The Law

[Elijah674]

Stormcrow,
I can see how you would misunderstand my post. Clearly, Drew sees all of Torah as "The law of Moses". Even the Jews refer to the Torah as "The Law of Moses". However, even the Jews understand the difference between God's commandments and the laws of Moses. For example, Moses recorded Genesis and within Genesis we see many of God's commandments. By Mosaic authority, Genesis is considered "The law of Moses" as it affirms the Laws of God.

Drew would have us believe that all laws within Torah; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are "Laws of Moses" when in reality Torah is a combination of the "laws" of Moses and the "Laws" of God which fall within the authority of Moses while keeping in mind that Moses was the greatest Prophet to ever exist.

Jesus makes this distinction when he heals the Leper and tells him to go to the priest and offer the Sacrifices Moses commanded. Jesus does so again when he is asked why Moses allowed a certificate of Divorce yet the law of Moses does not trump the law of God, for "in the beginning"...

Drew also fails to make a connection between the different covenants and what is expected by those who are bound by each covenant.

Let me ask you, What is the law of God, and what is the law of Moses.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

We see clearly that this law is directed at the recipients of the Covenant at Sinai and not at Gentiles. Are Christians not bound by this same law under the new Covenant and if so, where can we find this in the NT? A simple yes or no would suffice.

Now, is the below law a law of God or of Moses? Why? What offence would this be against God?
Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

+ the rebelion of heaven, was Moses around then Drew?

And Isa. 42:21 has a good understanding.
[19] Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD's servant?
[20] Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.
[21] The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
(which law was that?)

James 2:8-12
[8] If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
[10] For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
[11] For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
[12] So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

And that goes right along with Eccl. 12:13-14 of 'THE WHOLE MATTER'!
Eccl. 12
[13] Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
[14] For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

---Elijah

PS: Bolt's, where did our good friend Nat run off to? I never did hear if he got his storm cellar finished or not? We do know that he believes in the law of (strong winds, even that of Jude 1:12) force & gravity, huh?

We have been in our 'carpeted' underground storm cellar several times this past few months! (anyway, I miss him!)

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

I'm sorry you consider my most recent posts between 312 and 314 on the three posts you brought up as irrelevant. Makes me sorry to have posted them. But that's water under the bridge.

There has been an idea brought to my attention that in Eph 2:15, that which was abolished was the division between Jew and Gentile, not the Law. What is your thinking on this idea?

FC

 

[Drew]

deleted own post.

 

[Drew]

I'm sorry you consider my most recent posts between 312 and 314 on the three posts you brought up as irrelevant. Makes me sorry to have posted them. But that's water under the bridge.

Sorry I missed those posts. I plan to respond to them.

There has been an idea brought to my attention that in Eph 2:15, that which was abolished was the division between Jew and Gentile, not the Law. What is your thinking on this idea?

I do not see how one can read Ephesians 2:15 and not conclude that the Law is the thing that is abolished:

14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man,....

 

[stovebolts]

Well, I am back, at least for now.

Can you understand why it is frustrating when no one actually deals with the detailed arguments I presented in posts 215, 217, and 264? These arguments, I suggest, are solid cases to the effect that Paul sees the Law of Moses as being for Jews only.

Why are people not dealing with the arguments (unless I have missed some post, I believe they are untouched).

I have no issue with what you post above, except to point out that none of these commands were part of the Law of Moses. So I do not see how such observations are relevant to the question of whether the Law of Moses was only for Jews.

Hi Drew,

I can see how you would be frustrated. I'll go back and read the posts you highlighted first thing tomorrow and get back with you. Looks like I stepped in mid argument as I agree, the covenant at Sinai along with the 613 Laws of Moses were only bound to the Jews.

I would still maintain that there are universal laws that have and continue to bind all of humanity that are found within Torah.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Drew,

Romans 3:28-29.

"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..." (NASB)

The point that Paul is making here is, if justification is through the law of Moses, then only those who possess knowledge of the law (IOW 'have' the law) can be justified by that law. This has nothing to do with the whole world being condemned by the same law, as he points out just before this in vs. 19 (the part I've been rebutting you with).

I see this failure in discernment among law keepers often. They don't understand that the law is a device that condemns the whole world, but it is also a device through which a man can be justified. Everyone is condemned by the law, but justification by the law varies according to the knowledge you possess about it, and what people you dwell among.

