizens may vote.

Using your line of reasoning, we would conclude that a Canadian is under law number 1. Which, of course, he is not. Just because law 2 is explicit about an "American vs the rest of the world" distinction does not mean that law 1 is a universal law!

Yes, Canadians have their own law against murder. But a Canadian is simply not under American law.

All of the Law of Moses is for Jews and Jews only.

James says there is only one judge and lawgiver. Both gentiles and Jews are accountable to the one lawgiver and the same judge...unless you want to somehow make a case for gentiles being judged by one judge, and Jews being judged by another judge.

To create an accurate analogy we have to put both the Canadians and the Americans under a world court. A world court that has given different sets of commands of law to each country, but which share certain commands. It's impossible to argue that this would not be the more accurate analogy.

Unless you can make the plain fact go away that all the world is accountable to the exact same judge and lawgiver you have nothing to base your argument on. The fact that that same judge and lawgiver held each group, gentile and Jew, to a different revelation of law doesn't make the law given somehow two distinct laws with no relationship to each other whatsoever. That's not even reasonable.

What are the implications for Jew and Gentile being accountable to the same law, just different revelations of that law, that you wish to avoid? What are you afraid that would mean?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

FC:
Makes the commands of God just a little dependent on our own subjectivity, don’t you think?

It's a disputable matter. Disputable matters are subject to the conscience of the believer.

"5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. " (Romans 14:5 NIV1984)

Jethro:
"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.."

FC:
Doesn’t that imply that the Law of Moses isn’t just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles as well? Isn’t that the very thing that Drew and Stormcrow are challenging? Surely, if they’re right, wouldn’t that make what you are claiming a very dangerous idea, at least to them?

It would most definitely be a dangerous idea for them...that is if the reason I think they fear the implication of one law of God is what I think it is. But they don't have to fear that. But let's wait and see what they think the implications are for there really being only one law, but given in varying revelation according to nationality, mission, and purpose.

 

[Drew]

James says there is only one judge and lawgiver. Both gentiles and Jews are accountable to the one lawgiver and the same judge...unless you want to somehow make a case for gentiles being judged by one judge, and Jews being judged by another judge.

I am not forced into the position you describe.

In posts 215, 217, and 264, I have presented what I believe are clear, correct, Biblical arguments to the effect that Paul believes that the Law of Moses is only for Jews. Why have you not engaged those arguments.

Again, the fact that there is one God over all does not mean that this God is "forced" to give the same set of laws to all people. Your whole line of argument appears to rest on this unsubstantiated assumption.

It is entirely coherent for God to give the following two sets of Law to Jews and Gentiles:

Law of Moses for Jews = {A,B,C,D,E}
"Universal" Law for Gentiles = {A,B}

Note what I have done. I have granted (and I never denied this in the first place) that some elements of the Law of Moses could also be "in" the universal moral law - in this case elements A and B which could well stand for "moral" laws.

But - and this is the key point - the Gentile is not under the Law of Moses simply because the two sets of laws contain some of the same elements.

And, in fact, and as argued in posts 215, 217, and 264 - posts which have gone unresponded to - it is clear that Paul does indeed believe that the Law of Moses is for Jews only.

I am sorry, but I simply see no reason to assume that there cannot be different sets of laws just because there is one judge.

In fact, I suggest your argument eats it own tail. Suppose I used your line of argument to argue as follows:

1. There is one judge (God);
2. Therefore, there cannot be a ceremonial law for Jews only.

You would object: "But the Bible tells us that the ceremonial law is indeed for Jews only- the Bible clearly teaches this".

In saying this, you expose the error in your argument - you cannot claim that a law (in this case, moral law) is universal precisely because there is one universal judge. If that were really so, there could not be even a ceremonial law for Jews only. Do you see the problem now?

Yes: the Bible does teach that the ceremonial law is for Jews only. So right away, we know that the "one judge" argument does not work. Yes, the Gentiles are under a "moral" law that has the same content as the moral component of the Law of Moses. But just as you correctly believe that the ceremonial law is for Jews only, I correctly believe (as per posts 215, 217, and 264 as well as other arguments I might make) that the entire law of Moses is for Jews only.

You seem to think that because there are "copies" of the same commands in both sets of laws, this make that subset of common commands into a single universal law. I don't see this. And, as per my arguments, Paul seems to think that the Law of Moses is only for Jews.

