The Law

[Drew]

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

Well let's be careful here. Of course, I am not suggesting that its "not sin" to commit murder or bear false witness. I have been quite clear about this in other threads, if not this one.

But it is entirely reasonable - and I would suggest clearly Biblical - to suggest that one particular statement of law that embodies these changeless moral truths - the Law of Moses - has been retired.

The only thing that's been 'retired' in regard to those commands is where God writes those commands.

You may need to explain what your concept of "writing law on the heart is". If you are going to say that we simply "memorize" the moral components of the Law of Moses, then I would say you are on the wrong track.

I follow Paul's analysis - he sets aside the written code (Romans 7). And surely, to "memorize" the code so that an actual written code is no longer required is not what Paul is talking about.

Things get a little tricky here. I am not sure your understanding of the sense in which "love your neighbour" summarizes the law. If you mean that it is simply a "category" into which you still insert "thou shalt not murder" etc., as prescriptive moral laws, then I think you are mistaken.

When the Scripture speak of the law being "written on the heart", I am quite confident, this is simply a matter of "memorizing" the law so that you do not need to have a written copy. Instead, you become a new creation, indwelt by the Spirit.

And such a person does not a "list" of moral rules, whether written down or "memorized".

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

I've tried to read it two times (with a magnifying glass, lol). It has no easily understood teaching in it to grasp onto. I couldn't even read the argument back to you just to show you I understand it. Sorry, I'm just being honest.

 

[Drew]

Hello Jethro:

I will return to an argument which I think you have not engaged. Consider this text from Romans 4:

For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

I suggest this text shows clearly that there are some "descendents" of Abraham that are not "of the Law".

I suggest this is further evidence that Paul understands the Jew as being under the Law and the Gentile as not being under the Law. So here Paul is saying "God's true people are not limited to the Jews".

How do you explain this text if we are all "under the Law"?

I suspect you will say that the Jew is "under Law" in the sense of being responsible for all the ceremonial stuff (as well as the moral stuff), but that the Gentile is under the moral part of the Law. And so Paul expects the reader to have that distinction in mind and interpret the above text accordingly.

Its interesting that neither Paul, nor any other author of a book in the Bible ever draws this distinction.

 

[Drew]

I've tried to read it two times (with a magnifying glass, lol). It has no easily understood teaching in it to grasp onto. I couldn't even read the argument back to you just to show you I understand it. Sorry, I'm just being honest.

Here is a re-worked version of the argument (the changes were minor). Unless and until someone explains to me how to "copy and paste" from Word into the Christianforums.net text box without font problems, it will be a crap-shoot as to the text size you see. Please tell what text size this shows as:

Consider this text from Romans 3:

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

Like many, many other texts, this text manifests an interesting property: The way it reads depends on pre-suppositions you bring to your reading of it. For example, if you come to the text believing that this “Law” is something universal to all mankind, you can, leverage that pre-supposition, and perfectly legitimately see this text as consistent with your view. However, if you come to the text believing that the “Law” is something for Jews only (such as the Law of Moses), you can also perfectly legitimately see this text as endorsing such a view.

I will now argue that the text does not, in any way, subvert my position (this is effectively making the case that it is plausible that the text is consistent with my position, even though it may also be consistent with other, competing views – as discussed above);

The key to establishing the plausibility that “Law” here is the Law of Moses that applies to Jews only is to argue against the notion that even though the whole world is found guilty in this small chunk of text, this “Law” is not the ground for all of them being found guilty. I should not have to remind the reader of the following: Just because a discussion of the guilt of the whole word is discussed in very close proximity to a discussion of an unspecified law, and though it is tempting to think that this “Law” must be the basis for all the world being found guilty – after all, that’s what laws do, they find people guilty - it is possible that this is not the case. This “argument from proximity” is simply not correct – language is more sophisticated than this. “Close” may count in horseshoes and hand-grenades, but not always in language.

