The Law

[Drew]

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.

1. Paul denies justification by "works of the Law" in Romans 3:28;

2. Paul then effectively states: "If justification were possible by works of the law, then only Jews would even have the theoretical possibility of being justified;

3. This forces us to conclude that Paul believes Gentiles are not under the Law of Moses. If they were, it would be at least possible for them to be justified by the Law.

And then we have my argument about how Romans 4 proves that Paul sees that only Jews are under the law (it is presented in either 215, 217, or 264, I do not remember which).

Please address the specificities of my arguments.

And, as per posts 225 and 227 - it is entirely that only the Jew is "condemned by the law" as per verse 19.

 

[Drew]

Paul is being very specific. The law of JUSTIFICATION....

Law of justification? Where you get that concept from? Paul, I suggest, is talking about justification on the basis of following not a law of "justification" but by following the Law of Moses.

Do you disagree?

Can you explain to us how it is possible that both Jews and Gentiles are under the Law of Moses, yet only Jews could be justified by keeping it (doing its 'works')?

That would seem to go directly against the emphasis of 3:29, which is that both Jew and Gentile are on the same footing.

 

[Drew]

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 .

You may have asserted that both Jew and Gentile are under the same law, but I see no positive argument that they are. Obviously, I would agree that it is a priori possible that both Jew and Gentile are under a common law. But, as I have argued in a number of posts, Paul believes that only Jews are under the Law of Moses.

Let me make this easy - please tell us what the probem is with the argument presented in post 215. The argument there is extremely short and, I believe, easy to follow.

Please tell us exactly where the error is in that post. Please do not provide a separate argument that bypasses the specifics of the argument in post 215. Please directly engage post 215.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm at work right now and can't devote time to this just now.

What you have to do, Drew, is explain how the whole world is condemned by the law in vs. 19(?) of Romans 3, but somehow the law is only for the Jews in vs. 30(?). I'm guessing at the verse numbers, but you know what I'm referring to.

My explanation is because he is talking about the condemnation of the law in vs. 19 and the justification of the law in vs. 30. You can't be justified by a law that says how to be justified if you don't possess knowledge of that law. That's why the law is only for the Jew in that regard. But the whole world understands by nature and conscience the things in the law that condemn all men.

Understand?

 

[Drew]

I'm at work right now and can't devote time to this just now.

Same here .

What you have to do, Drew, is explain how the whole world is condemned by the law in vs. 19(?) of Romans 3, but somehow the law is only for the Jews in vs. 30(?). I'm guessing at the verse numbers, but you know what I'm referring to.

Not quite. I have already provided an argument, expressed in posts 225 and 227 that makes the case that verse 19 can be correctly read as asserting that only Jews are under the Law of Moses.

Please address the argument in posts 225 and 227.

You do understand that you need to engage those arguments, right? It may seem that verse 19 is placing all the world under the condemnation of the law, but my argument (in 225 and 227) is a detailed account of why there are legitimate reasons to doubt such a conclusion.

 

[Drew]

My explanation is because he is talking about the condemnation of the law in vs. 19.....

As you should know by now, I do not believe verse 19 requires us to understand that the Gentile is condemned by the law. Yes, the whole world is accountable, not only the Jew is accountable in respect to the Law of Moses.

You can't be justified by a law that says how to be justified if you don't possess knowledge of that law.

I agree with this statement, but it does not challenge my position. As you should know by now, I do not believe that verse 19 is talking about all humanity being under the Law. I am sure you will agree that the whole world can be "accountable" to God, whereas only the Jew has the particular burden of being accountable in respect to a Law that only the Jew is under.

So please - do not think that I agree that the Gentile is "accountable to God in respect to the Law of Moses"! If I did believe that, you would have a legitimate argument against my position.

But the whole world understands by nature and conscience the things in the law that condemn all men. Understand?

Again, you need to address posts 225 and 227. You seem to assume that 3:19 reads as though all the world is under the Law simply because all are accountable.

My detailed arguments in posts 225 and 227 directly challenge this.

 

[Elijah674]

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

That is a rather strange question for one that has been Born Again?? (if that is the case?) The only reason for OBEDIENCE that merits (or ends in Mature) Salvation, is the Agape Born Again Love! Christ said 'If ye Love Me, keep [[MY Commandments]].'

