Jesus Kept The Law

[DeaconDean]

From a post 8 years ago:

The Law and the Christian Pt. 3
E. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Gospels

1.The Occurrence of the word “nomoV”

To understand materially the attitude of Jesus to the Law one has to take into account stories in which the word “nomoV” does not occur. Adolph von Harnack raises this question well and points out that:

“it is doubtful in many instances whether the term is part of the original saying or statement, e.g.: cf. Mt. 7:12 with Lk. 6:31.”[1]

In the few verses where “nomoV” is found, it is simple except in the case of Lk. 2:23. Rather than having the article, it is followed up as “nomoV kurioV”. (the law of the Lord) normally, “nomoV” means the Pentateuch. In the scriptures we find “o nomoV kai oi projhtai” (Mt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Lk. 16:16; 24:44(also yalmoi)). The twofold meaning signifies both the “Law” and the Pentateuch or scripture. Predominate is the sense of the Law as that which governs what we should and should not do.

In Mt. 22:36, when Jesus is asked: “poia entolh megalh en tw nmow” (which command (is) great in the Law) the meaning is not which is the greatest command in the Pentateuch, but what kind of commandment is important within the total context of the Law.[2]

Mt 5:17-18 presents an interesting contrast. In vs. 17, Jesus says: “iwta en h uia keraia ou mh parelqh apo tou nomou,” and in vs. 18 He says: “uia twn entolwn toutwn twn elacistwn.” Context here dictates that because the Law is mentioned alongside the prophets, the “nomoV” here is speaking of the whole of O.T. scriptures in particular those speaking of Him. And the “nomoV” of verse 18 is a reference to the Pentateuch because of the “iwta” and “keraia”. Heaven and earth shall not pass until the law down to the smallest point has been fulfilled. And again, in Mt. 12:5, based on the context, “nmow” here is an obvious reference to the Law, Pentateuch, I.e.: the Law of Moses.

2. Jesus’ Negation of the Law

The essential and basic negation of the Law in Jesus consists in the fact He disposes it from its position of mediation. In other words, what determines mans position to God is no longer the Law and mans relation to it. The decisive factor now is no longer the Law, it is now occupied by the Word of Jesus, even Jesus Himself. Man now finds his relation to God in his relation to Jesus. Several classic examples are found scattered thougout the Synoptics.

To illustrate this point, look at Mt. 21:28-32. A father has two sons, he says to one, go work in my vineyards. The son says no, but later repented and went. The second said yes and went not. Which of the two did the will of the father? According to the context here, what separates man from God is not transgression and negation of the Law. (21:28) In the latter part of verse 31, the reference here is not to the cleavage between word and act, but to the difference between actual refusal of the Law and the new event of conversion and doing the will of God. But that this hopeless situation can be remedied. This is seen in verse 31: “oi telwnai kai ai inappropriate contentai proagousin umaV eiV thn basileian tou qeou.” (tax-collectors and harlots go before you into the kingdom of God) The point being that tax-collectors and harlots would enter heaven because they would sooner come to repentance than those who would be justified by supposedly living according to the law which Jesus eventually accused them of “making a pretense.” (Mt. 23:14)

This is further illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. In the parable, one son leaves and one stays at home. The one who stayed obeyed his father, done all that was asked, but, he did not profit by staying home. By this we mean it is not in his relation to the Law, whether in a constant fulfillment which is not disputed or in flagrant transgression which is not condoned, that the righteous or the sinner find his definitive relation to God . If the sinner is received into pardoning fellowship with Jesus, he is at home in his fathers home. And this fact puts the man who is legally righteous the challenge whether he is building on his obedience to the commandments as hard-earned merit - this seems to be suggested by the grumbling when the prodigal returns - or whether he regards his perseverance in obedience as a joyous being at home in the fathers house. This leads us, however, that in both cases the Law is disposed from its position of mediation. The relation to the word and deed of Jesus now decides ones relation to God.

In essence, the same point is made in the sayings in Mt. 10:32. Confession or denial of Jesus decides the eternal destiny of man. Similarly, the parables collected in Mk. 2 are possible only if the Law no linger plays a decisive role between God and man, and conduct either in accordance with or opposition to the Law no longer justifies or condemns a man definitively before God.

“What Jesus did was grounded in the fact that He determined mans relation to God, not according to the Law, but in the power of His mission.”[3]

The blessing of the children in Mk. 10:13, the beatitudes in Mt. 5:3; and the saying in Mt. 11:28, all point in the same direction. Jesus pronounces these words precisely to those who are so burdened under the Law that they no longer have any “anapausiV” (rest). On the publican who falls down in repentance before God, and counts on God’s grace alone, the sentence is passed: “katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon” (this one went to his house having been justified rather than that one. Lk. 18:4), rather than on the man who can boast of his observance of the Law. (cf. also Lk. 17:7) The scribes and Pharisees close the kingdom of God (Mt. 23:13) because they will allow men to enter by fulfillment of the Law which they themselves administer.

