Paul's teaching in Romans 9

[expos4ever]

If obedience to the law did not give eternal life, how were OT people saved?

Faith.

3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Jesus said this in Luke 10 -
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

The question - 'What shall I do to inherit eternal life?'
The Savior's answer - 'What is written in the law? You HAVE ANSWERED RIGHTLY; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.'

I understand why you might see things this way, but I think Jesus is certainly not telling this guy that he will get life by following the Law of Moses. Notice how the guy answers - by giving a statement of the spirit of the Law of Moses. I suggest this is very different from following the written code the way many Jews were doing and of which I suspect Jesus did not approve.

Here is the problem: yes, it appears that I am perhaps taking some liberties here by assuming that Jesus is only endorsing a following of the "spirit" of the Law to get life, without endorsing following the letter.

But - and here is where I think you and I differ on a foundational point re inerrancy - I have to also believe what Paul says. And Paul says one cannot justified by the Law. I have no idea how you accommodate the Pauline teaching if you accommodate it at all. My way -of working things out allows me to accept both:

1. Yes, we need to follow the underlying spirit, or principles, behind the Law;

2. No, we should not be following the letter of the Law since (1) Paul says that the written code has come to an end (he says this all over the place!) and says the Spirit replaces the Law; and (2) Jesus symbolically enacts the coming end of the written code.

Yes, I am reading Jesus' words in a nuanced manner, but I suggest its a legitimate nuance. If you are saying the Law of Moses as a prescriptive code is still in force, you are in a much more difficult position - you have to outright reject much of what Paul says (not to mention some of the actions Jesus does to indicate the time of the Law of Moses is coming to an end).

 

[Open Heart]

Do you deny that Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7. How can you?

The part in parenthesis was edited in at a later date. It was not the original gospel. Now, consider that Christ's disciples, whom he taught in great detail, remained kosher, and taught other Jewish believers to eat kosher (although they did not teach Gentiles to eat kosher). James was kosher. Paul testified under oath that he kept every law. James bragged that there were thousands of believing Jews in Jerusalem who were all zealous for Torah. None of this would have been true if Jesus had actually taught that Jews should now eat pork and shellfish.

 

[expos4ever]

1. The issue in Mark 7 was the ritual washing of hands, not whether Christ and his apostles has eaten any forbidden meats (Mk 7:1-5).

Let me ask you a perhaps awkward question: Did you look this interpretation up or have you personally carefully studied the text and come to this conclusion? I am happy to get into the details if we must, but I think you have a very hard task ahead of you: to deny the plain sense of these words:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,

...you appear to try to deal with this by inserting what I will say is a contrived distinction between "spiritual defilement" and other kinds of defilement when you post this:

However, Christ was teaching the truth about whether or not meats defile a man spiritually.

I think you need to create this distinction - which is never drawn in the Old Testament - to be able to say that Jesus was not challenging the Law of Moses.

But I hope to address this issue in detail later.

 

[expos4ever]

The part in parenthesis was edited in at a later date.

OK, forget the stuff in parenthesis. What does Jesus mean here:

"Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him

I assume you are aware that the Law of Moses says that many foods defile the Jew.

 

[expos4ever]

None of this would have been true if Jesus had actually taught that Jews should now eat pork and shellfish.

Are you saying you believe the Law of Moses still applies. Should we follow all of it, including the stonings? Why not?

 

[expos4ever]

5. Christ was also establishing that under the New Covenant, believers would be free to eat ALL MEATS without restriction (1 Tim 4:3-5).

But that's my point - the Law of Moses clearly marks out a number of foods as unclean. So to do what you say Jesus is doing entails revising the Law of Moses. Do you see what I mean?

 

[expos4ever]

I want to say something about this business of the Law of Moses being retired.

It is simply incorrect to argue thus:

If you are saying the Law of Moses is retired, you are saying that it's OK to break the 10 commandments.

This is simply incorrect. Suppose that for some mysterious reason, the government revoked the law against murder. I trust I need not have to say this does not means its "OK" to commit murder.

This should not be so hard - Paul is quite clear that the Law of Moses has indeed been retired and replaced with the indwelling Spirit. How can any of you deny this?