Keeping (or trying to) the two tables of God's Commanments save NO ONE! They are kept because one Agape Loves Christ! And yes, these ones know that there is PERFECT peace in Obedience as well.

And NO, OSAS Love can always become sick & be spewed out. Rev. 3:16 Maturity is a Loving Work in progress. Phil. 4:13

--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That is a rather strange question for one that has been Born Again??

I know why the second command is like the first. I asked in order to know if you know. I'm not convinced that you do.

If you did you would not make the artificial division between the first four Commandments and the remaining six that you do.


“YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” (Romans 13:9 NASB emboldening mine)

Do you see why the second is like the first?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

As you should know by now, I do not believe verse 19 requires us to understand that the Gentile is condemned by the law. Yes, the whole world is accountable, not only the Jew is accountable in respect to the Law of Moses.

And you say that's not being 'under' the law of Moses (to the extent they actually are)? Really?

You seem to assume that 3:19 reads as though all the world is under the Law simply because all are accountable.

And what does the verse say makes all of us, Jew and gentile, accountable to God?

 

[Drew]

And you say that's not being 'under' the law of Moses (to the extent they actually are)? Really?

Please read posts 225 and 227 and address the arguments.

And what does the verse say makes all of us, Jew and gentile, accountable to God?

This is not the right argument to be making. You seem to "demand" that the verse must, in one terse little verse "tell the whole story". There is no reason to expect this - Paul could have already established, earlier in the overall argument, that the Gentile is accountable to God, and therefore need not repeat this in the verse. Please read posts 225 and 227 - I address your concern in great detail there.

 

[Drew]

In Romans 2, Paul writes this:

But if you bear the name “Jew†and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth,.....

Do you not see how difficult it is to sustain this idea that the Gentile is also under the Law? If that were really true, why is Paul saying that the Jew - yes the Jew - has access to "knowledge and truth" via this Law.

What about the Gentile?

Why has Paul excluded the Gentile from his rebuke if the Gentile is also under this law?

Does Paul believe that the Gentile is "better" than the Jew? No he does not.

Paul believes that the Jew, and the Jew only, is under the Law.

 

[Drew]

“It is simply untrue (Biblically) that the Law of Moses was intended to be adopted by all humanity. â€

This is your assertion. To state an assertion that you think is true, doesn’t mean that everyone will agree with it or that it is true in and of itself.

I have not merely asserted this, I have argued the point extensively.

Initially I questioned your thesis because the whole bible is based on the Law of Moses.

Not true - all of Genesis precedes the giving of the Law of Moses. So how can
"the whole Bible" be based on the Law of Moses?

Jesus related everything to the Law of necessity since he was a Jew still under that Law.

True, but this in no way supports the notion that the Law of Moses is for Gentiles.

It is claimed he fulfilled the Law, not just part of it. So he kept the dietary and moral aspects of the Law. If we are to be conformed to the image of Christ, are to do less or differently?

This question assumes that the Law of Moses continues to apply after Jesus' time. And it does not. So this is not a valid case that we should all follow Jesus in obeying the Law of Moses.

Besides, Jesus decidedly did not obey the Law of Moses! He repeatedly broke it and challenged it (e.g. claiming that He, and not the temple was the "place" to receive forgiveness, overturning the food laws, touching a bleeding woman, etc.).

This idea that Jesus "obeyed" the Law of Moses is deeply ingrained in Christian culture, but it is demonstrably not correct.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law, but not in the sense of "keeping it". Instead, He fulfilled it in the sense of completing the task that the Law was given to do.

 

[Drew]

Does Hebrews talk about the Tabernacle ritual as no longer to be practiced because that which is perfect has come? Or does it say that all the Law is no longer in effect because that which is perfect has come?

I think there a problem with your implied argument. You appear to be making the following argument:

1. Hebrews states that tabernacle ritual is no longer in effect;
2. The author of Hebrews does not say that other parts of the law are no longer in effect;
3. Therefore, the author of Hebrews must believe that the moral part of the law remains in effect.

This is not correct reasoning. There is no reason why the auther is required to give us a complete picture of what has happened to the Law. Although I have not analyzed the relevant passage, it is a priori entirely plausible that the author is, for some reason, only interested in talking about the status of one part of the law.