We proceed by assuming that “Law” here is a law for Jews only (such as the Law of Moses). Can the text sustain such a reading. Remember, I am not trying to give positive evidence for this - for the present I only argue that the text can work with such a position.

Clearly, Paul is saying the whole world is accountable – found “guilty” in some sense. However, suppose this text is embedded within a broader argument as follows:

1.Paul first mounts argument A: Jews are guilty of breaking the Law of Moses;

2.Paul then mounts argument B: Gentiles are no better – while they do not violate the Law of Moses (since they are no more subject to that law than is a Canadian subject to American law), they still “sin” in the sense of violating a general moral conscience that is given to all humanity;

3.Paul next wants to summarize these arguments by saying that the Jew is guilty in the specific way the Jew is deemed guilty (that is, by the Law of Moses), and the Gentile is also guilty in the specific way the Gentile is deemed guilty (universal moral law). But, and this is the key, where is Paul in his argument at this particular point in the argument? He has just finished Argument B – a treatment of the Gentile. So what does he need to do? He needs to remind the reader about the earlier argument about the Jew being guilty before God – argument A. So he effectively writes this:

Having just argued that the Gentile is guilty, I remind you that the Law of Moses (for Jews only) also has condemned the Jew, so that now we have a situation where the whole world is guilty before God; because no Jew can be justified by the Law of Moses, it can only point out their sin.

This is, I assert, entirely consistent with what Paul actually writes. It begs the question to claim that if Paul wanted to refer to the Law of Moses, he would necessarily have explicitly identified it as such. Why does this beg the question? It does so precisely because Paul uses the term “the law” in other places – not least later in this same chapter - to refer to the Law of Moses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So that is the argument – if the two verses are indeed set in an argument with the flow and sequence I have supposed, then the term “Law” can indeed refer to a Law of Moses that is only for Jews.

A word of caution. You may well still think the grammar and structure of the two sentences in verses 19 and 20 force us to conclude this law is for the whole world. Well, please make your case – but do not presume what you should be making a case for.

The rules of language are complex. And in particular, the proper way to “parse” a certain statement (or a couplet of two sentences as in this case) often depends on the context. My sense is that an objective reader will indeed “see” the legitimacy of the equivalence I have drawn.

 

[Elijah674]

Here is a re-worked version of the argument (the changes were minor). Unless and until someone explains to me how to "copy and paste" from Word into the Christianforums.net text box without font problems, it will be a crap-shoot as to the text size you see. Please tell what text size this shows as:

Consider this text from Romans 3:

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

Like many, many other texts, this text manifests an interesting property: The way it reads depends on pre-suppositions you bring to your reading of it. For example, if you come to the text believing that this “Law†is something universal to all mankind, you can, leverage that pre-supposition, and perfectly legitimately see this text as consistent with your view. However, if you come to the text believing that the “Law†is something for Jews only (such as the Law of Moses), you can also perfectly legitimately see this text as endorsing such a view.

I will now argue that the text does not, in any way, subvert my position (this is effectively making the case that it is plausible that the text is consistent with my position, even though it may also be consistent with other, competing views – as discussed above);

The key to establishing the plausibility that “Law†here is the Law of Moses that applies to Jews only is to argue against the notion that even though the whole world is found guilty in this small chunk of text, this “Law†is not the ground for all of them being found guilty. I should not have to remind the reader of the following: Just because a discussion of the guilt of the whole word is discussed in very close proximity to a discussion of an unspecified law, and though it is tempting to think that this “Law†must be the basis for all the world being found guilty – after all, that’s what laws do, they find people guilty - it is possible that this is not the case. This “argument from proximity†is simply not correct – language is more sophisticated than this. “Close†may count in horseshoes and hand-grenades, but not always in language.

We proceed by assuming that “Law†here is a law for Jews only (such as the Law of Moses). Can the text sustain such a reading. Remember, I am not trying to give positive evidence for this - for the present I only argue that the text can work with such a position.

