When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[Ryan]

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?

Paul was being falsely accused of teaching against the Torah. That was the whole uproar. And he always defended himself as not doing any such thing.

Acts 26:5 ...since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.

Acts 21 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to [c]James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many [d]thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 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. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who [f]are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and [g]pay their expenses so that they may shave their [h]heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from [i]meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul [j]took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

To prove that Paul was not teaching or telling other people to forsake Torah, they devised a plan to show that he would participate and complete a Nazarite vow. Thus proving he was not walking contrary to Torah, and telling people otherwise.

 

[Drew]

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

I concede that Romans 3:31 is tough to explain for those of us who believe that Paul sees the Law of Moses as having been retired. But one needs to remember: Paul is clear at other places that the Law has been retired.

For now, I will offer this a start:

In Romans 10, Paul subtly yet clearly makes the point that saving faith in Jesus – believing and confessing Jesus as Lord (v.9) – is actually a fulfilling of the Torah. This coheres with the arguably mystifying claim of Romans 3:31 about how the Torah is actually established, despite other clear statements in other Pauline letters that Torah has been abolished. Material in Romans 8 and 9 makes perhaps more subtle allusions about a sense in which the Torah is actually established.

Paul effectively discerns two Torahs – one that is established and another that is abolished, with both these events occurring at the Cross. This second (abolished) Torah is the Torah as normally understood – the Law of Moses given to the Jews. I will denote this Torah as the “Torah of worksâ€. I will denote the Torah that is established as the “Torah of faithâ€. It is critical to qualify the sense in which the Torah of works is abolished – it is abolished in the sense that it has played its role in God’s plan and is now no longer needed.

Continuing this thought, Paul places both these Torahs in the context of a single overarching story of God’s redemptive plan, showing how the abolition of one and the establishment of the other go together. More specifically, Paul is claiming that God is using the Torah of works to bring history to a climactic moment at which a new covenant is established with a new Torah – the Torah of faith.

 

[Drew]

Paul was being falsely accused of teaching against the Torah. That was the whole uproar. And he always defended himself as not doing any such thing.

I see no evidence in this passage to support this claim that Paul was being accused of something he was not doing. Besides, we have so many other texts that show quite clearly that Paul believes the Law of Moses has come to an end that we can confident that Paul was doing exactly what was being asserted about him: teaching Jews to leave the Law of Moses behind.

Acts 26:5 ...since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.

How does this support your position? It is widely know that Paul obeyed the Law of Moses with great assiduity in his earlier life. But that does not necessarily mean that this is what he advocates after his conversion.

 

[Drew]

Further to the question of whether "forever" really means forever re the applicablity of the Law of Moses: Consider this renderting of Exodus 12:24 as per the NASB translation:

And you shall observe this event as an ordinance for you and your children forever

Here is the Young's literal translation:

And ye have observed this thing, for a statute to thee, and to thy sons -- unto the age

When the literal meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "forever" in the NASB is considered, it is not at all obvious that the author intended to be understood as asserting that this statute applies "forever".

 

[John 8:32]

Further to the question of whether "forever" really means forever re the applicablity of the Law of Moses: Consider this renderting of Exodus 12:24 as per the NASB translation:

And you shall observe this event as an ordinance for you and your children forever

Here is the Young's literal translation:

And ye have observed this thing, for a statute to thee, and to thy sons -- unto the age

When the literal meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "forever" in the NASB is considered, it is not at all obvious that the author intended to be understood as asserting that this statute applies "forever".

And then we read this...

Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Luk 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
Luk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
Luk 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

In the above passage, Christ is saying He will drink the cup of the Passover in His Father's Kingdom.

And Paul teaches a Gentile New Testament church to keep the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread...

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

And When Christ comes He will again observe the Passover with His.

And then...

1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Here is Paul instructing the same Gentile church to keep the Feast. What Feast? The Feast of Unleavened Bread.

When is this unto the age?

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

world:

G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

Not the obliteration of the world, but the end of an age.

 

[John 8:32]

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

I concede that Romans 3:31 is tough to explain for those of us who believe that Paul sees the Law of Moses as having been retired. But one needs to remember: Paul is clear at other places that the Law has been retired.