So a statement that the "temple ritual" aspect of the Law is retired tells us precisely nothing about other aspects of the Law.

So what the author says in Hebrews does not support the assertion that only part of the Law of Moses has been retired.

 

[Drew]

Sorry about the fonts - I suspect they are on the large side. I write my posts in Word and then "paste" them into the text box. I have not figured how to do this without screwing with fonts. If anyone can explain this to me, please do so.

The goal of this argument is to support the assertion that only Jews are under the Law of Moses. The basic structure of the argument is as follows:

1. God promises the Jews that they will be a blessing to all nations;

2. Strangely, yet wonderfully, the way this plays out involves the nation of Israel being hardened by God, thereby accumulating the sin of the world in her, so that this sin can then be transferred to her representative Messiah, Jesus, and dealt with on the cross;

3. The specific means by which the world’s sin is built up (accumulated) in the nation of Israel is through the effect of the Law of Moses;

4. If all the foregoing are sustained, then it follows logically that only are under the Law of Moses, since it is precisely Jews, and only Jews who bless the world in this way. If a Gentile were under the Law of Moses, then one could assert that the Gentile participates in blessing the world in this way. But God never promises to use the Gentile in this manner. Therefore, we have reason to believe the Law of Moses is indeed only for Jews.

I doubt that any reader will contest item 1. My argument for point 2 will appeal largely to Romans 9-11. In these three chapters, Paul argues that Israel is “hardened†with salvific implications for the world. Granted, I will need to carefully defend the very coherence of the idea that “hardening†Israel can somehow result in her bearing the sin of the whole world. I grant that establishing this is important to the whole argument. We all have a sense of what it means for God to harden someone (example: Pharoah). And all of us in the reformed tradition have a sense of this idea that Jesus “bears†our sin; therefore we should be open to the conceptual coherence of Israel serving a similar function. But if I am going to establish point 2, I will need to spell out how the two concepts – hardening and bearing sin - can be connected in relation to Israel. Finally, point 3, while counterintuitive if point 2 is not established, becomes much easier to accept once point 2 has been established. After all, if God uses Israel to bless the world by hardening her, then it becomes very reasonable to look for a mechanism by which this hardening is effected. And the Law of Moses could be such a mechanism.

It should be acknowledged that this argument is not mine in origin – I have shamelessly co-opted it from theologian NT Wright.

More later.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Drew, you're still not discerning the difference between matters of law and matters of covenant. When you say the law of Moses is not for gentiles you HAVE to explain if you mean the law in regard to it's covenant purpose or as the law by which all of mankind is judged, whether they actually know about it as 'the law of Moses' or not.

The whole world is under the condemnation of the law...because all people, Jew and gentile alike, sin. But it was the nation of Israel, specifically, that was under a particular covenant with laws for temple, priesthood, and sacrifice. A covenant that illustrated fundamental truths about the coming Christ who was to be a New Covenant of Temple, Priesthood, and Sacrifice, not only for the Israelites, but for all mankind, and one that would satisfy the requirements of the first covenant making them obsolete and no longer needed, not destroying them. And a covenant which would break down the barriers that the first covenant erected between God and the people of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think there a problem with your implied argument. You appear to be making the following argument:

1. Hebrews states that tabernacle ritual is no longer in effect;
2. The author of Hebrews does not say that other parts of the law are no longer in effect;
3. Therefore, the author of Hebrews must believe that the moral part of the law remains in effect.

This is not correct reasoning. There is no reason why the auther is required to give us a complete picture of what has happened to the Law. Although I have not analyzed the relevant passage, it is a priori entirely plausible that the author is, for some reason, only interested in talking about the status of one part of the law.

So a statement that the "temple ritual" aspect of the Law is retired tells us precisely nothing about other aspects of the Law.

So what the author says in Hebrews does not support the assertion that only part of the Law of Moses has been retired.

It's absolutely unreasonable to say 'do not murder', or 'do not bear false witness', for example, have been 'retired'.