So that we are left with this conclusion, Jesus then, bases the relation of men to God on their relation to Himself and the Lordship of God, which comes in Him. His specific invitation as the one who pardons is to sinners. This means that He firmly negates the righteousness of the Law. The Law is now forced out of its key position by the person of Jesus Himself.

3. Jesus’ Affirmation of the Law

In terms of this new position and its implied negation of the Law, however, Jesus also affirms the Law when rightly understood. Even though the Law is disposed as mediator, it is not a repudiation of the Law. We see this:

a. Jesus recognizes the Law when He acts as the One who forgives sins; and calls sinners and publicans to fellowship with Himself (Lk. 15). A plain judgment is pronounced; He is dealing wit the sick (Mk. 2:17), the lost, the victims of death (Lk. 15:3ff.; 24:32). Thus Jesus validates the Law by the judgment implied in His pardon.

b. Moreover, all incidents addressed show that Jesus is not seeking to overturn the Law when He will not make it the basis of the relation to God. (cf. Mt. 21:28 ff.)

c. Hence, it is not surprising that according to the Synoptic account Jesus Himself keeps the Law.

d. Jesus recognizes the Law to be God’s good will not only for Himself, but also for others, To the question of right conduct he gives the answer: “taV entolaV oidaV” (the commandments you know, Mk. 10:19) He does not accept as good any other will than the will of God revealed in the Law. Apart from this He does not champion any other goodness (Mk. 10:18; cf. also Lk. 10:25 ff.) The Law demands self-denying love for God and neighbor.

e. There is confirmation of the Law, but along with this there is criticism, and in reality this criticism only serves to confirm and establish in the Law, not destroy it. To explain this paradox, the first point is Jesus’ criticism is that the Law can serve to protect mans disobedience against the claim of God. By that, it is meant that the commandment “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (cf. Ex. 20:8f.) can be set aside. While it is agreed that the commandment are/were the revealed will of God, if your neighbor has a dire need, even though it may be the Sabbath, your under obligation to “love your neighbor.” That is the point Jesus is making in MT. 12:9-14. This is, however, no reduction of the Law to morality. It is a radicalizing of the Law by the question of concrete obedience in love for your neighbor.

The second point in Jesus’ criticism is linked with the first. He criticizes the Law in that it does not expose sin at the root by only condemning the act and not the heart which underlies the act. For reference, note the change in the command concerning adultery.

Finally, Jesus’ criticism of the Law is that the Law as it presupposes the sin of man as a factor which cannot be altered. In Mk. 10:5 we see: “proV thn oklhrokardian umwn egrayen umin thn entolhn tauthn.” (For the hardheartedness of you, he wrote this commandment.) With a relationship to Jesus and membership of the “basileia tou qeou” (kingdom of God), however, there is restored the order of creation which does not accept sin as a given factor.

4. The Interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the Law

This interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the Law is seen in two points. First, it calls for full repentance, which acquires depth and concreteness from the Laws requirements. Secondly, it exhibits true obedience, the new righteousness. Both aspects are indissolubly bound up wit h the fact that Jesus bases the relation between God and man, not on fulfillment of the Law, but on the new act of God. Confrontation with God’s unconditional claim through the Law, together with recognition of condemnation by the newly understood Law on the one side, and liberation from the mediation of the Law on the other, mutually promote and control one another. Only when he renounces his own achievement and receives forgiveness is man truly able to offer the obedience of love. At the same time the question God’s new act on man and the world is contained in the radical establishment of the demand and its judgment.

III. The Conflict Concerning the Law

a. A brief introduction

A great cause of confusion today concerns the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believer’s life. While this short study cannot begin to cover all the issues involved, it is my hope that it will shed some light and remove some of the confusion.

One of the profound emphases of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul, is that Christians are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. This truth is stated in no uncertain terms and in various ways (see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18), but in spite of this, there have always been those who insist that the Mosaic Law, at least the Ten Commandments, are still in force for the Christian. In regard to the relation of Christian ethics to the Mosaic Law, Luck writes:

“There are Christian teachers of repute who consider the Mosaic law to be the present-day rule of life for the Christian.[4] A view not infrequently found among earnest, orthodox believers is that although we are not saved by the law, once we have been justified by faith, then the Mosaic law becomes our rule of life. Those holding such a view generally make a sharp division of the Mosaic law into two parts, which they distinguish as the moral and the ceremonial. The ceremonial portion they consider as having found its fulfillment in Christ at His first advent, and thus as having now passed away. But the moral portion of the Mosaic law, say they, is still in force as the believer’s rule of life. The treatment given to Christian ethics by some highly respected authors is indeed but little more than an exposition of the Decalogue.