But that does not mean it is the same law! Any more than Canadians and Americans are under the same "law" against murder.

 

[stovebolts]

The Law of Moses is clearly "retired" and "replaced" by the indwelling Spirit, as Paul argues.

Clearly retired? I would say clearly transferred when it comes to the covenant. God's commandments have never been retired.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.

Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Let me ask you this Drew.
I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;

What "Law" is being spoken of here?

 

[Stormcrow]

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:23-26 (NASB)

Who was shut up under the Law???

~'Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you. ~'I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people. ~'I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt so that you would not be their slaves, and I broke the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect. Leviticus 26:11-13 (NASB)

The first 13 verses of Leviticus 26 make clear to whom the Law was given, summarized in verse 13 (highlighted above.)

Whenever you read Paul addressing those in the New Testament about the Law, or Christ telling His disciples about the Law, remember that they are both Jews addressing other Jews, all of whom were under the Law!

The "intertestimental period" (Law + Grace) doesn't exist between Malachi and Matthew, it exists between Acts and Revelation.

But that's a far deeper discussion than I have time to undertake now.

 

[Stormcrow]

The Law was given to Israel to set them apart as God's holy and chosen people for the ultimate purpose of ushering in Messiah.

It has long since served its purpose.

 

[Drew]

Clearly retired? I would say clearly transferred when it comes to the covenant. God's commandments have never been retired.

Paul believes otherwise. In Ephesians 2, in Galatians 3, and in Romans 7 he declares the Law of Moses to be abolished / retired.

There is indeed a new "law" that we are under. But it is certainly not the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses was only ever for the Jews. And it was retired at the cross.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Of course. But Jesus is not giving a command here that is part of the Law of Moses!

 

[Drew]

Jeremiah 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.

Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Let me ask you this Drew.
I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;

What "Law" is being spoken of here?

It is certainly not the Law of Moses.

 

[stovebolts]

Let me ask you this Drew.
I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;

What "Law" is being spoken of here?

It is certainly not the Law of Moses.

There ya go! Bravo Drew!

However, for your previous post, I would remind you that within context, covenant and law went hand in hand so your remark about them only being for the Jew is correct, as is the new covenant being exclusively for the Christian... So while the old covenant was retired, God's commandments were not. God's commandments were simply transferred to a new, or as the Hebrew writer would explain, "Better" covenant.

Now then, are the 10 Commandments the laws of Moses, or are those God's laws?

I would remind you that scriptures states that God first spoke these, then wrote them on Stone.

And if I could add, specifically, which "Laws" are now written within us?

 

[Drew]

God's commandments were simply transferred to a new, or as the Hebrew writer would explain, "Better" covenant.

I disagree. If what you say is true, then we should be stoning adulterers, making sacrifices in the temple, and not eating certain foods. Aren't these laws also transferred? If not, why not? Are you going to do what others have done - introduce an entirely unBiblical distinction between "moral" and "ceremonial" law?

I cannot emphasize this enough: The fact that you introduce such a categorization scheme does not mean that Paul thinks in terms of a moral law which "persists" and a ceremonial law that does not.

To say that the law is "transferred" is perhaps not the best choice of words.

The Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only. It was set aside at the cross. Obviously, this does not mean we can murder, commit adultery, or covet our neighbour's donkey! But this is not because we are still under the 10 commandments (part of the Law of Moses, of course). We are given the Spirit and no longer need a written code to guide our conduct.

 

[Drew]

Now then, are the 10 Commandments the laws of Moses, or are those God's laws?

False choice. The Law of Moses, including but not limited to the Law of Moses, was established by God.

And when its time had come, it was retired by God (in the form of Jesus).

I would remind you that scriptures states that God first spoke these, then wrote them on Stone.

Not sure how this is relevant. Are you suggesting that these laws become "eternal" by being written on stone? Paul did not think so.

Let me explain. In Romans 7, Paul speaks about how we are no longer under the written code. And then a few breaths letter, he explicitly invokes the commandment "thou shalt not steal" as an extract from that very code we are not under.

We need to listen to Paul.

 

[Drew]

And if I could add, specifically, which "Laws" are now written within us?

