When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[eddif]

OTOH: there's a problem...
Ryan, if you notice, is beginning to discuss the eschatological (possible) Aaronite priesthood shown in Revelation;
and part of the problem in our discussion is that although Levite priests still exist -- from checking history books -- I'm pretty sure that all qualified Aaronites were executed by the Romans or died in exile/mixed genealogy;

The tribe died out; and of course, what about not having "red heffers" either, (Jurassic park anyone? are there any gene samples left??)

So, it's hard to see how that statute applies today; or can apply on this earth; regardless of the meaning of the word.

Cheers.

I don't believe the Aaronites were exterminated. Otherwise the prophecy in Ezekiel of the temple's return would be false about their return.

Ezekiel 44:9 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary. 10 But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house and ministering in the house; they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.

Their have been red heifers born in Israel: http://www.templeinstitute.org/archive/red_heifer_born.htm

Since I see through a glass darkly (and realize it) my insight may not be perfect yet. I do not mean this as an excuse but a spiritual reality. My response is not just to the posts above, but these posts just seemed a good place to comment.

I Corinthians 3:16
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Our High Melchizedekian Priest, Jesus, is seated at the right hand of the Father (entered once and for all into the Holy Place (?) ). Our Aaronic priesthood depends on our confession of sins, and confession and dependance on the shed blood of Jesus (the moon turned to blood etc).


IMHO the temple is in full swing today. The former temple had its issues to deal with. We still have our issues today. One day our body will be totally changed. Right now our mind sees all the wonderful things of God, but our flesh still has those issues of sin.

Types and shadows are not ultimate realities, but they do point to ultimate realities. Looking for supernatural fulfillment sometimes causes stoning to occur. An ox is not a preacher, but the ox is a type and shadow of a preacher / elder / whatever.

eddif

 

[Ryan]

Quote Originally Posted by About the Son of God View Post If this is still a hair split, then we can let it drop. More later.... Good night for now. I really don't see how it's relevant to this discussion? Difference between "work" and "works" I haven't poured much thought into it other then "works of the law" are those trying to achieve salvation through works apart from saving faith.

I said it was a small point, but the relevance was this quote of yours:

Hebrews 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. it states there is a disannulling of a commandment, not commandments. If it was the whole law of Moses being cancelled then we would be dealing with more than one commandment. The law is not weak and unprofitable, however; the author does not clarify yet at this point what is weak and unprofitable. Later we discover it is the sinful man administration of the priesthood that is causing the weakness, which is the root cause of the problem at hand. In verse 12 when reading verse 18. We know the commandment was not erased, but transferred, or removed from the Levitical Priesthood to Yeshua (Jesus) in the order of Melchizedek.

Since a single "work" (based on faith) can represent the sum total of all a Christian's good deeds when Paul writes about it, eg: in Greek, then when speaking about Hebrews and commandment/S which are work/S there can be a problem keeping Paul's meaning straight .... that's all.

As I said, it's a small point -- but Paul distinguishes good "work" from worthless "works"; he's "biased"

But it wasn't the main issue, the main question I had for you -- was "which ONE command (work?)" is cancelled?

Please quote me an actual Mosaic Law's verse.... so I can examine the command.
or at least explain, clearly, why you can't do so.

Exodus 29:44 I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar; I will also consecrate Aaron and his sons to minister as priests to Me.

Exodus 30:30 You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister as priests to Me.

The commandment that was transferred was the one that assigned the High Priesthood from the imperfect man (Levites) to Jesus.

Psalm 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

 

[Ryan]

Jesus is God. There was always only one ways to have a saving relationship with him. For those strong in the faith as Anna was, they knew the time was upon them for the Messiah to be born. It was an easy transition filled with great joy the Messiah had arrived. Those who were walking in the light, had no problems accepting Jesus. You are saying everybody born before Jesus then were not saved then? Just his very name "Yeshua" meaning salvation was spoken of in the Torah. So was nobody saved before Yeshua then because your argument implies so?

There were a lot of Israelites in the days of Moses that received salvation, however that is not what we are discussing.

