The Law

[Former Christian]

Drew

To say that the Law of Moses remains in force is to entirely miss the flow of the Biblical story.
The end of the Law........Christ
These are Paul's words, not mine.

If the bible is only telling a story, then I see your point. As entertaining as the story is, there’s no reason to think that an entertaining story is anything more than fiction, possibly based on a particular understanding of reality as they perceived it at the time.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (NASB)

I really think you’re misunderstanding what Paul is saying here. The Philips Translation is unusually clear in it’s interpretive translation of this verse.

Romans 10:4 For Christ means the end of the struggle for righteousness-by-the-Law for everyone who believes in him.

Paul clearly shows in other passages how the Law is not a means of righteousness. Actually it never had that intention to begin with. The Jews turned it into a means of righteousness. And according to Rom 10:1-3, that was what he was addressing.

In the OT, it is merely stated that if the Jews would keep the Law, that it would go well with them in a physical sense. But that wasn’t all keeping the Law would do. This portion surprised me because I never noticed it before. It gives a very interesting reason for the Jews to keep the Law,

Deuteronomy 4:
5 "See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it.
6 "So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’
7 "For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him?
8 "Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?
9 "Only give heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently, so that you do not forget the things which your eyes have seen and they do not depart from your heart all the days of your life; but make them known to your sons and your grandsons.
(NASB)

Two reasons for keeping the Law are given here. One is as a witness to the nations. A witness to what? To the Law of God. The other reason is so the Jews themselves wouldn’t forget. Forget what? What the Jews had experienced. In other words, so they wouldn’t forget God. Apart from keeping the Law, the Jews could easily be perceived as a lawless, and thus an uncivilized, people. Isn’t it interesting. That’s how the Jews eventually came to perceive other nations. As barbarians. As Lawless and uncivilized people.

Here’s another good reason to keep the Law.

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (NASB)

The Law restores the soul and makes wise the simple. That seems to me to be pretty good reasons to keep the Law. And they aren’t for the sake of being made righteous in God’s eyes. Abraham was considered righteous simply because he believed in God. There’s no reason to think that the Law would state otherwise without generating yet another discrepancy in the bible.

These things in the last two portions have to be referring to the Law of Moses. Or as it is called in Ps 19:7, the Law of Jehovah. Now, if Christians have a different God than the God of the Jews, a different God than Jehovah, then what his Law can do is irrelevant. It can only do these things for the one who believes in that God. And if this Law is only for the Jews, then it can only do these things for the Jews. And if the Law has been retired altogether, then we can ignore what the Law is about, and the OT that teaches it, altogether. And since the Law is the basis for the NT, as is made plain by both Jesus and Paul, even if only to emphasize that the Law has been retired, then it seems pretty obvious to me that the we can pretty much ignore the NT as well.

Did Jesus change the Law or did he show its original intent? If he changed the Law, then it wasn’t the Law of Moses he fulfilled. It was a Law of his own fabrication. And Paul, did he really say the Law was abrogated in Eph 2:15? If he did, then Paul followed his own Law, and by the standards of the already established Law of Moses, he was a lawless man. I don’t know about you, but I see no reason to follow such people.

They both apparently believed the Law, be it called the Law of Moses or the Law of God, they believed the OT account that this Law had it’s source in God. And in that they had something in common with the Jewish culture they found themselves in. If they both just dismissed it out of hand, they were not just going against Jewish custom, as Jesus intimated when he called the Tradition of the Pharisees the Tradition of men. They were rebelling against the Law itself. And that would make the death of Jesus a just death in the eyes the Law of Moses itself. Further, it would make Jesus just Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus the Christ.

The point is, if the Law of Moses has been abrogated, then so has the OT and NT, that is, the bible, that is based on that Law. And that makes Christianity, not just a man-made religion, but a false religion by the God given standard in the bible itself. There are other reasons to say that Judaism is a false religion, that aren’t based on what Christians might think of that religion.

That’s the logical conclusion to me of the idea of the abrogation or retirement of the Law of Moses, or the Law of God, however you want to call it. You have to admit it’s a good reason for me to take an active interest in this thread.

This is a discrepancy in the bible that is beyond my personal ability to tolerate. Because Paul does in fact seem to say in Eph 2:15 that the Law has been abrogated. Yet in Rom 3:31 Paul appears to say the exact opposite. And Jesus does seem to change the Law, rather than fulfilling the Law he was already under as a Jew prior to his death.

There are many discrepancies in the bible that Christians generally choose to interpret and believe the interpretation, rather than accept the discrepancies themselves. That’s bad enough. But such discrepancies generally don’t affect the overall description of reality that the bible contains. But in this matter of the Law, the inspiration of the whole bible is in question. And that’s worse than just discrepancies. It’s incongruence. An account of an incongruent reality.