Clearly, Paul is saying the whole world is accountable – found “guilty†in some sense. However, suppose this text is embedded within a broader argument as follows:

1.Paul first mounts argument A: Jews are guilty of breaking the Law of Moses;

2.Paul then mounts argument B: Gentiles are no better – while they do not violate the Law of Moses (since they are no more subject to that law than is a Canadian subject to American law), they still “sin†in the sense of violating a general moral conscience that is given to all humanity;

3.Paul next wants to summarize these arguments by saying that the Jew is guilty in the specific way the Jew is deemed guilty (that is, by the Law of Moses), and the Gentile is also guilty in the specific way the Gentile is deemed guilty (universal moral law). But, and this is the key, where is Paul in his argument at this particular point in the argument? He has just finished Argument B – a treatment of the Gentile. So what does he need to do? He needs to remind the reader about the earlier argument about the Jew being guilty before God – argument A. So he effectively writes this:

Having just argued that the Gentile is guilty, I remind you that the Law of Moses (for Jews only) also has condemned the Jew, so that now we have a situation where the whole world is guilty before God; because no Jew can be justified by the Law of Moses, it can only point out their sin.

This is, I assert, entirely consistent with what Paul actually writes. It begs the question to claim that if Paul wanted to refer to the Law of Moses, he would necessarily have explicitly identified it as such. Why does this beg the question? It does so precisely because Paul uses the term “the law†in other places – not least later in this same chapter - to refer to the Law of Moses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So that is the argument – if the two verses are indeed set in argument with the flow and sequence I have supposed, then the term “Law†can indeed refer to a Law of Moses that is only for Jews.

A word of caution. You may well still think the grammar and structure of the two sentences in verses 19 and 20 force us to conclude this law is for the whole world. Well, please make your case – but do not presume what you should be making a case for.

The rules of language are complex. And in particular, the proper way to “parse†a certain statement (or a couplet of two sentences as in this case) often depends on the context. My sense is that an objective reader will indeed “see†the legitimacy of the equivalence I have drawn.

Your post came up good on my computor. When I post it goes all over the place, big + small. Some times it posts when I only want to check the Preview box. (that is what it did this time! I went to check or it would have been a double post)

[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
[19] Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

So this was Moses law that was indeed added because of sin. Not the Eternal Covenant of Heb. 13:20 that eternally tell's what sin is. 1 John 3:4

--Elijah

PS: It sounds like we are finding H. Armstrong's teachings here? I wonder if so? what side they are on, they were 'in a real shaking & split in two'!

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Response to #352

“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.

Deuteronomy 4:1-8

by Former Christian
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?

One has to wonder how Cain and Abel, Noah, and Abraham knew what sacrifices to offer. My personal favorite is that the Law existed back then in oral form. I suppose to be more precise, the whole written bible after Moses wrote the Law down is based on that Law. Now, being as there’s only one God, it stands to reason there would be one Law for all. Not one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles and another one for the Christians. I think that Law is well formulated by the Law called the Law of Moses or the Law of God. If there’s more than one law, it stands to reason that either the laws are just part of the Law or to explain that law or are laws by somebody else. The law of faith, in the view I present, isn’t in contrast to the Law of God. It refers to the faith of Christ and is in regard to eternal Justification. And this law of the faith of Christ establishes the Law of God. As seen in it’s likeness to the faith of Abraham, and seen in the law of the Spirit later on. The law of sin, on the other hand, is from another source. In this case, a law set up by Satan to counteract the Law of God. Originally, sin was the cause of death. If the last enemy to be destroyed is death, it stands to reason that the law of sin will be destroyed with it. And we know that God sent his own Son to condemn sin in the flesh.

by Former Christian
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.

Not in itself, no. Seeing as it pertains to Jesus as a Jew.

by Former Christian
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.

I know that’s your assertion. But maybe I didn’t say it clearly. It’s the other way around. It’s not that the question is assumed. What’s assumed is that we are to be conformed to the image of Jesus who obeyed the Law, and we are in the Christ who followed the Law. Ergo, If that is true, then the Law must still be in effect on that account.