We are discussing the right to enter the Holy of Holies, which was done only by the high priest, and then once a year.

Now we freely have access by One spirit, both Jew and gentile. Thats why the Law had to be "taken out of the way" because it was always intended for gentile to be in the covenant.

as it is written -

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Galatians 3:17

and again -

"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.


The Law is not of faith

The Law of Moses was temporary.

The Law of God is Eternal.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.


JLB

Ever heard anyone ever say I obey because I am saved? Galatians was written for those who were told to obey to be saved. But now because we are saved, we are free to obey.

Jesus was Torah observant till the day he died and after. Why is it so wrong to say we want to live our life like him? That's what the bible tells us to do.

No, Galatians was written to warn those who had received the free gift of righteousness by faith and had now turn back to the law and the written code. FOR THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH.

to FALL FROM GRACE, means one was justified freely by grace and has rejected that and turned to justify themselves by the law of moses.

So if one is under law? they cannot be under grace.
Either one is justified by grace or by keeping the law? You cannot be under two covenants, this is spiritual adultry!
Rom 7

Francis and Jethro have already explained this to you. In many different ways. I have since kicked the dust off my feet. Have a blessed one.

How does scripture describe God’s law?
1. The Law blesses (obey) and curses (disobey).
(Deut 11:26-27)(Ps 112:1)(Ps 119:1-2)(Ps 128:1)(Prov 8:32)(Is 56:2)(Mat 5:6)(Mat 5:10)(Luke 11:28)(Jam 1:25)(1 Pe 3:14)(Rev 22:14)

2. The Law defines sin.
(Jer 44:23)(Ez 18:21)(Dan 9:11)(Ro 3:20)(Ro 7:7)(1 Jo 3:4)

3. The Law is perfect. (Ps 19:7)(Jam 1:25)

4. The Law is liberty.
(Ps 119:45)(Jam 1:25, 2:12)
5. The Law is the way.
(Ex 18:20)(Deut 10:12)(Josh 22:5)(1 King 2:3)(Ps 119:1)(Prov 6:23)(Is 2:3)(Mal 2:8)(Mark 12:14)(Ac24:14)

6. The Law is the truth.
(Ps 119:142)(Mal 2:6)(Ro 2:20)(Gal 5:7)(Ps 43:2-4)(Jo 8:31-32)

7. The Law is life.
(Job 33:30)(Ps 36:9)(Prov 6:23)(Rev 22:14)

8. The Law is light.
(Job 24:13)(Job 29:3)(Ps 36:9)(Ps 43:2-4)(Ps 119:105)(Prov 6:23)(Is 2:5) (Is 8:20)(Is 51:4)(2 Cor 6:14)(1 John 1:7)

9. The Law is Jesus, the Word made flesh. (PERFECT-LIBERTY-WAY-TRUTH-LIFE-LIGHT). (Ps 27:1)(Jo 1:1-14)(Jo 14:5-11)(1 Jo 1:7)

10. The Law is also for the Gentiles (foreigner/alien) who are grafted in.
(Ex 12:19) (Ex 12:38) (Ex 12:49) (Lev 19:34) (Lev 24:22) (Num 9:14) (Num 15:15-16) (Num 15:29) (ie: Ruth) (Is 42:6) (Is 60:3) (Mat 5:14) (Eph 2:10-13) (Ac 13:47) (Ro 11:16-27) (Jer31:31-34) (Ez 37) (1 Jo 2:10) (1 Jo 1:7)

11. The Law is God’s instructions on how to love God, how to love others, and how to not love yourself. (Ex 20:6)(Deut 5:10)(Deut 7:10)(Deut 11:13)(Deut 11:22)(Deut 30:16)(Deut 6:5)(Lev 19:18)(Neh 1:5)(Dan 9:4)(Mat 22:35-37)(Matthew 10:39)(Mat 16:25)(Jo 14:15)(Jo 14:21)(Ro 13:9)(1 Jo 5:2-3)(2 Jo 1:6)

 

[John 8:32]

I don't believe the Aaronites were exterminated. Otherwise the prophecy in Ezekiel of the temple's return would be false about their return.