And, more subtly perhaps, Jesus tells us that the Law is about to be retired.

Under the Law, you had to go to the Temple to get forgiveness.

Now: where does Jesus say you need to go to get forgiveness?

 

[Open Heart]

What is it that has been "aroused"? Answer: passions.

what has been aroused to awareness? passions.

 

[EmSw]

OK, forget the stuff in parenthesis. What does Jesus mean here:

"Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him

I assume you are aware that the Law of Moses says that many foods defile the Jew.

Let's actually see what Jesus was saying. The scribes and Pharisees complained that Jesus' disciples ate with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:2). Then Jesus gave a parable of which Peter asked Him to explain (v. 15).

10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand:
11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”
12 Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?”
13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.
14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”
15 Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.”
16 So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding?
17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.

Jesus told us exactly about the thing the scribes and Pharisees were complaining about - eating with unwashed hands. Nothing at all was said about unclean foods.

 

[expos4ever]

20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.

Jesus told us exactly about the thing the scribes and Pharisees were complaining about - eating with unwashed hands. Nothing at all was said about unclean foods.

Here is the problem: Jesus says what He says!!! Nothing that goes into the mouth defiles. That means nothing. Including a whole host of things that the Law of Moses prohibits. Yes, this statement was elicited by a treatment of handwashing - which is not in the law, but that does not mean Jesus should not be taken at His word.

Here is the structure of the argument:

1. The question about handwashing arises;
2. Jesus does indeed criticize it as a man-made addition;
3. Jesus then drops a bomb: nothing that goes into the mouth defiles. What?! We all think the issue is handwashing, but Jesus says what he says!! He broadens things out and effectively challenges the Law of Moses in the process. Nothing defiles.
4. Jesus then closes the loop on the initial matter by saying that handwashing is not needed.

Here is the key point: Jesus invokes a "Law of Moses challenging" general principle that nothing defiles, and then uses that principle to settle the issue about handwashing in particular. But that does not change his Law-of-Moses-challenging statement.

This is not hard. Imagine this discussion:

1. Racist Fred: I don't want to serve blacks in my restaurant;

2. Nice Guy Joe: What? Don't you know skin colour (note the generality, like "nothing defiles") means nothing!!

3. Racist Fred: Explain this to me.

4. Nice Guy Joe: Skin colour is not important, therefore, you should, after all, serve blacks.

If we follow your reasoning, we cannot conclude that nice guy Joe opposes not letting Asian people from being served in Fred's restaurant!

And to make matters even more clear, note the nature of Jesus's explanation following his general statement that nothing that enters defiles:

"Are you still lacking in understanding also?17Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?18But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.20These are the things which defile the man;

Jesus just did it again! He reiterated that this is a much more general issue than man-made additions. This little explanation implicitly defies the Law of Moses (now for a second time, the first being the statement that nothing defiles) in asserting that defilement does not arise by what goes into the body.

And that is a clear challenge to the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

what has been aroused to awareness? passions.

If you can produce one example from any account of any kind where someone says anything like "my passions became aware of x", I will be shocked.

Passions do not experience awareness. Human minds, in general, do.

 

[Job8]

But that's my point - the Law of Moses clearly marks out a number of foods as unclean. So to do what you say Jesus is doing entails revising the Law of Moses. Do you see what I mean?

The Law of Moses is technically "The Laws of God given to Israel through Moses". Israel was to be a peculiar people for God, which included having dietary laws. This was under the Old Covenant. God has the right to make a New Covenant if He so chooses. That does not mean a "revision" but rather a "replacement". Please study the epistle to the Hebrews.

Therefore when Christ was proclaiming all meats as "clean" under the New Covenant, that was His right and His prerogative. In any event the OT saints were justified by faith (Hebrews 11) not by observing dietary laws. But what does the New Covenant say? (1 Tim 4:3-5): 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

"Every creature" means that every animal could be eaten if received with thanksgiving, and sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. Why? Because meats do not defile. It is the sinful heart which defiles.

