When did the law actually end?

[ProphetMark]

I believe that we're not under law, as Galatians 3 says. I'm not wanting to debate that particularly, I'm just wondering when the law actually ceased to be. I kind of assumed it was done away with when Jesus was crucified.But if you read Mark 2 v 23-28, where the pharisees are asking Jesus about doing something unlawful on the sabbath, Jesus doesn't say anything about it not being against the old covenant law; his response seems to imply that the law is already done away with.

 

[Nathan]

The law 'ceases' when someone enters faith. So in other words, the law as such ceased in Abraham's day. And in the same respect, it is in full effect for the one who has yet to believe even at this very moment in time.

We are kept under the law, until faith comes. But once faith comes then we are not under the law but under grace.

Make sense?

 

[cyberjosh]

The law 'ceases' when someone enters faith. So in other words, the law as such ceased in Abraham's day. And in the same respect, it is in full effect for the one who has yet to believe even at this very moment in time.

We are kept under the law, until faith comes. But once faith comes then we are not under the law but under grace.

Make sense?

That's actually an excellent response, however I've always wondered how or if the law can even apply to Gentiles at all. It was never made for the Gentiles, and also in order for the Law to be kept the covenant made with the Jews at Mt. Sinai must be upheld (the law is obeyed so that God will bring blessing). Do we really think God is still upholding his Old Covenant to this day, or honoring its obedience according to its terms? God still has to finish his OT promises of eschatalogical blessing to the Jewish nation which are yet unfulfilled, but still that is specifically for the Jews. I think Paul uses "the law" in two senses: one for the actual Mosaic law and another for a "law of bondage" of sorts in a moral sense (there is a third, good sense of "law" - but is not one you "keep" per se). An atheist is completely without law. But one seeking God, not through the Gospel but through merit of the Mosaic Law, is one trying to keep a law that is no longer effectual and which reflects a covenant which no longer is (which is why it is powerless). Therefore I don't think the Law of Moses can in any sense be said to be active (in that God honors it) today, only a self-bondage ("law of bondage") to its demands based on an obsolete covenant. It's like trying to redeem a coupon that has long since expired. And as long as you think that the coupon still has value, when it doesn't, it becomes "law" to you by which you are constrained.

Just my thoughts,

~Josh

 

[Nathan]

On another note. We see that the law is still in full swing when Paul continues the exhortation in Galatians;

Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?

This means that there are two separate camps. Those under still, and those not under. This transposes time. There were indeed a few who moved away from being 'under' by faith in the OT.

The difference is that when Jesus came He brought to fulfillment all that the previous generations had looked forward to. And now we look back on it.

The law is what it is. Unchangeable. The requirements of it are unchangeable. But once someone moves into the security of Christ, then they have been placed under the covering of grace. The law will rear its head once again, proving itself eternal, when the judgment comes.

Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

The 'books' are the law. "The Book" is the book of life. Only two ways it is going to end for those who have lived on this earth. EVERYONE will be judged by one or the other. And seeing how there are still humans being born today, who will not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, then they will be judged 'under the law'. Therefore, we see that the law is still in effect to this day.

Paul must have been flipping his lid when he was writing Galatians. I can just imagine how the idiocy of actually desiring to be under the law again after being brought out by grace, could drive a person crazy wondering what people are thinking by doing so.

 

[Nathan]

That's actually an excellent response, however I've always wondered how or if the law can even apply to Gentiles at all. It was never made for the Gentiles, and also in order for the Law to be kept the covenant made with the Jews at Mt. Sinai must be upheld (the law is obeyed so that God will bring blessing). Do we really think God is upholding his Old Covenant to this day, or honoring its obedience according to its terms? God still has to finish his OT promises of eschatalogical blessing to the Jewish nation which are yet unfulfilled, but still that is specifically for the Jews. I think Paul uses "the law" in two senses: one for the actual Mosaic law and another for a "law of bondage" of sorts in a moral sense. An atheist is completely without law, but one seeking God not through the Gospel but through merit of the Mosaic Law is one trying to keep a law that is no longer effectual and which reflects a covenant which no longer is (which is why it is powerless). Therefore I don't think the Law of Moses can in any sense be said to be active today, only a self-bondage ("law of bondage") to its demands based on an obsolete covenant. Its like trying to redeem a coupon that has long since expired. And as long as you think the coupon still has value, when it doesn't, it becomes "law" to you by which you are constrained.