It seems exceedingly strange that Bible-believing Christians should advocate such a view, when the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the believer in Christ is not any longer under the Mosaic law in its entirety… Indeed after having been delivered from the law, to deliberately place ourselves once again under its [control] is said to be “falling from grace.”

But let it be immediately understood that this does not mean to say that we should necessarily behave in a manner just opposite to what the Mosaic law commands—that we should kill, steal, bear false witness, etc. Long before the law was given through Moses, it was utterly wrong to do such evil things. . .”[5]

By contrast, the age in which we live, the church age, has often and rightly been called the age of grace. This is not because God’s grace has not been manifested in other ages, but because in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ we have the ultimate manifestation of God’s grace.

Titus 2:11-12. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people. It trains us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
Grace becomes an absolutely inseparable part of the believer’s life in Christ. In the coming of Christ and His death on the cross, the Mosaic Law as a rule of life was terminated. The believer is now to live in the liberty and power of God’s grace by the Spirit, not the rule of law. This new liberty must never be used as an occasion to indulge the flesh or sinful appetites (Gal. 5:13) nor does it mean the Christian has no moral law or imperatives on his life, but simply that he or she is to live righteously by a new source of life as asserted in Romans 8.

Romans 8:2-4. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

But a great deal of confusion exists over the issues of law and grace and the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believer’s life. However, the basic principle is that the “fusion” of law and grace brings a “confusion” which results in sterile legalism. Because of man’s natural bent toward either legalism or license, the place and function of the Law has been an issue in the Christian community since the very early days of the church. There have always been those who have sought to put the Christian back under the Law or make the Law necessary for both salvation and sanctification. As a result large sections of the New Testament are written directly to this issue (see Acts 15 and the council at Jerusalem; Romans 5:10; 6:14; 7:1f; 2 Cor. 3:6-18; and the entire book of Galatians). These passages were written against a legalistic use of the Law, one which promotes works to gain points with either God or people; works of self-effort rather than a life lived by the power and personal leading of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, other parts of the New Testament are written against license and the misuse of liberty (Gal. 5:13ff. Rom. 6:1ff; 8:4ff; Tit. 2:11-14). But the answer is never to put the Christian back under the Law, but rather a proper understanding and appreciation of God’s grace to us in Christ. Christian liberty is not the right to do as one pleases, but the power, desire, and will to do as one ought in and by the power of God and a regenerated life.

This is ultimately the focus of Titus 2:11-14. The glorious manifestation of God’s grace in Christ instructs and trains believers in how to live.[6] This grace provides the incentive, the motive, and the means. Regarding Titus 2:11-14 Ryrie writes:

“The verb teaching encompasses the whole concept of growth—discipline, maturing, obedience, progress, and the like. This involves denial of improper things and direction into proper channels. These five terms—godliness, worldly lusts, soberly, righteously, godly—do not describe the content of grace teaching so much as they indicate the object and purposeful goal of that teaching. And this intent is, according to this passage, the ultimate purpose of the Incarnation of Christ. He came to display the grace of God in the changed lives of his people. The final cause of the revelation of the grace of God in Christ is not creed but character.”[7]

In Romans 6:14, Paul gives us a fundamental principle as it relates to the Christian’s understanding and the place of the Law in a believer’s life. “For sin will have no mastery over you, becauseyou are not under law but under grace.” (emphasis mine). Romans 6 deals with the believer’s walk or sanctification. In this regard, under grace is never to be taken as an excuse to sin as one pleases since he is under grace (6:1-2) and it is placed in strong contrast[8] with under law. Two things are prominent here: (1) these two (law and grace) are set forth as complete opposites, and (2) the text also makes it clear that the only way the believer is going to experience true sanctification (victory over sin plus the production of positive righteousness) is by grace (the work of God in Christ) and never by law. The reasons, which will be set forth below, are bound up in two issues, the weakness of man’s flesh and the nature of the Law and its inability because of man’s weakness to produce a truly holy life. This is not to say that the Mosaic Law is not good and holy and does not have a function, but this too will be set forth below.

b. The Primitive Community

Up to this point, we have shown the development of the Greek word “nomoV” from a meaning of “to allot” to “Law.” We have seen how the commandments were handed down to Moses from God and were regarded as the Law. We have the view of the Law in the Synoptics and the interrelation of Jesus’ negation and affirmation of the Law and how they are interwoven so that it actually restores and establishes the intent of God in His revealed will.