Many of these laws written on our heart have the same "content" as the Law of Moses. For example, the idea of not stealing is, I suggest, written on our hearts.

But that does not make this the Law of Moses that is written on our hearts!

This argument is largely about "technicalities". This is not really that hard: Suppose the framers of some US law against kicking puppies were inspired to do so because the Norwegians had such a law.

Is the new American Law Norwegian law? Of course not!

It is a new, different law. Even though it has the same "content".

I hope this is clear now.

 

[stovebolts]

I disagree. If what you say is true, then we should be stoning adulterers, making sacrifices in the temple, and not eating certain foods. Aren't these laws also transferred? If not, why not? Are you going to do what others have done - introduce an entirely unBiblical distinction between "moral" and "ceremonial" law?

I think you misunderstand me...

I cannot emphasize this enough: The fact that you introduce such a categorization scheme does not mean that Paul thinks in terms of a moral law which "persists" and a ceremonial law that does not.

To say that the law is "transferred" is perhaps not the best choice of words.

The Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only. It was set aside at the cross. Obviously, this does not mean we can murder, commit adultery, or covet our neighbour's donkey! But this is not because we are still under the 10 commandments (part of the Law of Moses, of course). We are given the Spirit and no longer need a written code to guide our conduct.

Certainly there are laws that govern the gentiles written within Torah that still bind the gentiles. That they are contained within Torah do not make them laws of Moses. And unlike a covenant, the gentiles do not need to enter into agreement to be bound by them.

And the law which is written within us and on our hearts is a covenant between God and Christians so I am not sure why you make such a distinction that the law of Moses was given only to the Jews. The laws written in a Christians heart under the new covenant are for the Christians ONLY, and not for the Gentiles just as the covenant at Sinai was for the Jews, while the covenant with Noah was for all, and that covenant is still valid unless you can convince me the world will once again be flooded . So I fail to see the significance for the law of Moses being only for the Jews as I am not saying we are under the Law of Moses. But as Christians, we are under law, and it is not written on tablets of stone. No, they are written within us and on our hearts.

But you bring up a valid point, and a point I would like you elaborate on as it is the direction I am heading. What law states that we cannot murder, commit adultery, or covet our neighbour's donkey! Where do we find such a law in this new covenant? I am curious how you will answer this.

 

[stovebolts]

Many of these laws written on our heart have the same "content" as the Law of Moses. For example, the idea of not stealing is, I suggest, written on our hearts.

But that does not make this the Law of Moses that is written on our hearts!

This argument is largely about "technicalities". This is not really that hard: Suppose the framers of some US law against kicking puppies were inspired to do so because the Norwegians had such a law.

Is the new American Law Norwegian law? Of course not!

It is a new, different law. Even though it has the same "content".

I hope this is clear now.

And this is the heart of the matter... Bingo! You're tracking.

Now then, let us look at this again.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

We have here a "New Covenant" and within that covenant God will put His laws. I see nothing that denotes a "New Law". With a New Covenant, God put those same laws on tablets of stone... now he puts them on the worshipers inward parts, and writes them on their hearts. Same law, different covenant.

Are there laws of God within the law of Moses? Absolutely.

So perhaps Murder is not a law of Moses, nor was it ever, although it was contained within the category of "Laws of Moses".

 

[Drew]

Certainly there are laws that govern the gentiles written within Torah that still bind the gentiles.

No. There are no laws within the Torah (i.e. the Law of Moses) that the Gentiles are under. This is well-established Biblically.

That they are contained within Torah do not make them laws of Moses.

The Torah is the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

We have here a "New Covenant" and within that covenant God will put His laws. I see nothing that denotes a "New Law". With a New Covenant, God put those same laws on tablets of stone... now he puts them on the worshipers inward parts, and writes them on their hearts. Same law, different covenant.

Then why only the 10 commandments? The 10 commandments make up only a tiny fraction of the 613 elements of the Law of Moses. How, Biblically, are you going to defend the position that 10 of the 613 are written on the heart and 603 are not.

Yes, we have a "law" = "do not murder" written on our heart. But it is not the Law of Moses. It may have some of the same content as the Law of Moses, but that doesn't make it the same thing as the Law of Moses.

An American law against murder could have the exact same content as a pre-existent Norwegian law. Does this make it a Norwegian law? Of course not!