 

[expos4ever]

The Law of Moses is technically "The Laws of God given to Israel through Moses". Israel was to be a peculiar people for God, which included having dietary laws. This was under the Old Covenant. God has the right to make a New Covenant if He so chooses. That does not mean a "revision" but rather a "replacement". Please study the epistle to the Hebrews.

Are we disagreeing? It seems maybe not. I have been saying all along that the "Law of Moses is out" and the "Spirit is in".

 

[EmSw]

If you can produce one example from any account of any kind where someone says anything like "my passions became aware of x", I will be shocked.

Passions do not experience awareness. Human minds, in general, do.

If you can produce one example from any account of any kind where someone says, 'my passions became aroused by the law', I will be shocked.

 

[EmSw]

Here is the problem: Jesus says what He says!!! Nothing that goes into the mouth defiles. That means nothing. Including a whole host of things that the Law of Moses prohibits. Yes, this statement was elicited by a treatment of handwashing - which is not in the law, but that does not mean Jesus should not be taken at His word.

Here is the structure of the argument:

1. The question about handwashing arises;
2. Jesus does indeed criticize it as a man-made addition;
3. Jesus then drops a bomb: nothing that goes into the mouth defiles. What?! We all think the issue is handwashing, but Jesus says what he says!! He broadens things out and effectively challenges the Law of Moses in the process. Nothing defiles.
4. Jesus then closes the loop on the initial matter by saying that handwashing is not needed.

Here is the key point: Jesus invokes a "Law of Moses challenging" general principle that nothing defiles, and then uses that principle to settle the issue about handwashing in particular. But that does not change his Law-of-Moses-challenging statement.

This is not hard. Imagine this discussion:

1. Racist Fred: I don't want to serve blacks in my restaurant;

2. Nice Guy Joe: What? Don't you know skin colour (note the generality, like "nothing defiles") means nothing!!

3. Racist Fred: Explain this to me.

4. Nice Guy Joe: Skin colour is not important, therefore, you should, after all, serve blacks.

If we follow your reasoning, we cannot conclude that nice guy Joe opposes not letting Asian people from being served in Fred's restaurant!

And to make matters even more clear, note the nature of Jesus's explanation following his general statement that nothing that enters defiles:

"Are you still lacking in understanding also?17Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?18But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.20These are the things which defile the man;

Jesus just did it again! He reiterated that this is a much more general issue than man-made additions. This little explanation implicitly defies the Law of Moses (now for a second time, the first being the statement that nothing defiles) in asserting that defilement does not arise by what goes into the body.

And that is a clear challenge to the Law of Moses.

Nothing that goes into the mouth with unwashed hands (the clear topic being discussed) defiles a man.

The law of God is also the word of God. The word of God is Jesus Himself. Are you willing to abolish Jesus? I can tell you this, Jesus did not abolish Himself.

 

[EmSw]

Here is the problem: Jesus says what He says!!! Nothing that goes into the mouth defiles. That means nothing. Including a whole host of things that the Law of Moses prohibits. Yes, this statement was elicited by a treatment of handwashing - which is not in the law, but that does not mean Jesus should not be taken at His word.

So when Jesus says If you love Me, keep my commandments, do you take Him at His word? Do you keep His commandments, or do you brush off these words?

Here is the structure of the argument:

1. The question about handwashing arises;
2. Jesus does indeed criticize it as a man-made addition;
3. Jesus then drops a bomb: nothing that goes into the mouth defiles. What?! We all think the issue is handwashing, but Jesus says what he says!! He broadens things out and effectively challenges the Law of Moses in the process. Nothing defiles.
4. Jesus then closes the loop on the initial matter by saying that handwashing is not needed.

Here is the key point: Jesus invokes a "Law of Moses challenging" general principle that nothing defiles, and then uses that principle to settle the issue about handwashing in particular. But that does not change his Law-of-Moses-challenging statement.

Do you not know ALL the LAW and PROPHETS hang on two commandments?

And to make matters even more clear, note the nature of Jesus's explanation following his general statement that nothing that enters defiles:

"Are you still lacking in understanding also?17Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?18But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.20These are the things which defile the man;

Is there a law concerning murder, adultery, fornication, theft, and false witnesses? Do we abolish them? Are these laws not to be kept any longer?