And I speak of inspiration in the sense it’s used by Paul and Peter. Not inspiration like poetry is inspired, which would just make the bible the writings of ancient men unrelated to God at all except in their own imaginations. It’s true that Paul and Peter were referring to the OT. But either one says that this same kind of inspiration extends to the NT writers, or one must conclude that the NT writers had no authority or even a basis to claim that the OT was inspired. An it was only so in their own imaginations.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Forgive me for these multiple posts. I've been working on them over a period of time as I had opportunity. So if the attitude seems different from post to post, that's why. This thread is very important to me. So I have taken more effort than usual to convey my thoughts as they come to me.

FC

 

[Stormcrow]

And I wish you and Stormcrow would consider the fact, THE FACT, that when you say we should consider something through the eyes of a 1st century Jew, it is through your own 21st century eyes you are determining what the eyes of a 1st century Jew saw.

It's called "perspective." And while no one can objectively step into another person's shoes, trying to see things as they do (or did) isn't that hard when you try.

Start with context, something most people don't want to be bothered with. 2

 

[Former Christian]

Stormcrow

It's called "perspective." And while no one can objectively step into another person's shoes, trying to see things as they do (or did) isn't that hard when you try.

Perspective? No matter how much of a sense of proportion you may think you have, it will still by just your own sense of proportion. Proportion as seen through 21st century eyes.

Start with context, something most people don't want to be bothered with.

Surely by now, if you've been paying attention, you will see I emphasize context. And you will see it grumbles me as much as it does you that context isn't generally taken into consideration.

FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The law as a system, or way of relating to God has ended.

That means two things:

1) With the appearing of faith, righteousness is now clearly understood as NOT coming through the keeping of law. The misguided attempt has forever been laid to rest.

2) No one is condemned and removed from covenant with God for not keeping various worship, separation, and cleanliness commands in the law. They are no longer required for that purpose. That's why we are to let no one judge us in regard to them.

Both, righteousness, and the separation of worship, are now fulfilled through the new way of the Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ. A faith that in turn upholds the goal, or summary of the law 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Something mere written words and worship stipulations (the old way) could never accomplish. Never.

You won't get it until you understand it as the end of a way of relating to God, and the beginning of a new way--the way of faith--but which still fulfills, or satisfies the requirements of the law. Just as Christ is a new way of atoning for sin, yet still satisfies the requirements of the law.

 

[Drew]

And here I always thought that Christians believed that Jesus was God.

I do not see how anything I have posted in any way challenges the notion that Jesus was "God".

You are, I suggest, making the same error that many Christians also make. And that is to think of the category of "God" in terms of this vague concept that has grown up in western culture. You know - a being who can do whatever He wants, knows everything, etc.

Well that is not the model we get in the Old Testament - the God of the Old Testament is much more subtle and complicated. Unlike the model of God that is floating around in the western world, the God of the Old Testament chooses to delegate some of His powers to man - He places man at the head of creation. And He makes promises that He is obliged to fulfull.

Both of these things challenge this idea of a God that is "free" to do whatever He wants. God has chosen to limit Himself - giving mankind some of His powers.

In any event, I see no argument whatsoever that Jesus cannot be "God in the flesh" simply because, as a man, He expressed Himself in terms appropriate to the culture in which He was embedded.

What would you expect Him to do? Address his listeners as though they were 21st century westerners?

 

[bahamas242]

Not to change the topic at all, but a question and I think something to consider..

If Adam never sinned, would he follow a law or a set of rules? If he did, would it be the same Torah or law of God? Therefore if he never sinned would we be following the same law?

 

[Drew]

I wish you would consider the fact, THE FACT, that the only eyes we in the 21st century have are not the eyes of a 1st century Jew.

Your "FACT" is not really a fact in the sense that is important here. All I am suggesting is the exceedingly sensible notion that if we want to understand the teachings of a human being who lived in first century Palestine, we should undertake the effort to understand that culture. It is only by doing so that we can attain a full understanding of what Jesus was teaching.

It may take a little work - historical and other study - but it makes plain sense to do so.

Again, Jesus lived and worked in a particular context. So, as I have been arguing, He certainly would have used this "end of the world" language in the way His contemporaries would have. Otherwise, His message would have been entirely incomprehensible to them.

You seem to be challenging one of the most fundamental elements of historical enquiry - the need to understand the setting and context in which events take place.

 

[Drew]

Not to change the topic at all, but a question and I think something to consider..

If Adam never sinned, would he follow a law or a set of rules? If he did, would it be the same Torah or law of God? Therefore if he never sinned would we be following the same law?