In the view I present, there has been a change in the Law due to Christ fulfilling that Law. Rather than participating in the sacrifices of innocent animals, now we participate in the sacrifice of an innocent Christ. In a very real way through participating in the Lord’s Table. Not in a literal physical way, as the Jews thought in the first century and the Catholics emphasize today. But through the Spirit by faith in the reality of the body and blood of Christ. Nothing else has changed.

The Sabbath has never changed. It’s still on Saturday. But the Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath. Part of the day of rest included meeting communally in the presence of the Lord. Luke, in Acts 2, claims that they met daily. This is still considered inconvenient by Protestants. But the Catholics have gone back to the practice of the daily Mass for those able to attend, in line with NT practice, and apparently in line with the first few centuries of the Church as we know it. They attended daily as they were able. All it takes is a little common sense to see that even if it isn’t specifically written. The Sabbath itself has not changed. The idea that the Sabbath was changed to the first day of the week is one of those things deeply ingrained in the Christian culture you spoke of.

Do we have to keep the Sabbath? We don’t HAVE to do anything the Law says. It was and is just a guidebook, so to speak, of daily living. If we don’t follow the Law in the manner in which it was intended and prescribed, we will suffer, not God. As the Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath; so also, the Law is for man, not man for the Law.

There was more than just the one purpose for the Law explained in Galatians 3 as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. That’s only applied to the Jews anyway. What Paul says earlier is more widely applicable. That the Law was added because of transgressions. Paul said in Romans 7 that one purpose of the Law is to reveal sin. Of course, if the Law has been retired, we may as well tear that verse from our bibles along with any other mention of the Law elsewhere in the bible, for all the good it’ll do us.

And I find it interesting that in practicality, Protestants who believe the Law has been abrogated do just that. They replace the inspired Psalms with hymnbooks, and treat the hymnbooks as if they’re inspired. And that’s only one example.

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.

That’s quite an assertion. If you can demonstrate the validity of that assertion, it would certainly be proof, at least to the open minded, that Jesus of Nazareth certainly wasn’t the Messiah. At least not the one that was to come through the Jews. If it could be proved that Jesus didn’t obey the Law of Moses (of God) and repeatedly broke that Law; it would prove Jesus to be a liar on two counts. First, Jesus’ intent was to destroy the Law, not to fulfill it. And the claim by Jesus otherwise was a blatant lie. Second, if Jesus repeatedly changed and broke the Law of God, then he lied about doing the will of his Father, a will specifically described in the Law at that time in that venue.

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.

In your view, what was the task that the Law was given to do? And would you say that this task is the whole purpose of the Law, or one purpose of the Law?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Response to #353

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.

Well, understood like that I wouldn’t go along with the scenario either.

Try it this way,

1 Hebrews has to do with the animal sacrifices of the tabernacle ritual.

2 Hebrews states that the animal sacrifices could never take away sins, and that God had no pleasure in them.

3 Hebrews further states that the true sacrifice has come that can take away sins, and in which God has pleasure.

4 And there was a change in the Priesthood.

5 Ergo, the animal sacrifices have been done away

Hebrews states that the Old Covenant faded away after the establishment of the New Covenant. Says nothing about the Law fading away with it. It only says the Law was never intended to make anyone perfect. That task is left to the sacrifice of Christ, as far as eternal life, and to the Law through the Spirit in this life. It is said that a major difference between the Jews and the Christians is the Spirit within. Sorry to say, can’t tell by lookin.

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.

This seems to be as good a place as any to interject something. We seem to stand together in our opposition to arbitrary divisions in the Law. Which seems to me to be the common view in Christianity. All the author of Hebrews is saying is that the sacrifices of the tabernacle ritual has changed due to that which has come, a better sacrifice. So the animal sacrifices are no longer to be practiced. This author doesn’t appear to me to overtly relate the Lord’s Table to this better sacrifice. But I have reason to believe from other biblical references that they are indeed related. I think we can agree that this matter of the Law is to us, in contrast with most of Christianity, an all (myself) or nothing (yourself) proposition.