Now we come to a most difficult area which brought conflict nearly two millennia ago, and one which still brings conflict today. The conflict concerning the Law and its relevance to Christians then and now. There is no clear cut definitive picture of just what the understanding of the Law was in the primitive community. But it is a certainty that they did in fact keep the Law, but as to the extent of the keeping of the Law it is not certain from the account in Acts because no distinctive can be discerned in this record. So what we can do, however, is to look at what records we do have concerning the conflict which are found in the book of Galatians and in Acts 15.

The question of the Law first became an issue when the Apostles began their missionary journeys. When they moved out to the Gentile world, more specifically the Gentile nations, there was so much conflict that the first Apostolic Council is recorded. With regards to this meeting, and the decision they came to, we can work best work out what the fundamental understanding of the Law was in the primitive community.

A problem that had existed from the Day of Pentecost was how to integrate Gentile believers into the church. Apparently, Paul taught his Gentile converts that they did not need to submit to the Law in order to be members in good standing, a point which not all agreed on. Paul’s first missionary journey took him from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and back to Jerusalem which led to the first Apostolic Council meeting. AS in Paul’s day, there were a group of people who are commonly called “legalists.” Of whom believed that not only was a belief in God required, but also a strict observance to the Law of Moses was required.

According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Paul’s gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: “aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin” (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: “emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento” (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word “important” thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.

The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle was not so fully cleared up as to make impossible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes it in Galatians 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indirectly does Paul have any word of censure from James. The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jew may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the Law. In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lord’s Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the Law. The measure of clarity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the Law with the consent of the primitive community, and purely Jewish Christian churches should keep the Law with the consent of Paul.

The findings of the Apostolic Council, then, are that the Law is not to be kept as though one could be righteous by its observance, that faith in Jesus brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Law is still binding on Jews. On this basis, it seems that the separation of Gentile and Jewish evangelization (Gal. 2:7) had to be accepted by both Paul and the primitive as necessary and appropriate.

c. But this raises the question of why Jewish Christians were obliged to keep the Law. The main reason is concern for the possibility of the Jewish mission. The preaching of Jesus as the Christ of scripture could not be believed by Jews if His followers left the Law of God. That Paul could agree with this view is shown beyond any question in 1 Cor. 9:20. He neither demands nor makes any demonstration of his freedom from the Law which might consist in transgression of the Law.

d. From the basic and practical decision of the primitive community in these matters we may work out its understanding of the Law during the preceding period. The actual commitment to the Law was not monism in the sense that fulfillment of the Law w regarded as a presupposition of belonging to the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, it regarded observance of the Law as the obedience concretely required of it as this people - an obedience which it had also to render for loves sake in the service of the Gospel. What constituted the community and separated it from others, however, was not a specific understanding of the Law but faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Historically speaking, it is probable that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ attitude to the Law are correct and that fundamentally the primitive community took its attitude to the Law from Jesus Himself.

e. Further developments in the primitive community is also to be understood in light of the conflicts, motives, and decisions brought to light in the first Apostolic Council and the events relating to it. The radical party, traditionally called the Judaizers, insisted that in spite of the councils decision, circumcision and the Law must be laid on Gentile Christians, since otherwise they could not enjoy salvation or belong to the community of Christ. They evidently propagated this view with zeal, especially in the Pauline churches, though it is open to question whether the situation presupposed in Rome can be explained by Judaising propaganda.

f. Distinct from the position of the Judaizers is that of James, Peter, and the community controlled by them, who seem to have kept essentially to the lines laid down by the Apostolic Council. This certainly corresponds to the depiction of James in Acts 21:148, and it is confirmed by the account of his death in Josephus.[9] In regards to Peter, it is best to assume that he returned to the position of the Apostolic Council and James after accepting the view of Paul for a period in Antioch. Certainly the attempt to make Peter a champion of the Judaizers lacks enough exegetical support in the available sources and it suffers from intrinsic improbability.

As concerning the understanding of the Law in normative circles of primitive Christianity, it may thus be said that they regarded the Law as the obedience to be rendered by Jewish Christians. They were also conscious of being under this obligation for the sake of winning the Jewish world for the Gospel. They did not believe that by achieving this obedience man could attain to righteousness before God. They were prepared to extend brotherly fellowship to Gentile Christians even though the latter did not keep the Law. In mixed congregations, Gentile Christians were obliged to observe such points as would make fellowship of Jewish Christians with them defensible in the eyes of the Jewish world.

Continued...

[1] Adolph von Harnack, Beitrage zur Einlertung in das NT, II: “Sprucle u. Reder Jesu” (1907), 11f.