The only thing that's been 'retired' in regard to those commands is where God writes those commands. The old 'way' of guiding people through commands etched in stone is retired in favor of the new 'way' of writing those commands (summarized in 'love your neighbor as yourself') on tablets of human flesh transformed by the Spirit of God from the tablets of stone they once were:

"I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. 20 Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." (Ezekiel 11:19-20 NIV1984)

26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." (Ezekiel 36:26-27 NIV1984)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

In Romans 2, Paul writes this:

But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth,.....

Do you not see how difficult it is to sustain this idea that the Gentile is also under the Law? If that were really true, why is Paul saying that the Jew - yes the Jew - has access to "knowledge and truth" via this Law.

It's not difficult when you understand that he is talking about the justification of the law. The Jews are the ones who were given specific knowledge about justification, not the gentiles. The gentiles, generally speaking, did not possess the knowledge about righteousness that the Jews possessed in the law of Moses written down for them.

See the key phrase 'if you rely upon the law' in the passage? He's talking about relying on the law as a way to be justified and be righteous before God. How can he be talking to gentiles who don't have the knowledge of the law to educate them about being justified by the law of Moses?

And the whole point of why he's bringing it up is to show them that it's impossible to be justified by the law of Moses. His point is not to show who is and who isn't under the law of Moses.

What about the Gentile?

Why has Paul excluded the Gentile from his rebuke if the Gentile is also under this law?

Because he's talking about justification, not the condemnation of the law. The gentiles, by virtue of their lack of knowledge of the law of Moses, are not under the law of Moses in regard to justification. But they are under the law of Moses in regard to condemnation. Everyone is...whether you actually know about the 'law of Moses', or not.

 

[Elijah674]

It's not difficult when you understand that he is talking about the justification of the law. The Jews are the ones who were given specific knowledge about justification, not the gentiles. The gentiles, generally speaking, did not possess the knowledge about righteousness that the Jews possessed in the law of Moses written down for them.

See the key phrase 'if you rely upon the law' in the passage? He's talking about relying on the law as a way to be justified and be righteous before God. How can he be talking to gentiles who don't have the knowledge of the law to educate them about being justified by the law of Moses?

And the whole point of why he's bringing it up is to show them that it's impossible to be justified by the law of Moses. His point is not to show who is and who isn't under the law of Moses.

Because he's talking about justification, not the condemnation of the law. The gentiles, by virtue of their lack of knowledge of the law of Moses, are not under the law of Moses in regard to justification. But they are under the law of Moses in regard to condemnation. Everyone is...whether you actually know about the 'law of Moses', or not.

_______

You say:
But they are under the law of Moses in regard to condemnation. Everyone is...whether you actually know about the 'law of Moses', or not.[/QUOTE]

You need to remember Eccl. 3:14 + Rev. 22:18-19, for your post is very much in error!

Eccl. 3
[14] I know that, whatsoever God doeth, (or sayeth!)it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Rev. 22
[17] And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man [[[shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:]]]
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book [[of this prophecy]], God shall take away his part [[out of the book of life]], and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.'

It is one thing to say that 'i' think that this is the way that it is, and quite another to say that this IS THE WAY THAT IT IS!

--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Elijah674,

But the law really does change. God is not as unchangeable as you are insisting he is in regard to law:

"...when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also." (Hebrews 7:12 NIV)

And the author of Hebrews goes on to explain what that change in law is.


There are things that do not change in regard to God. The law just isn't one of them as I've just shown you. The Bible tells us in what regard God does not change, and it does not have to be prefaced with an "I think". Surely you know where the Bible tells us what doesn't change about God, right?

 

[Drew]

Drew, you're still not discerning the difference between matters of law and matters of covenant.

I do not see that I have a particular problem in this area.

When you say the law of Moses is not for gentiles you HAVE to explain if you mean the law in regard to it's covenant purpose or as the law by which all of mankind is judged, whether they actually know about it as 'the law of Moses' or not.

You may not be surprised to read that I will object to very way you frame this question - the question itself assumes a distinction that I do not believe is Biblical. That assumption is that all mankind is going to be judged by the Law of Moses.

The whole world is under the condemnation of the law...because all people, Jew and gentile alike, sin.

I have repeatedly drawn your attention to a post where I argue in great detail that the text you hang your position on (that the world will be judged by the Law of Moses) can be plausibly read another way.

Unless I have missed something, you continue to avoid engaging that argument.