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.

Sorry you misunderstood. The view I present, in rather stark contrast with the view that you present I would say, is saying that NONE of the Law was retired. Only that the original sacrificial system of the Tabernacle ritual was changed due to the accomplishment of the sacrifice that is perfect.


Querey: In your view, did you say that a written moral code is unnecessary today because it comes to us through the Spirit? Just want to be clear on that point.

FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Try it this way,

1 Hebrews has to do with the animal sacrifices of the tabernacle ritual.

2 Hebrews states that the animal sacrifices could never take away sins, and that God had no pleasure in them.

3 Hebrews further states that the true sacrifice has come that can take away sins, and in which God has pleasure.

4 And there was a change in the Priesthood.

5 Ergo, the animal sacrifices have been done away

Hebrews states that the Old Covenant faded away after the establishment of the New Covenant. Says nothing about the Law fading away with it. It only says the Law was never intended to make anyone perfect.

How can you say it says nothing about the law fading away? The laws of sacrifice that you acknowledge as having faded away are in fact the very laws of Moses. Those laws have faded away.

This is not uncommon among defenders of the law. Somehow they can't see that the laws they can acknowledge as having faded away (made obsolete and no longer needed) are in fact the very law of Moses they are so sure has not changed or gone away.

It is said that a major difference between the Jews and the Christians is the Spirit within. Sorry to say, can’t tell by lookin.

Not even when you look in the mirror? Don't be discouraged...I don't always see it either in my mirror. I've always taken great comfort in the words of this song based on Eccl. 3:11...

http://youtu.be/Wo-rGzx2OZk

We can take comfort that our net progress is toward holiness and righteousness as God makes that happen...even when it seems we're taking more steps backward than we are forward. Remember...'In His time'. 'Judge nothing before it's time' (somewhere in 1 Cor. 4).

This seems to be as good a place as any to interject something. We seem to stand together in our opposition to arbitrary divisions in the Law. Which seems to me to be the common view in Christianity. All the author of Hebrews is saying is that the sacrifices of the tabernacle ritual has changed due to that which has come, a better sacrifice. So the animal sacrifices are no longer to be practiced.

You just made an arbitrary division in law whether you realize it or not. And an accurate one, too. Surely you can see that.

This author doesn’t appear to me to overtly relate the Lord’s Table to this better sacrifice. But I have reason to believe from other biblical references that they are indeed related.

Yes. Read through to chapter 13 there in Hebrews. Jesus is the sacrifice carried outside the camp in accordance with the law. Let us go to him outside the camp.

I think we can agree that this matter of the Law is to us, in contrast with most of Christianity, an all (myself) or nothing (yourself) proposition.

Actually, I'd have to say most believers gravitate toward the 'nothing' proposition. Then most of those who remain gravitate toward the 'all'. Then there's the truth somewhere in between, which I defend. Which I think you would embrace, too, if you truly understood it. And I want desperately for you to understand it.

Sorry you misunderstood. The view I present, in rather stark contrast with the view that you present I would say, is saying that NONE of the Law was retired. Only that the original sacrificial system of the Tabernacle ritual was changed due to the accomplishment of the sacrifice that is perfect.

The literal LAWS of sacrifice were retired by Christ's body and blood, satisfying those LAWFUL requirements forever and completely for us. He kept the law and at the same time made it obsolete. Amen, amen, and amen. Only a wise and powerful God could figure out a way to do that; satisfy the law, and release me from it at the same time. Wow! What wisdom! What power! Praise be to God!

Querey: In your view, did you say that a written moral code is unnecessary today because it comes to us through the Spirit? Just want to be clear on that point.

I'd probably be an adulterer today if it were not for the written words of my Bible impressed on my heart by my friend and mentor Holy Spirit. Thank you Holy Spirit, lover of my soul.