Ezekiel 44:9 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary. 10 But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house and ministering in the house; they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.

Their have been red heifers born in Israel: http://www.templeinstitute.org/archive/red_heifer_born.htm

Hm.... I've never seen that about the red Heifers....
As to the prophecy in Ezekiel, no it doesn't make it invalid that they have died out.
It only says "Levites" in that passage; and second, Ezekiel is about the resurrection, correct? Some of those who died were undoubtedly Aaronite.

I just realized the word Drew mentioned also happens to be the one I found; I didn't see his transliteration clearly. But, in any event -- I obviously missed a portion of your conversation...
for I see I'm repeating some of your findings...

I'm looking into Isaiah 42.

The Cross made the red heifers unnecessary ....

I would politely submit that it was not the Cross, but the process of Christ becoming the perfect sacrifice...

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

This entailed more than His death on the stake...

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

His life today as High Priest after the order of Melchisedec saves us. His blood justifies us, His death reconciles us and His life saves us.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

 

[Drew]

Another perspective on these verses, is to remember aliens, foreigners were always welcomed into the greater commonwealth of Israel, Ruth, Jethro, Rahab. And multiple passages in the Torah indicating that as well (Numbers 15:16).

I do not see how this view works. Yes, it is indeed true that the occoasional "foreigner" was absorbed into the nation of Israel. But that does not change the author's statement about the law being abolished:

15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

I have never understood how the clear meaning of the Eph 2 passage can be evaded. What is it that separates the Jew from the Gentile?

The Law of Moses of course!

So when Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) speaks of a barrier being torn town that results in the integration of Jew and Gentile, and he also speaks of how the abolition of a law achieves this integration, what law could he possibly be talking about, other than the Law of Moses?

 

[reba]

I would politely submit that it was not the Cross, but the process of Christ becoming the perfect sacrifice...

Sometimes I forget where I am.... Yes I said the Cross..... Now I will clarify... By saying Cross this is what I was referring to which I have posted numerous times.

The whole of the OT points to the Cross of Jesus Christ ..... The whole of the NT points to the Cross of Jesus Christ....For me the TERM CROSS implies The whole and complete way of Salvation.
The Birth, life ,death ,resurrection of my Lord.

Thanks, [MENTION=94666]About the Son of God[/MENTION] . for grasping the shorthand...... one BIG problem make mine !

 

[Drew]

The language and tone of the verses if you interpret it the way you do, points to the Torah as being the commandments and ordinances as being the dividing wall.

I agree.

But that one passage, and many others indicates otherwise. The dividing wall was the man-made traditions and ordinances excluding Gentiles from things such as Temple worship.

This seems exceedingly unlikely, given context. What does Paul write before he speaks of this Law being abolished?

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Consider the references to the covenants of the promise. Who were considered to be the heirs of the covenant promises? Answer: The nation of Israel. To whom was the Law of Moses given? Answer: Nation of Israel. How can Paul argue that Jews and Gentiles are brought together into a single family unless he also arguest that the Law of Moses, which functioned to mark the Jew out from the Gentile, has also been set aside? Answer: He cannot, unless, repeat unless, he were to argue that the Gentiles are now also to observe the law. But what has he asserted about the law?

That it is abolished.

I just do not see how this passage can be read as anything other than a declaration that Jew and Gentile have been brought together by the abolition of the one thing that everyone would know to the thing that divided them into 2 camps: The Law of Moses.

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again, how can God be at enmity with his own laws and commandments?

Answer: He is not "at enmity" with them; He recognizes that the time has come for their aboltion.

You are posing a false either / or. Suppose I have a sign on my lawn declaring "No cats!". Now suppose I "abolish" that law, by removing the sign, because, perhaps, there are no more cats in the neighbourhood, or perhaps, the neighbours now know my concern. Am I at enmity with my "law" against cats?

No. My law is simply no longer needed.