Jesus just did it again! He reiterated that this is a much more general issue than man-made additions. This little explanation implicitly defies the Law of Moses (now for a second time, the first being the statement that nothing defiles) in asserting that defilement does not arise by what goes into the body.

And that is a clear challenge to the Law of Moses.

So, you are saying Jesus destroyed this law?

 

[expos4ever]

If you can produce one example from any account of any kind where someone says, 'my passions became aroused by the law', I will be shocked.

There are many: as you know, people often say things like "it was exciting to do X because X is forbidden". In such statements, unhealthy passions are energized by virtue of their being forbidden. It seems to be a dark fact of human nature - we want to do what we are forbidden from doing.

The sentence in Romans 7 is what it is - you (and others) may not like it, but it says what it says: Paul's sinful passions were aroused by the Law. And it's not like this is the only statement about this dark effect of the law - similar claims saturate Romans 7 and also appear implicitly in Romans 9: What do you think the "stumbling stone" that God placed in Zion is (end of chapter 9)? Given chapter 7, and the whole tenor of 9 through 11, it is very likely the Law of Moses. What do you think it is?

I pointed out to the other poster that it is simply conceptually incoherent to say that passions can have awareness as she (or he) implicitly claims. Can lust or desire or envy have awareness? No. Persons or minds have awareness, not attributes like lust and desire.

At the end of the day I suggest that (and I know you won't like this) the fundamental difference is this: I do not bend the meaning of words and sentences and I take Paul seriously. Paul says that his sinful passions were aroused by the Law, not that the Law "aroused him to awareness of his passions". You do not believe him. I really think it is as simple as that.

 

[expos4ever]

Nothing that goes into the mouth with unwashed hands (the clear topic being discussed) defiles a man.

True, but, again, Jesus says what He says: "Nothing that goes into the mouth defiles". My argument is what it is: Jesus uses a general principle that challenges the Law of Moses among others things to settle a dispute that actually dealt with man-made additions.

The law of God is also the word of God.

You are simply assuming that God cannot create a law that applies for a limited period of time. What does Paul say in Galatians?

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Now please: be reasonable and accept the simple words here - the Law has come to an end!

The word of God is Jesus Himself. Are you willing to abolish Jesus? I can tell you this, Jesus did not abolish Himself.

There is irony in your statement. In Romans 10, Paul declares that the end of the Law is Christ. Which is precisely what I have been arguing! I am saying that God uses the Law of Moses to carry His great plan of redemption forward to the Cross. There God wins the great victory in Christ and the Law has done its job and can go off to the retirement home. Or, as someone else put it:

4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes

 

[expos4ever]

So when Jesus says If you love Me, keep my commandments, do you take Him at His word? Do you keep His commandments, or do you brush off these words?

Jesus gave commandments but they are simply not part of the Law of Moses! No scholar would hold such a view, although I suspect you will mount some kind of argument that Jesus's commandments somehow "count" as part of the Law of Moses. No Biblical scholar believes this, I am quite confident.

Do you not know ALL the LAW and PROPHETS hang on two commandments?

Or course I know this. But that does not mean the Law of Moses is eternal! If I build a house based on engineering principles that are timeless and eternal does that mean the house lasts forever?

Is there a law concerning murder, adultery, fornication, theft, and false witnesses? Do we abolish them? Are these laws not to be kept any longer?

I have already answered this question - please see post 147.

 

[expos4ever]

In a scene from Seinfeld, Jerry accuses his arch-nemesis Newman (who is a mailman) of opening his (Seinfeld's) mail. Then we get the following snippet of dialog:

Newman: I would never open someone else's mail - that's against the Mailman's Code!!
Jerry: You need a code to tell you not to open other people's mail?!

Do you see the point? In the Biblical context, and after the giving of the Spirit, we do not need a written code to tell us how to live.

Do you need a code to tell you that you should not go out and kick kittens?

I certainly hope not.

This is why all these arguments to the effect that if the Law really came to an end we would be free to sin are obviously not correct.