[2] T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Matthausev, 1905

[3] A. Schlatter, Kommentar z. Mk., 1930

[4] For further information on this subject, see the article by Roy l. Aldrich, “Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 116:463:221-29, July 1959

[5] G. Coleman Luck, “Christian Ethics,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 118:471 - July 1961, Theological Electronic Library, Galaxie Software

[6] The verb “train” or “instruct” is paideuo,,,” to bring up, instruct, educate, train,” then, “correct, practice, discipline, give guidance.”

[7] Charles C. Ryrie, The Grace of God, Moody Press, Chicago, 1963, pp. 51-52

[8] In this clause, “but” is alla, a conjunction that expresses strong contrast.

[9] Josephus, Ant., 20, 200

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

From a post 8 years ago:

The Law and the Christian Pt. 6
VII. The Period After the Conflict

7.1. Hebrews

Formally, “nomoV” is used in Hebrews as elsewhere in the N.T. It is usually referring to the Old Testament Law. Only in 7:16 does the question arise whether it should not be rendered more generally as “norm” or “order”. But since this is the only instance in the epistle, it is better to take it here, too, in the sense of the O.T. Law. Moreover, as in Paul, there is no basic distinction between “o nomoV” and “nomoV”. Thus 7:16 does not refer to a generally valid rule, but to a more specific Law of the O.T.

7.1a. The fact that in context the orientation of “nomoV” is to the Law which orders the priestly ministry is based on the main interest of the epistle. In Hebrews, the Law is viewed from a standpoint essentially different from that of either Jesus or Paul. For them, the Law is the will of God which requires and regulates human action. It aims at works and gives life to the man who does it. In Hebrews, however, the Law is seen from the standpoint that it gives the O.T. priesthood is basis, dignity, and force. It has a share in the nature and efficacy of this priestly ministry, and similarly, the nature and efficacy of the ministry depend on the fact that it rests on the Law. (“nomoV” is centrally used in the normal sense at 10:28: He who transgresses the Law must dir; how much more so he who tramples the Son of God under foot. Cf. also 2:2. These passages make it plain, however, that there is no longer any obligation to the concrete Law. Materially cf. Brandt, 34f.) This also means, that the true theme of Hebrews is not the relation of Law and Gospel, but the relation of the priestly ministry and the priesthood of Christ. The comparison is extended to the Law only in so far as the power of the priestly ministry of the O.T. is the basis of the Law.

7.1b. Though the O.T. priesthood finds its strength and authority in the Law, it cannot bring “teldiwsiV” (perfection, 7:11). Hence the same can be said even of the Law by which the priesthood lives: “ouden gar eteleiwsen o nomoV” (For the Law perfected nothing, 7:19). The reason for this weakness and futility of the Law (asqeneV kai anwjeleV - weakness and unprofitibleness - 7:18) which do not allow it to attain its goal, is expounded in 7:18f., and this is summed up in 7:28: “o nomoV gar anqrwouV kaqisthsin arciereiV econtaV asqeneian, o logoV de thV orkwmosiaV thV meta ton nomon uion eiV ton aiwna teteleiwmenon.” (For the law makes men high priests who have infirmity, but the word of the swearing of an oath, after the law, appoints the Son forever, having been perfected.) The weakness of the Law, and therewith of the priesthood, lies in the weakness of the men with whom the Law has to do.

This weakness may be seen in the moral nature of the priests (cf. 7:24ff.) and especially in the fact that they must bring offerings for themselves, I.e.: in their own implication in sin cf. 7:27; 5:3. Connected herewith is the further fact that the O.T. sacrifice purifies only externally, not internally; it sets aside neither the sense of guilt nor sin itself (9:9f.). Seeing then, that the Law and its priesthood have to do with sinful men, they cannot attain their goal; they cannot secure for men access to the holy-of-holies, to God.

To put it epigrammatically, the Law is weak for Paul because man does not do it, whereas it is weak in Hebrews because man does it. The two propositions start from different points, but fundamentally they contain the same verdict. How closely they are related may be seen in Hebrews in the use of Jer. 31:31ff., where the weakness of the old covenant is exposed by Israel’s transgression of it, and also in the fact that the priesthood of Jesus sanctifies better because it rests on a sacrifice of obedience which is well-pleasing to God, 10:5ff.