I was going to go there next, but Steve already went there so I didn't have to, but what you're not discerning properly is the covenant of law that the Israelites entered into with God. Prolly the best analogy to help understand how Israelites and gentiles are both subject to the same law and authority of God is how a city will have it's peculiar, and usually more strict, rules for those who dwell within the city limits, while those who live in the unincorporated areas around the city in the county are bound by the same law yet usually in a smaller and less restrictive number of the laws that the city itself has to submit to by virtue of citizenship.

This demonstrates very well how their is one law and one lawgiver for both Jew and gentile, but how some people can be more or less subject to that same law and lawgiver depending on how they are covenanted to the lawgiver. In my example, it's easy to see how someone who lives in the city is responsible to much more of the same law that governs those who live outside of the city in the county areas. It was the same with Israelite and gentile.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

15 ...by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace..." (Eph. 2:15 NASB)

Some people suggest this is only the rabbinical law that represented the law of Moses (inaccurately) that gets taken out of the way. Colossians 2 makes it a little more clear that it is the law of Moses itself that got 'nailed to the cross' thus 'abolishing in his flesh' the discriminatory law of Moses.


"...having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Col. 2:13-14 NASB)


The mistake of the early church was not to say the covenant of law has ended. That surely has happened and released the church to worship more freely. What mistake they made was to make it categorically a crime, no exceptions allowed, to keep any of the first covenant laws for worship for any reason. That is what they did wrong. But our freedom to HAVE to worship according to the method and timetable of the first covenant, or be put out of covenant, has indeed ended. And those laws were not abolished, as some understand that word. They are fulfilled--satisfied to God's complete and total satisfaction--through the blood and body of Christ...at least for those who trust in the body and blood. His work on the cross makes the literal fulfillment no longer obligatory and required. Not outlawed (except for purposes of justification), just obsolete and no longer required.

 

[Drew]

I would still maintain that there are universal laws that have and continue to bind all of humanity that are found within Torah.

I agree, but that still does not mean that one can say that "parts" of the Law of Moses apply to us all. This is, I believe, the fundamental disagreement I am having with Jethro Bodine.

Analogy:

1. It is a universal moral law that one should not kick puppies;
2. American law - actual written law - has a law against kicking puppies.

Am I, as a Canadian, under the American law?

No, no, no, no, no.

Do you see my point now? Yes the "moral content" of some parts of the Law of Moses "applies" to us all. But in no way does that mean that the Gentile is "under" or "subject to" the Law of Moses.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Analogy:

1. It is a universal moral law that one should not kick puppies;
2. American law - actual written law - has a law against kicking puppies.

Am I, as a Canadian, under the American law?

No, no, no, no, no.

Why don't you explain your belief according to my analogy of city/county? For it has the basic premise we both agree on in it that makes it a fair analogy: One lawgiver/law/judge.

Am I, as a resident of an unincorporated area of the county, under the city law?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

...I'm just not subject to ALL of it, because I am not covenanted with the authorities through citizenship as those who dwell in the city are.

This should becoming clearer now.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well, any understanding of the commands of God that are different from what Scripture itself presents through subjective interpretation would automatically be in dispute, in the view that I present.

First, for this to be true, you have to show us which beliefs being presented in this thread are "different from what Scripture itself presents" and which are not.

If what Scripture says about this matter was as plain as you seem to think it is this wouldn't be a disputable matter. But since some matters of law aren't so plain the Biblical guidance for disputable matters such as these is in Romans 14. The literal Sabbath observance is one of those.

You hold to a common idea as presented in Christianity. The Law doesn’t apply to Christians. With which Drew agrees.

Relating to God through the old way of the written law, along with it's stipulations for temple, sacrifice, and priesthood is what doesn't apply to Christians. We Christians relate to God through a new way--a New Covenant of Christ's body and blood, and faith in that body and blood by the Holy Spirit (Romans 7:6). But a new way which upholds the requirements of the old way, except, of course, those things that the blood and body and ministry of Christ replaces and makes obsolete and no longer needed.

[...] With the exception of the moral law after some fashion. With which Drew disagrees. Basically a compromise position between no law and all law.

Yes, somewhere in between two polarized, competing extreme beliefs...where most doctrinal truth resides.

The Roman Catholic Church deals with it by saying the Church authoritatively decides what is and what is not for the Church. So that the ten commandments as they interpret them, including the Sabbath law as interpretively changed from the last day of the week to the first day of the week, are for Christians today. But the rest of the Law is not.