For now, I will offer this a start:

In Romans 10, Paul subtly yet clearly makes the point that saving faith in Jesus – believing and confessing Jesus as Lord (v.9) – is actually a fulfilling of the Torah. This coheres with the arguably mystifying claim of Romans 3:31 about how the Torah is actually established, despite other clear statements in other Pauline letters that Torah has been abolished. Material in Romans 8 and 9 makes perhaps more subtle allusions about a sense in which the Torah is actually established.

Paul effectively discerns two Torahs – one that is established and another that is abolished, with both these events occurring at the Cross. This second (abolished) Torah is the Torah as normally understood – the Law of Moses given to the Jews. I will denote this Torah as the “Torah of works”. I will denote the Torah that is established as the “Torah of faith”. It is critical to qualify the sense in which the Torah of works is abolished – it is abolished in the sense that it has played its role in God’s plan and is now no longer needed.

Continuing this thought, Paul places both these Torahs in the context of a single overarching story of God’s redemptive plan, showing how the abolition of one and the establishment of the other go together. More specifically, Paul is claiming that God is using the Torah of works to bring history to a climactic moment at which a new covenant is established with a new Torah – the Torah of faith.

Where are these passages that abolish the Law?

 

[Drew]

To prove that Paul was not teaching or telling other people to forsake Torah, they devised a plan to show that he would participate and complete a Nazarite vow. Thus proving he was not walking contrary to Torah, and telling people otherwise.

I can appreciate that you can see this particular text the way that you see it, but the bigger picture shows that Paul believes the Law of Moses has been set aside.

Before I offer an explanation of how this account from Acts can be coherently explained in terms of a view where Paul believes the Law is coming to an end, let me remind all of the formidable Biblical evidence that the Law of Moses is retired:

1. Ephesians 2:15 - a direct declaration of the abolition of the Law of Moses;
2. That text in Galations where Paul likens the Law to a tutor whose job comes to an end when the child being tutored grows up;
3. A statement in Romans 10 about Christ being the end of the Law;
4. A statement in Colossions about how "the Law" is nailed to the cross;
5. Peter's vision of the animals in Acts - God tells Peter that all foods are now clean (in contradiction to the Law of Moses);
6. Jesus' declaration that all foods are clean (e.g. Mark 7);
7. Jesus acting as though as though He, and not the temple as the Law requires, is the place to go for forgiveness,
8. Jesus boldly declaring that He is the new Temple ("Destroy this Temple and it will be rebuilt in 3 days"). Let's not forget, the Law of Moses requires the Jew to go the Temple for purification;
9. The tearing in two of the curtain in the Temple - how can one say the Law of Moses lives on when a central element needed for carrying it out - the temple veil, has been torn in half;
10. Jesus intentionally becomes unclean, according to the Law, by touching a woman with a menstrual bleed.

....and that's just a start.

Now the Acts 21 passage: Yes, Paul follows the law in this instance, as does Jesus in some cases. But, I suggest that both men are doing this even though they believe the time of the Law of Moses is coming to an end:

Jesus obeys the Law to delay His arrest till the appropriate time.

Paul obeys the Law here in the interest of appeasing his fellow Jews - he is no dummy; he knows that he needs to "pick his battles".

 

[Drew]

Where are these passages that abolish the Law?

From Ephesians 2:

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— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, [i]excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off [j]have been brought near [k]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [m]by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,

 

[John 8:32]

To prove that Paul was not teaching or telling other people to forsake Torah, they devised a plan to show that he would participate and complete a Nazarite vow. Thus proving he was not walking contrary to Torah, and telling people otherwise.

I can appreciate that you can see this particular text the way that you see it, but the bigger picture shows that Paul believes the Law of Moses has been set aside.