Just my thoughts,

~Josh

Interesting, I think we are on the same page, just different translations.

I find the key to unlocking the 'mystery' here;

Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.

Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Here is the ticket. God shows no partiality. And if Paul was referring to two separate laws here in Romans, then he would have used different terminology to describe it, or at the very least explained it. But we see in verse 14 he shows absolutely do distinction between the Jews and Gentiles as far as the "law" is concerned. And we know that from the verses that follow, he speaks of the "law" as such that tells us; "do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not abhor idols". So we see that very clearly these are all apart of "The Law" as given.

Now your point about the 'obligation' to be fulfilled is indeed one that should be made. But I think it is a separate topic. But almost interwoven to the point that it may have to be discussed.

 

[Ashua]

The law never ended. It just has nothing to do with salvation and was primarily for the Jew (or the stranger within the gates)

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:17-19

16And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

20In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar.

21Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts. -Zechariah 14:16-21

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. -Jeremiah 31:31-33

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. -Romans 3:31

 

[Nathan]

The law has a specific purpose. And that purpose was NEVER to justify anyone. Only to bring them to the faith.

And if Paul was only referring to the law of ordinances when speaking to Jews, and that Gentiles were never under that same law, then he would not use the term so much when speaking to Gentile believers. The law is one and the same. It was just simply handed down through the Jews. But its effect shows no partiality to anyone. It is delivered to the human race as a whole.

Gal 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

Here we have the full explanation of why the law was given in the first place.




Gal 3:21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.

But alas, it could not. Why? Because just as the law shows, humans are incapable of fulfilling the law to a 't'. Only Christ could.

 

[Ashua]

and before anyone cites:

Colossians 2:14

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The Greek does not suggest the law was nailed to the cross. It says the written record of ordinances which stood against us.

IN other words, our "criminal wrap sheet" containing the record of every transgression and offense which we committed against God was nailed to the cross. The prosecution "has no case" we are justified by an expunged record through the blood of Christ. The record is clean, but the laws don't expire along with it.

As 1 John 3:4 says

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So without the law there is no such thing as sin. We know sin prevails in the world, so like death it cannot be defined or understood apart from the proper context of life/law.

John wrote to people under the New Testament when he defined sin.

One of the hardest scriptures in all the Bible to swallow:

Hebrews 10:26-27

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

 

[Nathan]

and before anyone cites:

Colossians 2:14

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The Greek does not suggest the law was nailed to the cross. It says the written record of ordinances which stood against us.

IN other words, our "criminal wrap sheet" containing the record of every transgression and offense which we committed against God was nailed to the cross. The prosecution "has no case" we are justified by an expunged record through the blood of Christ. The record is clean, but the laws don't expunge along with it.

As 1 John 3:4 says



So without the law there is no such thing as sin. We know sin prevails in the world, so like death it cannot be defined or understood apart from the proper context of life/law.

John wrote to people under the new testament.

Very good. I was about to address this. We know that this is extremely figurative language. And the figurativeness that it gives is that our consciences were crucified with Christ. So just as He was "nailed to the cross" so were we. When we enter Christ, we enter faith, which means we leave the 'law' on the cross, and raise through new life from the tomb.

 

[cyberjosh]

I believe that we're not under law, as Galatians 3 says. I'm not wanting to debate that particularly, I'm just wondering when the law actually ceased to be. I kind of assumed it was done away with when Jesus was crucified.But if you read Mark 2 v 23-28, where the pharisees are asking Jesus about doing something unlawful on the sabbath, Jesus doesn't say anything about it not being against the old covenant law; his response seems to imply that the law is already done away with.

This is a good question. It seems that already parts of the Mosaic Law were not being followed "to the letter" (although the tradition of the elders added lots of other "letters" that were followed to the smallest detail) and some things were observed according to conscience and the spirit of the law (which Jesus expounded upon the Sermon on the Mount). For example Joseph is said to have been "a righteous man" for desiring to put Marry away quietly, whereas if the letter of the law had been followed any woman suspected (it would have to be proven though) of adultery would be stoned. Joseph exhibited what we might think of as an unsusual mercy from the realities of the Old Testament. Perhaps it was due in part also to the change in Jewish culture after the return from the Exile and during/after the Maccabean period. However especially with Jesus around the law seemed to take on new dimensions with him.