I really don't know how much you read and give consideration to my posts here (you certainly don't have to, lol), but by now do you know the very real and acceptable reason I put forth why some laws get literally fulfilled by faith, and why some don't have to because they got fulfilled to God's eternal satisfaction when we believed in and accepted the work of Christ? I'm not asking if you agree with it. I'm simply asking if you really understand what I've been putting forth here. I ask because I truly, truly believe if you understood it you'd agree with it.

A more reasonable view in my opinion, than that any individual would replace the Church in that regard.

I agree. It just happens that the Catholic Church isn't as wrong as you and others think it is. I was surprised myself, too.

But in the view I present, any interpretive position, whether Catholic or Protestant, is subjective, and not worth adherence by anyone except those who wish it to have meaning. An in that view, a faith based on subjectivity is about as valid as any other faith based on subjectivity in all of secular society.

FC

All understanding of scripture is interpretive, but that doesn't automatically equate that understanding to being subjective. Scripture is discerned through the guidance and insight given by the Holy Spirit. That is why all understanding really is interpretive. The interpretive agent of scripture is the Holy Spirit. That's what makes it being 'interpretative' okay.

The problems come in when scripture is understood without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is what you should be resisting. Your resistance to 'interpretation' is, IMO, not the right way to address the issue of how to learn the truths of scripture. It's a matter of having the correct, God given interpretation, not discarding interpretation altogether and relying on academics. Spiritless academics is the very thing that gets the church in trouble.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

James 2:8-12
[8] If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
[10] For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
[11] For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
[12] So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

I'm curious why you didn't embolden "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" in verse 8?

James is making it very clear what the 'law of liberty' is, and what the 'royal law' is, and through example. Very clear.

 

[Elijah674]

--The Royal Law!!-- James 2:8-12's STANDARD OF FINAL JUDGEMENT

Ecc. 12
[13] Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
[14] For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Deut. 5
[22] These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
[23] And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
[24] And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.

And Rev. 12:17 finds who will only be saved when Christ returns! And sure, there were some living who did not have this knowledge who still will be saved while living up to all of the truth that they had been given. James 4:17 Even note John 10:16 for who these 'sheep' did at that time period even, belong to though?! + Rev. 18:4's prophecy. (meaning that these would all live up to any additional Truth that God leads them to! Rom. 8:14 follows Rom. 8:1!)

And Rev. 12??
[17] And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, [[and]] have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

--The Royal Law!!-- James 2:8-12's STANDARD OF FINAL JUDGEMENT

Ecc. 12
[13] Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
[14] For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Deut. 5
[22] These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
[23] And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
[24] And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.

And Rev. 12:17 finds who will only be saved when Christ returns! And sure, there were some living who did not have this knowledge who still will be saved while living up to all of the truth that they had been given. James 4:17 Even note John 10:16 for who these 'sheep' did at that time period even, belong to though?! + Rev. 18:4's prophecy. (meaning that these would all live up to any additional Truth that God leads them to! Rom. 8:14 follows Rom. 8:1!)

And Rev. 12??
[17] And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, [[and]] have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


--Elijah

You do know who the testimony of Jesus Christ is, right?

 

[Elijah674]

I'm curious why you didn't embolden "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" in verse 8?

James is making it very clear what the 'law of liberty' is, and what the 'royal law' is, and through example. Very clear.

No need to be curious! I am not bashful. There are two tables of the Ten Commandments. The First four can be seen as ones duty to God First & the last six finds our duty to God, + His creation.

Christ was 'tempted' in Matt. 22:35-40 by a lawyer. (which reminds me of what lays ahead in Rom. 13! some more detail!) Anyhow, this was the discourse...

[35] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang [[all the law and the prophets.]]

And again James 2:10 said what???
---Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

[35] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang [[all the law and the prophets.]]

What does it mean that "the second is like unto it (the first and greatest commandment)"?

 

[Drew]

Why don't you explain your belief according to my analogy of city/county? For it has the basic premise we both agree on in it that makes it a fair analogy: One lawgiver/law/judge.

Am I, as a resident of an unincorporated area of the county, under the city law?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

...I'm just not subject to ALL of it, because I am not covenanted with the authorities through citizenship as those who dwell in the city are.

This should becoming clearer now.

I have already effectively dealt with this in posts that I believe you have not addressed - posts 215, 217, and 264.