Before I offer an explanation of how this account from Acts can be coherently explained in terms of a view where Paul believes the Law is coming to an end, let me remind all of the formidable Biblical evidence that the Law of Moses is retired:

1. Ephesians 2:15 - a direct declaration of the abolition of the Law of Moses;
2. That text in Galations where Paul likens the Law to a tutor whose job comes to an end when the child being tutored grows up;
3. A statement in Romans 10 about Christ being the end of the Law;
4. A statement in Colossions about how "the Law" is nailed to the cross;
5. Peter's vision of the animals in Acts - God tells Peter that all foods are now clean (in contradiction to the Law of Moses);
6. Jesus' declaration that all foods are clean (e.g. Mark 7);
7. Jesus acting as though as though He, and not the temple as the Law requires, is the place to go for forgiveness,
8. Jesus boldly declaring that He is the new Temple ("Destroy this Temple and it will be rebuilt in 3 days"). Let's not forget, the Law of Moses requires the Jew to go the Temple for purification;
9. The tearing in two of the curtain in the Temple - how can one say the Law of Moses lives on when a central element needed for carrying it out - the temple veil, has been torn in half;
10. Jesus intentionally becomes unclean, according to the Law, by touching a woman with a menstrual bleed.

....and that's just a start.

Now the Acts 21 passage: Yes, Paul follows the law in this instance, as does Jesus in some cases. But, I suggest that both men are doing this even though they believe the time of the Law of Moses is coming to an end:

Jesus obeys the Law to delay His arrest till the appropriate time.

Paul obeys the Law here in the interest of appeasing his fellow Jews - he is no dummy; he knows that he needs to "pick his battles".

I think that Dr. Robert Thiel handled this question better than I could...

What Was Nailed to the Cross?

Since all scripture is given by the inspiration of God so that Christians should be complete (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is wise to look at more than one verse to determine what, for example, was nailed to the cross.

There is only one only scripture that uses the "nailed it to the cross" expression (AV/NKJ), it is Colossians 2:13-14, in which Paul states,


"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross".

We will look at what it does and does not say.

First though, let's look at what the last chapter of the last book of the Bible teaches:


"Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city" (Revelation 22:14, NKJV throughout unless otherwise noted).

Since it is only "those who do His commandments...{who} have the right to enter...the city" (Revelation 22:14), the ten commandments could not be "contrary to us". Actually, it is only those who will not keep the ten commandments that are denied access. Revelation specifically shows that those who break one of at least four of the ten commandments will be outside God's city (Revelation 22:15).

So then, if the ten commandments were not "nailed to the cross," what was?

Look again at what the Bible actually says (two translations):


14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14, NKJV)

14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.. (Colossians 2:14, NASB)

The handwriting of requirements (often also called the hand-writing of ordinances) or certificate of debt was wiped away and nailed to the cross.

Which requirements were wiped out?

Please understand that the expression "the handwriting of requirements" (cheirógrafon toís dógmasin) is a Greek legal expression that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--it does not signify the laws that are to be obeyed--only the penalty. It is only through the acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"). But only the penalty, not the law!

Even some Protestant commentators realize this is so. Notice what Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible states about Colossians 2:14:


Whatever was in force against us is taken out of the way. He has obtained for us a legal discharge from the hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us (v. 14), which may be understood,

1. Of that obligation to punishment in which consists the guilt of sin. The curse of the law is the hand-writing against us, like the hand-writing on Belshazzar's wall. Cursed is every one who continues not in every thing. This was a hand-writing which was against us, and contrary to us; for it threatened our eternal ruin. This was removed when he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal 3:13. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).

In addition, let us look at the Greek term exaleipho translated as "wiped out" in Colossians 2:14:


NT:1813
exaleipho (ex-al-i'-fo); from NT:1537 and NT:218; to smear out, i.e. obliterate (erase tears, figuratively, pardon sin) (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


In other words, exaleipho has to do with wiping out sin. This is also confirmed in Acts 3:19 where Peter also uses the term exaleipho, which is translated as "blotted out" below:


19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

Hence, it is sin and the related penalties that are to be blotted or wiped out. And the penalties could vary from "being unclean to the evening" (Leviticus 11:24-28) to making an offering (Leviticus 5:5-6) to being "cut off from his people" (Leviticus 7:27) to the death penalty (Exodus 31:14).

This is also confirmed elsewhere in the New Testament:


13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).

The curse of the law is related to the penalty. And Jesus paid it.