7.1c. At this point, we find in Hebrews, too, the same distinctive train of thought as in Paul. In the light of the fulfillment, the verdict is reached that the Law not only could not reach its goal but that it was not meant to do so, that its true purpose is to point to Christ by nailing man to his sin in order that he may find access to God by the only way named in scripture, namely, through the high-priestly ministry of Jesus. In the sacrifice offered according to the Law there was in fact an “anamnhsiV amartiwn kat eniauton” (a remembrance of sins year by year- cf. 10:3) for the Law does not have the “eikwn twn pragmatwn” (image of those things), but only the “okia twn mellontwn agaqwn” (for the law had a shadow of the coming good things). Only with the new covenant whose mediator is Christ did there take place the blotting out: “twn epi th prwth diaqhkh parabasewn” under the first covenant transgressors-and the receiving of the promise, cf. 9:15. Thus eternal high-priesthood of Christ, which there was already before the Law, which from the very first was above the Law, which was intimated by the figure of Melchisedec and assigned with an oath to Christ in Psa. 110:4 (cf. 7:17, 21), means not only the “metaqesiV nomou”change of law, but also the fulfillment, the “eikwn twn pragmatwn” instead of merely the provisional “okia twn melloutwn agaqwn” (cf. 10:1)

7.1d. For all the differences, the affinity to the Pauline understanding of the Law is striking, especially in the way in which the old and the new covenants are interrelated, and the abrogation and fulfillment of the old by the new are integrated. This does not enable us to determine whether there are any direct Pauline influences. In comparison, it should at least be noted that in Hebrews, there is no question, or, better, there is no longer any question of trying to find in the Law good acts which will justify man. This fact links the situation in Hebrews regarding the question of the Law rather strongly with John and James than with Paul.

7.2: James

First, the question of the relation between faith and works is passed and answered without any reference to the Law, 2:14ff. The theme is specifically the relation of faith and works, not as in Paul and his opponents, that of faith and the Law.

Secondly, where there is reference to “nomoV,” a qualifying word or phrase is often added: “nomoV teleioV thV eleuheriaV (1:25), nomoV eleuqerias, (2:12) nomoV basilikoV (2:8)”. In each case, (certainly the first two) this is obviously intended to differentiate what is meant from what would be denoted by a simple “nomoV”. These two points together suggest a time when the primitive community was still discussing the question of the Law, but had already decided against legalism. The real danger is no longer seen in the keeping or abolishing of the Law, but in a false understanding of faith such as might arise out of Paul’s answer to the question. This is quite independent of the question whether or not the author was a Jew. Three passages in which there is reference to the Law must be interpreted in light of this total situation. They are: 1:25; 2:8; 4:11ff.

7.2a. In 1:25, the “nomoV teleioV thV eleuheriaV” is essentially identical with, or at least closely related to, the “logoV emjutoV dunamenoV swsai taV yucaV”of vs. 21, and the “dokien qrhskon einai” and the “qrhskeia” of vs. 26. Hence the word of God which underlies the position of the Christian is here called “nomoV,” and it is thus characterized in terms of that side of it which is oriented not merely to inactive acceptance but to the regulation of life, especially as vs. 27 shows, in acts of love. The addition “teleioV thV eleuheriaV” is thus designed to protect the term against the misunderstanding that the commandment of the O.T. Law is meant. In so far as the evangelical message claims a mans life for action, it can be called “nomoV,” but in contrast to the old Law it is a perfect law of liberty. The more precise meaning of the terms, however, does not appear from the content. But further light will be thrown by the other two passages.

7.2b. In 2:8ff., “nomoV” is obviously in the first instance not just another term for the word of truth, but “commandment” in the strict sense. The only question is whether it is used for the whole O.T. Law with all its commandments, or for the summary of this Law in the Law of love. Taken alone, vs. 10 might be taken to mean that here the whole of the O.T. Law with all its commandments are obligatory. But the general attitude of the epistle and the content of the verse are against this interpretation. 2:8 says that if you really fulfill the law of love you do well. The following verse adds that if nevertheless there is “proswpolhmyia” among you (as depicted in 2:1ff.), this is sin, and it is sin against the Law, for only - this is the point of vs. 10 - when the Law is kept in its entirety does one escape its condemnation. The Law of vs. 9, is thus the law of love which in verse 8 is called the royal law, and “basilikoV” describes the nature of the Law as contrasted with any understanding of law rather than denoting this specific law alongside others which are equated with it in principle. If those addressed should appeal to the law of love on behalf of their conduct, this law includes the rich too, and hence the letter says: Very well, but it must be taken with full seriousness. “proswpolhmyia” however, denies an essential part of the law of love, and consequently such action is condemned by the commandment. If the passage is taken this way, a uniform picture is presented except, perhaps, for the use of “nomoV” in vs. 11. But in vs. 11, an example is given to strengthen vs. 10; hence vs. 11 does not belong to the real train of thought. It is just because “nomoV” is used in vs. 11 in the different sense which is closer to common usage that there is the further addition “thV eleuqeriaV” in vs. 12. The “nomoV eleuqeriaV” of vs. 12 is thus identical with the “nomoV basilikoV” of vs. 8. I.e., with the law of love which is the law in the true sense. By this speech and action must be judged.

Hence and inner connection can be made between the view of the Law expressed here and that of 1:25. In so far as the Word is oriented to mans acts, it is the law of love, and for this very reason it is the perfect law, not just the sum of individual commandments.