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, and even after healing several people he would often tell them to present themselves to the priest for inspection (an ordinance set forth in Leviticus), thus he still respected the priests' role at the time, but saw that his presense superceded and transcended the keeping of the law. Jesus told the Jews to continue to listen to the Priests, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do" (Matthew 23:2), but at the same time Jesus also said, "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent" (Matthew 12:5-7). In the latter verse Jesus shows them that they not only misunderstood the law but now something even greater than the Temple (for which the priests broke the Sabbath) was in their midst, and Jesus is pointing out the principle of doing good on the Sabbath versus doing nothing at all to adhere to the "letter of the law". So already Jesus seems to be transforming the traditional understanding of the law, yet he upholds its authority, "Moses' seat", and fulfills the law. His sacrifice on the cross even fulfilled the Law's requirement on the Day of Atonement, however he satisfied a condition never laid out for anyone to do in the original Mosaic Law and that is that he satisfied atonement for sins once and for all. Therefore animal sacrifices for sin and observance of Jewish holidays such as the Day of Atonement became obsolete instantly because their purpose was nullified.

But what about the Ten Commandments? They were not nullified, other than the freedom in Christ to not have to observe the Sabbath, which was a sign of the Old Covenant/Mosaic Law (Exodus 31:13). Thus not all of the law's ordinances are abolished, only the ritual practices. The remaining ordinances are part of, and always have been a part of, God's moral law which is even at the heart of the New Covenant. Also, even for the non-sin-atoning sacrifices given for thankgiving or peace offerings are now fulfilled inwardly through the Holy Spirit who was given after Jesus ascended. Jesus told the woman at the well that all believers would "worship in Spirit and in Truth".

So the law was already being superceded during Jesus' ministry, and all its ritual observances were abolished the instant Jesus died to atone for our sins. Nonetheless, the Jews (as possibly the book of Hebrews also indicates of an obsolete covenant still "passing away") the external form of the Mosaic law was observed by the unbelieving Jews until the desruction of Jerusalem (and they still try to observe it today). But on that day, 70 A.D. the physical temple was destroyed once and for all, completely eliminating preistly functions according to the Old Mosaic law. It was a sign, and one which Jesus prophesied would happen during his own ministry (saying not one block would lay on another). It was a sign that Jesus had replaced the early temple. Any semblance of the Mosaic law was then forever destroyed.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Nathan]

Sadly enough, too many people want to still 'hang on the cross' instead of being buried, and being raised in the new life He gives. When we identify ourselves on the cross, we identify ourselves under the law. Christ was crucified on the cross to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law; ie, to pay for our sins.

So of course when we 'hang around' there all the time in self pity and anguish, we are never going to walk in the new life that He now walks in. The life of faith. There is a popular one liner that goes, "The distance between heaven and hell is 18 inches". That is a metaphor to say that belief takes place in the heart and not just the head. And people can come so close to letting go of 'control' and giving it to Him, which is then entering a life of faith.

Here is another one liner for you, "In order to live again, one must first die". In other words, people will not 'give up the ghost' on the cross. I love the way the KJV puts Mark 15:37;

Mar 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

If He would have never died....well....then He could not have been buried. And neither can we.

 

[Ashua]

Sadly enough, too many people want to still 'hang on the cross' instead of being buried, and being raised in the new life He gives. When we identify ourselves on the cross, we identify ourselves under the law. Christ was crucified on the cross to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law; ie, to pay for our sins.

So of course when we 'hang around' there all the time in self pity and anguish, we are never going to walk in the new life that He now walks in. The life of faith. There is a popular one liner that goes, "The distance between heaven and hell is 18 inches". That is a metaphor to say that belief takes place in the heart and not just the head. And people can come so close to letting go of 'control' and giving it to Him, which is then entering a life of faith.

Here is another one liner for you, "In order to live again, one must first die". In other words, people will not 'give up the ghost' on the cross. I love the way the KJV puts Mark 15:37;

Mar 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

If He would have never died....well....then He could not have been buried. And neither can we.