But what about the law of God? Was the law of God to be wiped out?

Remember that the Bible clearly teaches that sin is lawlessness:


Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. (I John 3:4-5).

Notice that Paul wrote:


Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? (Romans 6:1-2).

Thus the New Testament makes clear that the law of God continues, thus it was not nailed to the cross or somehow wiped out.

The Bible, however, also shows that the requirements of the Levitical priesthood (Hebrews 9:1,6-10) sometimes called the law, which were part of the penalty of sin, were blotted out.

And why?


"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins...By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all" (Hebrews 10:4,10).

Jesus' one sacrifice was and is sufficient--we do not have to sacrifice animals any more!

Another requirement (which is related) would be the death penalty of sin, as "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23) or other specific ceremonial penalties associated with the Old Testament statutes (such as making a sin offering, being put outside the camp, or washing).

For those who wish to look them up, perhaps most of the statutes in the Old Testament are listed in the following chapters: Exodus 20-24; Leviticus 16-27; Numbers 18-19, 27-30, 35-36; and Deuteronomy 12-18.

 

[Drew]

When people deny that the "Law" being abolished in Ephesians 2 are "man-made" laws, where is the evidence. The surrounding context is exactly what you would expect if, as I am suggesting, it is the Law of Moses that is being abolished. The surrounding context declares that the abolition of this law brings about the unification of Jew and Gentile into one group.

What "law" could that be? Only the Law of Moses:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make [o]yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything [p]that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26 Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

 

[Sparkey]

Consider this renderting of Exodus 12:24

I am the proud owner of "The Five Books of Moses" (the Schocken Bible, Volume 1) and by some strange coincidence my bookmark is placed exactly on this Scripture (Ex 12:24). Now the author, Everett Fox, often delights me with his understanding of the Hebrew and I consider it the perfect compliment to Young's Literal.

Here's what Fox has translated about that:

22: Then take a band of hyssop, dip (it) in the blood which is in the

basin,​

and touch the lintel and the two posts with some of the blood

which is in the basin.​

No you --you are not to go out, any man from the entrance to his

house, until daybreak.​

23: YHWH will proceed to deal-blows to Egypt,
and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two posts,
YHWH will pass over the entrance,
and will not give the bringer-of-ruin (leave) to come into your

houses to deal-the-blow.​

24: You are to keep this word
as a law for you and for your children, into the ages!

 

[Drew]

A general question to those who might believe the Law of Moses remains in force (either for Jews or for all of us): Do you believe that adulterers should be stoned to death, as the Law of Moses demands?

If you say no, please explain how you Biblically justify making such an exception.

 

[John 8:32]

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

What laws are contained in ordinances?

ordinances:

G1378
δόγμα
dogma
dog'-mah
From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance.

Were there ordinances that were rendered idle (this is what the word means)? How about this one...

Deu 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
Deu 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Deu 7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

How about this one

Num 1:51 And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.

The tabernacle laws were rendered idle, no longer useful, Solomon's Temple was constructed.

Yes, there are some laws that are no longer in force or cannot be put into force. All the laws concerning the Aaronical Priesthood are rendered idle by Christ becoming the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Will they be revived? Seems to say so in Ezek 40 -48, the Millenial Temple.

 

[John 8:32]

A general question to those who might believe the Law of Moses remains in force (either for Jews or for all of us): Do you believe that adulterers should be stoned to death, as the Law of Moses demands?

If you say no, please explain how you Biblically justify making such an exception.

Let's turn it around, do you believe that adultery is against the law? Is it a sin?

(To answer your question, the New Testament application to this law is that now, Christ is the judge and He will take care of the problem. What happens to someone who is an unrepentant adulterer today?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The penalty is still death and it is inflicted by the Government, just as it was in Moses time.)

 

[John 8:32]

Paul spent a great deal of time and energy explaining to the New Testament Church this scripture...

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.

The New Testament fulfillment of the Law Christ came to magnify...

Isa 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

He shows us the spritiual application of the Law.

 

[Ryan]

Paul was being falsely accused of teaching against the Torah. That was the whole uproar. And he always defended himself as not doing any such thing.