Let me assert something that I believe Paul argues in Romans: The Law of Moses was given to a particular people, for a particular purpose. At the cross, that purpose is achieved.

So the Law of Moses has achieved its good purpose, and now can be set aside. Is God therefore at enmity with His Law? Of course not! It was a good thing in its time, but it has now done its job and can be retired with honour.

 

[John 8:32]

I would politely submit that it was not the Cross, but the process of Christ becoming the perfect sacrifice...

Sometimes I forget where I am.... Yes I said the Cross..... Now I will clarify... By saying Cross this is what I was referring to which I have posted numerous times.

The whole of the OT points to the Cross of Jesus Christ ..... The whole of the NT points to the Cross of Jesus Christ....For me the TERM CROSS implies The whole and complete way of Salvation.
The Birth, life ,death ,resurrection of my Lord.

Thanks, [MENTION=94666]About the Son of God[/MENTION] . for grasping the shorthand...... one BIG problem make mine !

Sorry, being an engineer by trade, I am sometimes too focused on detail. Seems we were speaking of the same process with different terms. Semantics. My apologies.

 

[Drew]

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many]thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;

This text actually supports my position when understood in context. Who is the "brother" here and who are the "they"?

The brother = Paul, and the "they" = the crowd associated with James. Yes, James and his friends declare the fact that many Jew have believed and have become zealous for the Law of Moses.

But the fact that they are zealous for the Law does not mean that they are right to be zealous. You did not post the following verse:

...and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to [e]walk according to the customs.

Who is this "you"? It is Paul. And the verse speaks for itself: Paul has been telling Jews to stop following the Law of Moses.

Another piece of evidence that Paul believes the Law of Moses has been set aside.

The key point is this: The fact that, as per the verse you cite, some Jews thought they were to continue to follow the Law does not mean that this is what God's intent for them actually is.

There are other examples. In Galatians, Paul rebukes Peter (or James? I forget) for seating Jews and Gentiles at different tables to eat, as the Law requires.

Who is right? Paul? or Peter / James?

I believe Paul is right. What do you think?

 

[John 8:32]

The language and tone of the verses if you interpret it the way you do, points to the Torah as being the commandments and ordinances as being the dividing wall.

I agree.

But that one passage, and many others indicates otherwise. The dividing wall was the man-made traditions and ordinances excluding Gentiles from things such as Temple worship.

This seems exceedingly unlikely, given context. What does Paul write before he speaks of this Law being abolished?

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Consider the references to the covenants of the promise. Who were considered to be the heirs of the covenant promises? Answer: The nation of Israel. To whom was the Law of Moses given? Answer: Nation of Israel. How can Paul argue that Jews and Gentiles are brought together into a single family unless he also arguest that the Law of Moses, which functioned to mark the Jew out from the Gentile, has also been set aside? Answer: He cannot, unless, repeat unless, he were to argue that the Gentiles are now also to observe the law. But what has he asserted about the law?

That it is abolished.

I just do not see how this passage can be read as anything other than a declaration that Jew and Gentile have been brought together by the abolition of the one thing that everyone would know to the thing that divided them into 2 camps: The Law of Moses.

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again, how can God be at enmity with his own laws and commandments?

Answer: He is not "at enmity" with them; He recognizes that the time has come for their aboltion.

You are posing a false either / or. Suppose I have a sign on my lawn declaring "No cats!". Now suppose I "abolish" that law, by removing the sign, because, perhaps, there are no more cats in the neighbourhood, or perhaps, the neighbours now know my concern. Am I at enmity with my "law" against cats?

No. My law is simply no longer needed.

Are you saying there is no more need for definition of sin?

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

And yet we have the Commandments mentioned after the New Heavens and New Earth. We see Jesus saying this...

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For 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.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever 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.

Unless you really believe all has been fulfilled, the Law has not passed. If you think that all is fulfilled, please fill me on in when this happened, I must have missed it...

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Let me assert something that I believe Paul argues in Romans: The Law of Moses was given to a particular people, for a particular purpose. At the cross, that purpose is achieved.