Not sure I entirely understand your question. However, I believe that Paul squarely addresses this issue in Romans 5 where he argues as follows:

1. The Law of Moses was, of course, not in existence at the time of Moses;
2. Adam was nevertheless under a "law" - the command God gave to not eat from the tree.

 

[bahamas242]

One thing I do agree with here is the fact of understanding it in the context of the culture. What I'm finding is when you do, there a lot of things that were misinterpreted by Paul. Also, Drew , what's your sources of understanding from the Jewish culture?

Your "FACT" is not really a fact in the sense that is important here. All I am suggesting is the exceedingly sensible notion that if we want to understand the teachings of a human being who lived in first century Palestine, we should undertake the effort to understand that culture. It is only by doing so that we can attain a full understanding of what Jesus was teaching.

It may take a little work - historical and other study - but it makes plain sense to do so.

Again, Jesus lived and worked in a particular context. So, as I have been arguing, He certainly would have used this "end of the world" language in the way His contemporaries would have. Otherwise, His message would have been entirely incomprehensible to them.

You seem to be challenging one of the most fundamental elements of historical enquiry - the need to understand the setting and context in which events take place.

 

[Drew]

One thing I do agree with here is the fact of understanding it in the context of the culture. What I'm finding is when you do, there a lot of things that were misinterpreted by Paul.

Can you please give us one or more examples?

Also, Drew , what's your sources of understanding from the Jewish culture?

Historians such as EP Sanders and NT Wright.

 

[Drew]

In the view I present, as a non-Trinitarian no less, Jesus was not a product of his times and culture. He was taught of God, not his culture.

I suggest the evidence is against you here, even if common sense is not.

And I suggest that common sense is against you: Given that Jesus was obviously a man, and given that He had to communicate to his listeners, what other sensible option is there except to speak to them in terms with which they were familiar? Would you expect Him speak as a 21st century American? Or a 14th century Norwegian? I hope the point is clear - given the need to communicate to a particular people in a particular time, Jesus had no choice except to speak to them appealing to concepts and cultural ideas that they, as first century Palestinians, were familiar with.

And one of these cultural ideas was the use of "end of the world" language to actually refer to socio-political change. This is not speculation on my part - it is well established both Biblically and historically that this is how the Jewish people used such language. Therefore, when a first century Jew hears Jesus say "The law will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away", there is every reason s/he would hear this a metaphorical way of asserting that the law will only pass away when when significant political change takes place.

And such change did indeed take place in 70 AD.

Jesus knows how such end of the world language was used by the Jews of His day, and almost certainly would choose His words accordingly.

Here is more "evidence" to support the notion that Jesus appealed to His own culture when He taught: When affirming John the Baptist's role as a true prophet of God, Jesus deliberately contrasts John with a "reed shaken by the wind".

Now, at that time Herod Antipas had minted coints that featured an image of a reed - the symbol of Herod's new capital of Tiberius - on one side.

If you are saying that Jesus did not appeal to the symbols, concepts, and images of His own culture, then this implied comparison of John and Herod is a coincidence.

Given that Jesus made a whole whack of other shrewd political statements, this seems incredibly unlikely.

Other examples to follow.

 

[Stormcrow]

Jesus was not a product of his times and culture. He was taught of God, not his culture.

He learned from both.

And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. Luke 2:51-52 (NASB)

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, Galatians 4:4 (NASB)

The Son of God was the Son of Man, too. That phrase, "Son of Man": tell us all what it means, FC?

I dare say you can't unless you understand it from an ancient Jewish perspective.

 

[Drew]

Another text whose meaning only becomes clear when we understand the broader context:

Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. 20And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.â€

The double command Jesus makes (give x to Ceasar and y to God) can be argued to draw on material found in 1 Maccabees 2.68. In that text, Mattathias is telling his sons, especially Judas, to get ready for revolution. ‘Pay back to the Gentiles what is due to them,’ he says, ‘and keep the law’s commands’. And clearly, “paying back†the Gentiles was not meant to refer to money. Instead, it is a subtle suggestion that the Gentiles are about to be overthrown. And I suggest that Jesus is making a cryptic allusion to this account to make a similar point. Remember - the Maccabean revolution was fairly recent to Jesus’ own time.

So while Jesus is, on the surface, saying “pay the taxâ€, His more fundamental point is that Caesar’s regime is a blasphemous nonsense and that one day God would overthrow it.

Again, people like Stormcrow and I are not really saying anything that shouldn't otherwise be obvious - to understand what an historical figure is saying, one should understand the culture in which that person was embedded.

 

[Drew]

In fact, what Jesus taught was counter culture, against the culture of his times. In human terms, one could say that Jesus was a cultural rebel, something like the American hippies in the 1960’s.

Agreed, but this does not help your case. In order to clearly delineate His counter-cultural position, Jesus would obviously have needed to express such a counter-cultural position in terms by invoking cultural concepts and ideas of which His contemporaries would have been aware.