I see no evidence in this passage to support this claim that Paul was being accused of something he was not doing. Besides, we have so many other texts that show quite clearly that Paul believes the Law of Moses has come to an end that we can confident that Paul was doing exactly what was being asserted about him: teaching Jews to leave the Law of Moses behind.

Acts 26:5 ...since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.

How does this support your position? It is widely know that Paul obeyed the Law of Moses with great assiduity in his earlier life. But that does not necessarily mean that this is what he advocates after his conversion.

All of the Apostles were being FALSELY accused of teaching against God's Word. Why did Paul take a Nazarite vow? He wanted to prove to the detractors he was and remained Torah observant.

If Paul had been in the habit of disregarding the Law of Moses, it would have been deceitful for Paul to join in the purification rites knowing everyone would think he had been living according to the law. It also would have been deceitful for James and the elders to recommend a course of action that would have intentionally misled the believers in Jerusalem. So it is apparent, Paul really had been living in obedience to the Torah all along.

Acts 23:1 Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day."

A few moments later Paul also stated that he was a Pharisee, which defines more clearly what he and the Sanhedrin understood as his duty to God.

Acts 23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."

Paul evidently said this in order to take advantage of the dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, it would not have worked if Paul had not been living in accordance with the Law of Moses. In that case, it would probably have been laughter, rather than a dispute, that broke out in the Sanhedrin when Paul claimed to be a Pharisee. Apparently there was enough evidence to show Paul's claim to being a Pharisee was valid. Some of the Pharisees argued vigorously,

Acts 23:9 "We find nothing wrong with this man."

It is doubtful they would have said this about a man who was not following the teachings of Moses. Subsequent passages show how determined the Jews were to be rid of Paul, which makes this vindication of Paul by some of his enemies even more significant.

Acts 24:14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

Acts 25:7-8 When Paul appeared, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many serious charges against him, which they could not prove. Then Paul made his defense: "I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar."

2 Timothy 1:3 I thank God, whom I serve, as my forefathers did, with a clear conscience, as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers.

Acts 26:4-5 "The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.

Notice that Paul says, "our religion" instead of "their religion". Paul still thought of himself as a part of the Jewish religion. Apparently Paul's behavior had been fairly consistent ever since he was a child. It's not likely that Paul would have invited the Jews to testify that he lived as a Pharisee unless he was still living essentially as a Pharisee because the Jews would have been eager to challenge, rather than verify, Paul's testimony.

Acts 28:17 Three days later he called together the leaders of the Jews. When they had assembled, Paul said to them: "My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans.

In the New Testament, it was the enemies of the believers who falsely accused the believers of breaking the Law of Moses and teaching others to disregard it too. (Acts 6:11-14; Acts 18:13; Acts 21:21-24; Acts 21:28-29) Today, it is many of us who sometimes repeat those same assertions about Paul.

If Paul were in the habit of disregarding the Torah instructions, then we would expect to find recorded in the New Testament at least one instance where Paul disobeyed the Torah. However, no such record exists. Should we assume that Paul is guilty of law breaking until someone proves him innocent? Not according to Scripture. Two or three truthful witnesses are required before we can find a person guilty of transgressing the law. (Deut. 19:15, 1Tim. 5:19) Through his words and actions Paul repeatedly led people to believe that he was living according to the Torah. It should be safe to assume that Paul's testimony about his own lifestyle is true. Or will we choose to affirm instead the same assertions that Paul's enemies directed against him?

 

[Ryan]

Matthew 8:1-4 When Jesus came down from the mountain, large crowds followed Him. 2 And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” 3 Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 And Jesus *said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the]offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

I suggest this text supports my position, and does not refute it, as you appear to believe. Jesus knows very well that He is "side-stepping" the Law of Moses and how this will elicit huge reaction from the religious authorities. So he orders to person not to tell anyone what has happened and, for the moment, to keep up the pretense that the Law is still in force, as it always has been.

Jesus is being appropriately careful and shrewd. As He does many other times, He chooses to "hide" some elements of His message from the authorities since He knows that if too much is divulged too soon, He will be sent to the Cross, or otherwise stopped earlier than He needs to.