So the Law of Moses has achieved its good purpose, and now can be set aside. Is God therefore at enmity with His Law? Of course not! It was a good thing in its time, but it has now done its job and can be retired with honour.

Yep, everyone is perfect now. Apparently you have never walked down 42nd street at 2:00AM.

 

[reba]

Sorry, being an engineer by trade, I am sometimes too focused on detail. Seems we were speaking of the same process with different terms. Semantics. My apologies

Doesn't hurt to take the time to spell it out. Ya never know who is reading the threads.... I tend to shorthand too often

 

[Drew]

Yep, everyone is perfect now. Apparently you have never walked down 42nd street at 2:00AM.

You have misunderstood me, and you appear to be making the following incorrect argument:

1. Drew's premise: The Law of Moses has been set aside.
2. The Law of Moses speaks out against theft, murder, adultery, etc.
3. Therefore we still need the Law of Moses.

Well, that is not what Paul thinks. Paul goes to great lengths to assert that believers are given the Holy Spirit and no longer need to told how to act by a written code.

 

[Drew]

Are you saying there is no more need for definition of sin?

I am saying that we no longer need a written code, we have the Spirit to guide our actions.

From Romans 7:

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 [d]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The same erroneous argument keeps popping up in thread after thread: Those of us who agree with Paul that the Law of Moses has been retired are not forced into the position of having to say its OK to commit murder, commit adultery, or steal just because these things are ruled out by the Law of Moses. The Christian has the Spirit; and the Spirit certainly will let us know that these things are not OK.

I will address your other concerns later.

 

[Ryan]

Another perspective on these verses, is to remember aliens, foreigners were always welcomed into the greater commonwealth of Israel, Ruth, Jethro, Rahab. And multiple passages in the Torah indicating that as well (Numbers 15:16).

I do not see how this view works. Yes, it is indeed true that the occoasional "foreigner" was absorbed into the nation of Israel. But that does not change the author's statement about the law being abolished:

15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

I have never understood how the clear meaning of the Eph 2 passage can be evaded. What is it that separates the Jew from the Gentile?

The Law of Moses of course!

So when Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) speaks of a barrier being torn town that results in the integration of Jew and Gentile, and he also speaks of how the abolition of a law achieves this integration, what law could he possibly be talking about, other than the Law of Moses?

The Olive Tree was never a new idea. Gentiles were always allowed entrance into the covenants and commonwealth God offered to Israel. I posted this on the previous page.


10. The Law is also for the Gentiles (foreigner/alien) who are grafted in.
(Ex 12:19) (Ex 12:38) (Ex 12:49) (Lev 19:34) (Lev 24:22) (Num 9:14) (Num 15:15-16) (Num 15:29) (ie: Ruth) (Is 42:6) (Is 60:3) (Mat 5:14) (Eph 2:10-13) (Ac 13:47) (Ro 11:16-27) (Jer31:31-34) (Ez 37) (1 Jo 2:10) (1 Jo 1:7)

I was just reading Judges last night with my kids, and this caught my eye.

Judges 1:16 The [k]descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the city of palms with the sons of Judah, to the wilderness of Judah which is in the south of Arad; and they went and lived with the people.

Moses father in law was a Midianite priest who became a believer. Their descendents welcomed into the commonwealth. God wishes nobody to perish, and what just God would not allow a group of people in because they were not of Israel or Jewish? Not the God I serve. Solomon even spoke of foreigners coming to serve the Lord after the temple was built.

1 Kings 8 41 “Also concerning the foreigner who is not of Your people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Your name’s sake 42 (for they will hear of Your great name and Your mighty hand, and of Your outstretched arm); when he comes and prays toward this house, 43 hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to [s]fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that [t]this house which I have built is called by Your name.

Hope that helps so Ephesians could be put into its proper perspective. God did not a wall of partition. So what was that wall of partition then?

 

[Drew]

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

This text is part of Paul's historical analysis of the relation of the Jew to the Law of Moses. He is telling us how the Law told the Jew about sin. But this is clearly in the past for Paul: In God's evolving redemption narrative, he (Paul) sees the Spirit as the source that should now inform how we act.