Yup. I think about the sentiment often.

People exalt the cross (and it has its proper dimension of exaltation) but they seem to be overly fixed on it. Its the resurrection --the conquering of sin and death that are the real consummation of joy.

 

[Nathan]

Gal 2:19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.

Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

It always brings us back full circle. We must die to one in order to be united with another. You cannot be under the law and under faith. One or the other. There are still plenty who are under the law, the mosaic law that is. They do not have to be there, but they choose to be there. One only has to take a trip to Israel to see this in person, in the flesh. Those people who are still seeking to be justified by their works of the law are still imprisoned under the law. We see the boldness of it in the life of people in Israel today, but we see the subtleness of it in even the life of some who post on this site.

One must choose, the law or grace? The law says, "I can do it.....somehow", grace says, "He will do it.....somehow". Then faith takes over and says, "Whatever the 'somehow' is, how He does it, I will follow".

 

[cyberjosh]

Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.

Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Here is the ticket. God shows no partiality. And if Paul was referring to two separate laws here in Romans, then he would have used different terminology to describe it, or at the very least explained it. But we see in verse 14 he shows absolutely do distinction between the Jews and Gentiles as far as the "law" is concerned. And we know that from the verses that follow, he speaks of the "law" as such that tells us; "do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not abhor idols". So we see that very clearly these are all apart of "The Law" as given.

Ah, but don't miss the distinction in verse 14 of types of "law". But first, God's lack of distinction (as you point out) in judgment (the "no partiality") is for those both under and not under law. That's where God shows no partiality in judgment, it doesn't matter if you weren't under the law of Moses, you will still answer to the same standard set forth by God. This is what is expanded in verse 14. It can be understood as follows:

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law (of Moses), by nature do what the law (of Moses) requires, they are a law (not the law of Moses - a moral law) to themselves, even though they do not have the law (of Moses).

That's what I was talking about. The Gentiles never were, nor ever will be accountable to the law of Moses. However God's moral law (the good, "third" use of law I mentioned above) is applicable to all men, and one by which they will be judged (with or without the Law of Moses). And in keeping with the overlap of the Law of Moses with God's moral law Paul said, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully" (1 Timothy 1:8). As I also stated in response to the OP, while sacrificial/ritual observances of the law were abolished yet the Ten Commandments were not abolished for they are the moral law which Jesus said fulfills the law and the prophets (exemplified through the moral principle of love - for God and one's neighbor).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Ashua]

Gal 2:19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.

Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

It always brings us back full circle. We must die to one in order to be united with another. You cannot be under the law and under faith. One or the other. There are still plenty who are under the law, the mosaic law that is. They do not have to be there, but they choose to be there. One only has to take a trip to Israel to see this in person, in the flesh. Those people who are still seeking to be justified by their works of the law are still imprisoned under the law. We see the boldness of it in the life of people in Israel today, but we see the subtleness of it in even the life of some who post on this site.

One must choose, the law or grace? The law says, "I can do it.....somehow", grace says, "He will do it.....somehow". Then faith takes over and says, "Whatever the 'somehow' is, how He does it, I will follow".

Just because you are not under the law (but under Grace) doesn't mean the law is void though. the Romans verse I posted says as much.

As Galatians says, the Covenant made to Abraham cannot be disannuled by the law which came some 430 years later.

The law is impotent to work salvation, but it still contains a good standard for life in and of itself. It isn't a requirement and was primarily for the Hebrew, but yeah. Maybe it is semantics.

We are not "under" the Law, but the "law" has not simply "ended" or ceased to exist.

Is it okay for a Christian to kill or to lust or to take the name of God in vain or to dishonor his parents? If not, then the law is still in effect --just not to the end of salvation.

 

[Nathan]

Yup. I think about the sentiment often.

People exalt the cross (and it has its proper dimension of exaltation) but they seem to be overly fixed on it. Its the resurrection --the conquering of sin and death that are the real consummation of joy.

Yes, yes. The law(the cross) is a good thing;

Rom 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

But....

1Ti 1:8-9 ...we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient....