In short, you cannot critique the status quo unless and until you refer to it in ways that will be understood.

 

[Drew]

Making the bible into a metaphorical book, like a cultural book, does solve any possibility of there being biblical discrepancy. At least in the eyes of the one who interprets metaphorically and culturally. But it solves it by making the bible the writings of men.Theistic and Progressive Evolutionists, in order to believe in Evolution, turn the Genesis account into a metaphor. There is one little problem with turning that account into a metaphor. And that is, being as the rest of the bible is based on those first chapters in Genesis, there’s no reason to think that the rest of the bible isn’t simply a metaphor as well.

No. Here are the problems with your analysis:

1. You appeal to a deeply unrealistc "all or nothing" idea re how we take the scriptures. One enounters this idea all the time - "you either have to take it all literally or take none of it literally". This is simply not how complex narratives work. If I read a true story about a young man who has been rejected in matters of the heart, am I really "forced" to accept the following statement he might make as literally true, just because the rest of the story is true:

"If she leaves, the world will come to an end"

Of course not! This is a metaphorical way of saying "I will be hurt if she leaves me". No sensible person would insist that taking such a statement as metaphorical casts doubt on the general literal truthfulness of the whole account.

2. The fact that some people may have an agende and therefore read certain texts as metaphorical in a certain way clearly does not mean that there is not a legitimate metaphorical reading intended by the author.

Things are nowhere near as simple as you imply. The Bible is a complex, sprawling account embodying many literary devices as well as much "literal" truth. It is an egregious simplification to try to force it into a mold where its either "all literal" or "none of it is literal".

 

[Drew]

Personal opinion becomes the determining factor as to what’s metaphorical and what isn’t.

No. This is another of those ideas which seems correct, but simply does not stand up on more careful analysis.

Your basic argument seems to be that if we allow for metaphorical readings of scripture, we open the door to people bringing their own personal opinions and agendas and imposing these on the text.

Well, that's obviously true, but acknowledging this as true is not a reason to take everything in the Bible literally. We know that the Bible uses metaphorical language - "the mountains will clap their hands" and "the trees will sing". Is it my "personal opinion" that these texts are not to be taken literally and are instead a metaphorical way of saying that it will be good news when God sets the world to rights? Of course not!

The obvious problem with your argument is this: just because there may be a host of "incorrect" metaphorical readings of a certain text does not mean that the author is not intending us to interpret the metaphor a certain way.

Metaphor is a powerful literary device and the writers of scripture were not afraid to use metaphor to make certain important claims. No doubt, these authors are spinning in their graves (yes, this too is a metaphor!) when 21st century westerners muzzle their texts by forcing them into a strictly literalistic framework.

 

[Drew]

If it can be said that the Law is retired, there is no reason to think that didn’t also include the moral law, the dietary laws, or any other aspects of the Law.

Of course - you are correct. The Law of Moses in its entirety is retired.

Which leads to the conclusion that the idea that sin as a transgression of the Law, the Law of Moses, is meaningless for the 21st century reader.

I believe that the Bible nowhere asserts that sin = transgressing the Law of Moses, and nothing else.

I am not sure I followed the rest of your argument. Here is my position in miniature:

1. The Law of Moses was given to Jews and was for them only;

2. The Law of Moses was retired in the first century;

3. This, of course, does not mean that its OK (i.e. not sin) to murder, commit adultery;

4. It is patently incorrect to argue that if the Law of Moses is retired, then all other laws are entirely arbitrary.

 

[Drew]

Nevertheless, now all you have to consider is who determines this lawlessness in general. It couldn’t be God, since the only law he determined was the Law of Moses. And that’s been abrogated.

Paul clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is the agent that provides moral guidance:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

This one text - yes this one statement - should do away with this idea that we need a written law to tell us what is right and what is wrong. No doubt, some readers will disagree with Paul here.

But remember - it's Paul, not me who says that the Spirit is our guide and that the Law has been left behind.

I simply report what he has written.

 

[Drew]

This is a good point that needs to be addressed. And it is what I was trying to point out originally. Eph 2:15 does in fact refer to the Law that was given by God, the Law of Moses, the Law recorded in the Torah. What other Law could Paul be referring to? And Paul makes a clear statement, on the surface at least, that this Law has been “retired†as you call it.

I do not see how Paul's statement has a meaning other than what you call its "surface" meaning.

Generally, Christians who claim that the Law is not in effect for the Christian will mitigate the view by separating the moral law from the rest of the Law that has been abrogated.

I agree that many, perhaps most, Christians who claim that the Law is not in effect make the division you point out. But I don't and I believe that Paul does not either. The entire Law of Moses has been retired.