7.2c. What it means that this law of freedom is perhaps made clear in 4:11ff. Comparison of this passage with Rom. 2:1f., or Mt. 7:1ff., breaks down precisely at this point which is peculiar to James, for here, the condemnation of others does not involve condemnation of self, but of the Law and only then and therewith of self. Comparison with Rom. 14:4, is most likely. In this case, “nomoV” is the will of God valid only for the individual. Another cannot know this off-hand, for this will of God will not let itself be enclosed in specific, unequivocal forms and actions. To judge another because his act deviates from what is right for me is to presume to judge concerning the command which is valid for him. But herein one is no longer a doer of the Law. Thus understood, the passage is an indication of the seriousness of the principle that from the Christian standpoint the Law is a law of liberty which binds the individual, not to the specific commandments, but to the obedience of love which is specifically laid on him. This freedom, then, through the obligation of obedience to God. Therefore, through it is freedom from the individual commandments of the Law, it is more hindrance to ethical guidance and direction than in Paul, and the epistle seeks to give these. But it nowhere forces the freedom of obedience into a scheme after the manner of law.

Thus James’ understanding of the Law is in full agreement with the Christian understanding in terms of the obedience of faith, though chronologically it comes after the actual debate as to the validity of the O.T. Law.

7.3. John’s Gospel

“nomoV” is rather common in Jn. (fourteen times) than in Mt. (eight times); nevertheless, the actual question of the Law is far less central in this gospel. The meaning of the word is the usual one. “nomoV” is the Torah, especially the Pentateuch, e.g.: 1:45: “egrajen MwushV en tw nouw kai oi projhtai” (wrote Moses in the Law and the prophets). But it is also used more generally for the whole of the O.T.; 10:34: the “gegrammenon en tw nomw umvn”is a verse from the Psalms, cf. 12:34; 15:25. As such, “nomoV” can also be law in the narrower sense of a specific commandment, cf. in the discussion of Jesus’ breaking of the Sabbath in 7:19, 23. As such, “nomoV” is also a legal ordinance, e.g.: 7:51: “mh o nomoV hmvn krinei ton anqrwpon ean mh akoush prvton par autou kai gnv ti poiei”; or 18:31 on the lips of Pilate: “kata ton nomon umvn krinate auton,” or on the lips of Jesus before Pilate in 19:7. Normally, it is used with the article. The exception is 19:7a, where the indefinite form is required by the context.

The chief material point is that John has no particular interest in the Law as a possibility for regulating human or even Christian action. Even in cases where it is expressly recounted that Jesus set aside the Law, e.g.: chapter 5 (with 7:19ff.) and chapter 9, the true theme which interests him is not the validity of the Law. These cases and questions simply provide the occasion and starting point for the development of the true theme.

The Law interests John in the first instance as revelation, and in this sense it is set in confrontation with Jesus.

7.3a. Thus we read in 1:17: “o nomoV dia MwmsewV edoqh, h cariV kai h alhqeia dia Ihsou Cristou egeneto” This must be construed in light of vs. 18. Only in Jesus is God truly revealed. Only here, in the incarnate Word, is there real declaration of God, in the gift of grace and truth (vs. 14, 17). In keeping with this, a whole series of expressions with which Jesus designates Himself, or with which He is designated, is set over against similar statements about the Torah. Jesus is the light (cf. 8:12; 9:5; 12:35) in contrast with the Torah as light. Jesus gives the water of life (chapter 4) in confrontation with the Torah, without which Israel can no more live than a fish without water. Jesus is the Bread of Life (chapter 6), or, the way, the truth, and the life (cf. 14:6); in both cases there are parallel statements about the Torah. Finally, the description of Jesus as the incarnate Word stands over against statements about the pre-existence of the “logos” and its mediatoral role in creation.

But even apart from the fact that these implicit confrontations are in no sense with the Torah alone, it should also be noted that the parallels are not simply due to a mechanical, point by point transfer of features in teaching about the Torah to Christology. Both in John and Jewish theology the expressions are controlled by the central statements. Namely, that the revelation of God is present in the Torah, and that it is present in Jesus. To the degree that in non-rabbinic circles similar basic thesis’ are abandoned and lead to similar expressions, the statements about Jesus are a counter-thesis to these too. As concerns the Torah, it is contrasted as a word of revelation, with the Son who is perfect revelation.

7.3b. This does not mean, however, that the revelation between the two is simply that of an “either or.” Between the Law as the Word of scripture and the revelation of God in Jesus there is a positive connection. In the Law, in scripture, Jesus is attested and promised as the Christ (cf. 1:45; also 5:39ff.). Though the word “nomoV” is not used here, it is materially opposite, as is shown by 7:19ff., which fit’s the context of chapter 5. The scriptures bear witness to Jesus. John often speaks of the Law in this sense. What the Law says it ordains is fulfilled in the life and work of Jesus, 8:17; 10:34; 12:34; 15:25.