Some were persuading people to believe in the death of Christ, just not the resurrection. What a joke! But a very serious accusation. They were teaching that it was good to believe that Christ died on the cross for your sins.....now just go out and live the right way fulfilling the law....

However;

1Cr 15:17 ...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Now this verse does not deal specifically with this argument, but its application stays the same. For by faith if we are going to consider ourselves crucified with Christ, then we MUST also consider ourselves raised with Him. It has to be both. If we are just going to live in the death of Christ then we are still in our sins. Because He was raised in order to become the first-fruit and He ascended to send down the helper who guides us in this walk of faith.

 

[cyberjosh]

Just because you are not under the law (but under Grace) doesn't mean the law is void though. the Romans verse I posted says as much.

As Galatians says, the Covenant made to Abraham cannot be disannuled by the law which came some 430 years later.

The law is impotent to work salvation, but it still contains a good standard for life in and of itself. It isn't a requirement and was primarily for the Hebrew, but yeah. Maybe it is semantics.

We are not "under" the Law, but the "law" has not simply "ended" or ceased to exist.

Is it okay for a Christian to kill or to lust or to take the name of God in vain or to dishonor his parents? If not, then the law is still in effect --just not to the end of salvation.

Ashua, I agree with you that not all of it is void, only the ritual aspects. Do you agree with my post here about the law?

 

[Nathan]

Ah, but don't miss the distinction in verse 14 of types of "law". But first, God's lack of distinction (as you point out) in judgment (the "no partiality") is for those both under and not under law. That's where God shows no partiality in judgment, it doesn't matter if you weren't under the law of Moses, you will still answer to the same standard set forth by God. This is what is expanded in verse 14. It can be understood as follows:

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law (of Moses), by nature do what the law (of Moses) requires, they are a law (not the law of Moses - a moral law) to themselves, even though they do not have the law (of Moses).

That's what I was talking about. The Gentiles never were, nor ever will be accountable to the law of Moses. However God's moral law (the good, "third" use of law I mentioned above) is applicable to all men, and one by which they will be judged (with or without the Law of Moses). And in keeping with the overlap of the Law of Moses with God's moral law Paul said, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully" (1 Timothy 1:8). As I also stated in response to the OP, while sacrificial/ritual observances of the law were abolished yet the Ten Commandments were not abolished for they are the moral law which Jesus said fulfills the law and the prophets (exemplified through the moral principle of love - for God and one's neighbor).

God Bless,

~Josh

Indeed. But I think that again this is lost in translation. Because God does have an eternal law. The Ten Commandments. They transcend time, place, and heritage. They were 'formally'(publicly) given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai. They are 'informally'(individually) given to all mankind, which the 'work' of it is shown written on their hearts. They did not write the law on their hearts, God did.

So yes, there is a Moses Law, and there is a Moral Law. The Ten Commandments are the Moral Law, and as such are eternal. That is to say, they transcend even time. Whereas the Mosaic Law will end permanently, for those who desire to be under it, at the judgement. But the Ten Commandments are still in effect even for us. Yes tis true, but they are fulfilled when we walk by faith, in love.

 

[Nathan]

I still believe that Romans 2:14 is speaking of the eternal law, and not of the law of moses at all. Therefore, the same word can be applied and understood to be the same law, both to the Jews and Gentiles. The only difference is that the Jews 'had' the 'written' eternal law on tablets. The Gentiles only had it written on their hearts. That way there would be no excuse in the end.

In context, the "do not have" is speaking to physically not having the written law on tablets. Not that they did not have it spiritually. But you are correct in that it is the eternal (moral) law, and not the mosaic law.

 

[cyberjosh]

Indeed. But I think that again this is lost in translation. Because God does have an eternal law. The Ten Commandments. They transcend time, place, and heritage. They were 'formally'(publicly) given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai. They are 'informally'(individually) given to all mankind, which the 'work' of it is shown written on their hearts. They did not write the law on their hearts, God did.

So yes, there is a Moses Law, and there is a Moral Law. The Ten Commandments are the Moral Law, and as such are eternal. That is to say, they transcend even time. Whereas the Mosaic Law will end permanently, for those who desire to be under it, at the judgement. But the Ten Commandments are still in effect even for us. Yes tis true, but they are fulfilled when we walk by faith, in love.

I agree.