 

[John 8:32]

Are you saying there is no more need for definition of sin?

I am saying that we no longer need a written code, we have the Spirit to guide our actions.

From Romans 7:

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 [d]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The same erroneous argument keeps popping up in thread after thread: Those of us who agree with Paul that the Law of Moses has been retired are not forced into the position of having to say its OK to commit murder, commit adultery, or steal just because these things are ruled out by the Law of Moses. The Christian has the Spirit; and the Spirit certainly will let us know that these things are not OK.

I will address your other concerns later.

And yet we have...

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Paul said that he would not know what sin is without the law, but apparently we have a greater one than Paul here.

 

[Drew]

And yet we have the Commandments mentioned after the New Heavens and New Earth. We see Jesus saying this... Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Mat 5:18 For 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.

I have posted this same argument many times, but here it is again:

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, the Law of Moses has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Law of Moses, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Law of Moses do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor?

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Law of Moses will remain in force basically to the end of time.

 

[Ryan]

The language and tone of the verses if you interpret it the way you do, points to the Torah as being the commandments and ordinances as being the dividing wall.

I agree.

But that one passage, and many others indicates otherwise. The dividing wall was the man-made traditions and ordinances excluding Gentiles from things such as Temple worship.

This seems exceedingly unlikely, given context. What does Paul write before he speaks of this Law being abolished?

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Consider the references to the covenants of the promise. Who were considered to be the heirs of the covenant promises? Answer: The nation of Israel. To whom was the Law of Moses given? Answer: Nation of Israel. How can Paul argue that Jews and Gentiles are brought together into a single family unless he also arguest that the Law of Moses, which functioned to mark the Jew out from the Gentile, has also been set aside? Answer: He cannot, unless, repeat unless, he were to argue that the Gentiles are now also to observe the law. But what has he asserted about the law?

That it is abolished.

I just do not see how this passage can be read as anything other than a declaration that Jew and Gentile have been brought together by the abolition of the one thing that everyone would know to the thing that divided them into 2 camps: The Law of Moses.

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again, how can God be at enmity with his own laws and commandments?

Answer: He is not "at enmity" with them; He recognizes that the time has come for their aboltion.

You are posing a false either / or. Suppose I have a sign on my lawn declaring "No cats!". Now suppose I "abolish" that law, by removing the sign, because, perhaps, there are no more cats in the neighbourhood, or perhaps, the neighbours now know my concern. Am I at enmity with my "law" against cats?

No. My law is simply no longer needed.

Let me assert something that I believe Paul argues in Romans: The Law of Moses was given to a particular people, for a particular purpose. At the cross, that purpose is achieved.

So the Law of Moses has achieved its good purpose, and now can be set aside. Is God therefore at enmity with His Law? Of course not! It was a good thing in its time, but it has now done its job and can be retired with honour.

Here is the principle of the the circumcision group and I'll use this example.
When I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour, I became a believer in Jesus. Did that make me a Christian? Does that make me a Jew? Many people think that when one accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior they automatically become a Christian. But is that true? Can I not just call myself a believer and live according to the bible? Do I have to convert to being a Christian? Many people have questioned my salvation because I haven't declared myself as being a Christian here. Is that right? Do I have to be a Christian to have saving faith?

That was the whole point many letters. One did not have to make a formal conversion to Judaism and become a Jew, they just had to have saving faith and then begin to learn and follow the Torah. They didn't have to make a formal conversion to Judaism. That was the point of Galatians.

 

[Drew]

Paul said that he would not know what sin is without the law, but apparently we have a greater one than Paul here.

Please leave the sarcastic comments out of this discussion.

 

[Drew]

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

As already implicitly argued, this text does not require us to read it as an endorsement of the eternality of the Law of Moses.

I believe that Paul is making an historical argument, asserting that, in the past, the Jew (like Paul) would not know about sin if it were not for the Law. But that does not force us to conclude that we still need the Law.

As Paul says at many places - the Spirit replaces the Law of Moses as the informing source for how we are to behave.