When you combine:

(1) The argument that, as per these three posts, Paul clearly sees the Law of Moses as being for Jews only (not to mention Eph 2);

(2) The self-evident truth that it is at least possible for one lawgiver to give different sets of laws to different sets of citizens.

.....you conclude that the Law of Moses is exclusively for Jews.

With respect to point number 2, it seems to me that you take what is merely possible and simply assume that it is necessary.

Paul simply does not see the Gentile as being under the Law of Moses - he repeatedly treats the Law of Moses as though it is specific to Jews. That's what the arguments in posts 215, 217, and 264 are all about.

If he believed that significant parts of it - i.e. the moral parts - applied to Gentiles, he surely would have given us a hint that this is so.

And yet he does not.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I have already effectively dealt with this in posts that I believe you have not addressed - posts 215, 217, and 264.

I did. He's talking about justification by the law. You have to have knowledge of the law of Moses to be justified by the law of Moses. That is why gentiles are not under a law of justification. But they were under the same law of condemnation as the Israelite.

When you combine:

(1) The argument that, as per these three posts, Paul clearly sees the Law of Moses as being for Jews only (not to mention Eph 2);

...for justification, because they are the ones who have (knowledge of) the law of Moses. They are the ones who committed themselves to a law of justification, not the gentiles.

(2) The self-evident truth that it is at least possible for one lawgiver to give different sets of laws to different sets of citizens.

.....you conclude that the Law of Moses is exclusively for Jews.

With respect to point number 2, it seems to me that you take what is merely possible and simply assume that it is necessary.

I do not know what you are saying here. I'm on lunch and don't have a lot of time to discern what you're trying to say.

Paul simply does not see the Gentile as being under the Law of Moses - he repeatedly treats the Law of Moses as though it is specific to Jews. That's what the arguments in posts 215, 217, and 264 are all about.

...for JUSTIFICATION. But he asserts that ALL are CONDEMNED by the law of Moses (vs. 19 was it?).

If he believed that significant parts of it - i.e. the moral parts - applied to Gentiles, he surely would have given us a hint that this is so.

And yet he does not.

He most certainly does. I've pointed this out to you but you have decided that the very same commands that gentile and Israelite share can't possibly be the same law . Those laws were not couched in a covenant for the gentile as they were for the Israelites and that is where your confusion is coming from. The Jews were in a formal covenant of the law. Gentiles were not...that doesn't mean it's somehow a different law. A covenant, and different form of the law, yes, but not distinct commands for the gentiles that the Israelites didn't have.

 

[Drew]

I did. He's talking about justification by the law. You have to have knowledge of the law of Moses to be justified by the law of Moses. That is why gentiles are not under a law of justification. But they were under the same law of condemnation as the Israelite.

This is not an engagement of my argument. Yes, he is writing about justification by law, but Paul's argument is that if justifcation were by the law, which it isn't, then only Jews would have a chance to be justified.

This means that Paul believes the Law only applies to Jews.

I do not believe you have actually engaged my argument.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is not an engagement of my argument. Yes, he is writing about justification by law, but Paul's argument is that if justifcation were by the law, which it isn't, then only Jews would have a chance to be justified.

This means that Paul believes the Law only applies to Jews.

Paul is being very specific. The law of JUSTIFICATION only applies to the Jew because they are the ones who, generally speaking, know about (have) the law. Don't make the passage a sweeping statement that the gentile is not also under the law. Paul himself says, almost in the same breath, that the whole world is under the CONDEMNATION of the law.

 

[Drew]

...for JUSTIFICATION. But he asserts that ALL are CONDEMNED by the law of Moses (vs. 19 was it?).

Verse 19 is not a statement that all are condemned by the Law, it is a statement that those who are under the Law are condemned by it.

And those under the Law are Jews, and Jews only.

I have dealt with this verse in detail in posts 225 and 227. In those posts, I argue that the verse is indeed open to a reading where it is only Jews that under the Law.

You need to show how that argument fails in order for your take on verse 19 works.

Granted, I have yet to make the positive case that "those under the Law" in verse 19 are Jews and only Jews. But that is an easy case to make.

There are important issues of method here. You cannot simply claim that verse 19 means what you think it means - you must engage competing arguments, such as those provided in posts 225 and 227. Same thing with posts 215, 217, and 264 - you have not actually engaged those arguments, you have provided other arguments.