But, at other times Jesus clearly does challenge the Law publically - the challenge to the kosher purity laws in Mark 7 is a clear example.

I suspect you may challenge me on my casting Jesus in this light - you may suggest that such behaviour on His part constitutes deception. Well, we can have that discussion, but I suggest there are other cases where Jesus is intentionally quite evasive.

So I do not see how the text you quote undermines the general argument that Jesus is challenging the Law of Moses. He is in a difficult position - He needs to announce that the "old" system is coming to an end, but He also needs to delay the springing of the trap that is being set for Him.

God has entered into Covenant with Israel. Throughout the generations, Israel's disobedience, individually and on a national level, God always, always, always said repent and return back to my Torah. Over and over it is like a broken record the OT is. Finally God had enough, and said he will make a New Covenant with Israel. This is the New Covenant everyone always says they are now under. But does this abolish the Sinai Covenant? If this was the case, this is what God would be saying?

"Now Israel, for hundreds and hundreds of years you have continued to disobey me, only to have short periods of obedience and blessings. Every single time I warned you and sent prophets, 100% of the time I always called my people to repent and turn back to the way of Torah. I've been rethinking some things as you couldn't obey me. So being a good, loving father that I am, I will take many, many commandments away, and will even change my special days as you couldn't keep them anyways, so why continue? This is what this loving parent will do, because you won't change, I will. None of this will be in the marriage contract however. you will have to wait for a man by the name of Sha'ul to properly explain things in what will be explained in the most confusing and misinterpreted scriptures of all time. And disregard the comment he will make about imitating him, as he was a Pharisee, as he was imitating the Messiah, who was a Rabbi. So good luck, and I'm sorry I used the word forever, perpetual, eternal, 1000 generations, etc. Oh, before I forget, everything I told you to do before, is now cursed. Have a great day!!!

Does a perfect loving, caring, merciful, gracious father need to change his ways? Or should the children?

 

[Mitspa]

A general question to those who might believe the Law of Moses remains in force (either for Jews or for all of us): Do you believe that adulterers should be stoned to death, as the Law of Moses demands?

If you say no, please explain how you Biblically justify making such an exception.

Let's turn it around, do you believe that adultery is against the law? Is it a sin?

(To answer your question, the New Testament application to this law is that now, Christ is the judge and He will take care of the problem. What happens to someone who is an unrepentant adulterer today?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The penalty is still death and it is inflicted by the Government, just as it was in Moses time.)

The point of Rom 6:23 is that under the law a man earned death for sin, under grace we receive the free gift of eternal life.
Rom 6:14 For sin will not have dominion over you, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UNDER LAW BUT UNDER GRACE.

the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has SET ME FREE from the law of sin and death.

THE STRENGTH OF SIN IS THE LAW. Rom 7:8

 

[Ryan]

A general question to those who might believe the Law of Moses remains in force (either for Jews or for all of us): Do you believe that adulterers should be stoned to death, as the Law of Moses demands?

If you say no, please explain how you Biblically justify making such an exception.

God's wisdom is God's wisdom. How are you to make light of a commandment such as this? Every law and commandment served a purpose, and just because it doesn't fit into our 21st century thought doesn't mean we can't discount the lesson it is teaching us.

So no, stoning cannot be done today. But do you know why?

 

[Mitspa]

A general question to those who might believe the Law of Moses remains in force (either for Jews or for all of us): Do you believe that adulterers should be stoned to death, as the Law of Moses demands?

If you say no, please explain how you Biblically justify making such an exception.

God's wisdom is God's wisdom. How are you to make light of a commandment such as this? Every law and commandment served a purpose, and just because it doesn't fit into our 21st century thought doesn't mean we can't discount the lesson it is teaching us.

So no, stoning cannot be done today. But do you know why?

So the answer is no! They "break" the law into pieces and keep what they like.
The law is EVERY JOT AND TITTLE, ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW!

this is why Paul said that many false teachers would come as teachers of the law, not knowing what they are saying or trying to affirm.
This part of the law and that part of the law etc... Its all false doctrine.

Rom 10:3-4