There is, of course, a strong emphasis here on the critical result of this revelation. If a man rejects Jesus as the Christ, his appeal to the Law is shown to be revolt against scripture, cf. especially 5:39ff. True belief in Moses and hence the Law, true hearing of this revelation, will necessarily lead to acknowledgment of Jesus. Rejection of Jesus, then is also rejection of the revelation of the Law. In this light the emphatic “o nomoV o umeteroV” of 8:17 and “o nomoV umvn” of 10:34 are to be taken in the sense that it is precisely the Law to which you appeal in opposition to me, it is precisely the statement of the Law, which refers to me, hence if you do not hear me, you do not hear scripture either. The meaning is not: “Your law with which I have nothing to do.”[1]

7.3c. The very same relation between Jesus and the Law may be seen also in passages in which the Law is envisaged as the regulation of human action. In the first place, there is again the antithesis. Jesus is bound only to the will of the Father, not to the commandment of the Law (cf. 5:19). Similarly, the disciples are bound to the commandment which is given in the Son, which for them, takes the place of the Law, and which finds expression in the Law of love: “entolhn kaihn didwmi umin agapate allhlouV...agaphn echte en allhloiV” (13:34ff.) Vs. 35 in particular shows how the relation of discipleship to Jesus takes place of, e.g.: obligation to the Torah, and this relation finds appropriate expression in the Law of love. By it, they are also released from the relationship of servants 15:15. Only in Christ can they do a faithful work, 15:5.

But again there stands besides this the close positive connection. Christ is imparted to him who really does the Law. Nathanael is called to Jesus as: “alhqwV IsrahlithV en w doloV ouk estin ” 1:47ff.; 7:17, might also be cited here: “ean tiV qelh to qelhma autou (sc. Of God) poiein, gnwsetai peri thV didachV, potsron ek tou qeou estin h egw ap emautou lalw”


This again has the negative implication that with the rejection of Jesus there is also rejection of the will of the Law. In 7:19, the purpose to kill Jesus discloses the “ou poiein ton nomon”. Hatred of Jesus evades the commandment of the Law, cf. 7:50. If the Jews seek to serve God by persecuting Jesus, this is because they know neither the Father nor Jesus, 16:3.

In so far as Jesus as the Son and Christ replaces in every aspect all other mediators, including the Torah, the Torah is both destroyed and fulfilled. This may be seen from the fact that true hearing of the Law leads to faith in Jesus, and rejection of Jesus is at the same time revolt against the Law.

In John, however, the Law is never used as the rule of Christian conduct for the community. The epistles confirm this, and so, too, does Revelation. It is no accident that “nomoV” does not occur at all in these writings. Nowhere in John is there any attempt to prove that when the law of love is kept the true intention of the Law is fulfilled. All this puts the gospel in the generation and period after the real battle as to the validity of the Law. In this respect, then, it places it in the same class as James and Hebrews.

[1] 18:31 on the lips of Pilate.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

A post from 8 years ago:

The Law and the Christian Pt. 7
VII. Closing Arguments and Conclusions.

So the question on everybody‘s lips is: Has the Law been abrogated? “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”[1] In light of all the arguments going on, and in light of the “Modernistic” movement going on in the church today, far to many Christians are jumping in to an area that is deeper than any subject they have ever studied before. Indeed, the recent spate of articles and monographs on the Pauline view of the law, and the wide diversity of opinion reflected therein, only increase the difficulty for the modern interpreter.[2]

Nevertheless, the complexity of and controversy over the issue should not prevent one from trying to puzzle out Paul’s theology of law. To leave it as an unresolved question mark is to resign oneself to uncertainty on an issue that is central for understanding Pauline theology. Paul can speak both of the abolition and also of the fulfillment of the law. Certain texts in Paul suggest that since the coming of Christ the law is now abolished (Gal. 3.15-4.7; Rom. 6.14; 7.1-6; 10.4; 2 Cor. 3.4-18; cf. also Gal. 2.18; Rom. 14.14, 20). On the other hand, Paul also speaks positively about fulfilling the law (Gal. 5.14; 1 Cor. 7.19; Rom. 2.25ff; 3.31; 8.4; 13.8-10). So lets begin by looking at various opinions.

Paul’s Teaching as Contradictory

It is not surprising that many different theories have been suggested on the abolition and fulfillment of the law in Paul. Recently, the theory that his teaching was simply contradictory has been brilliantly defended by H. Räisänen.[3] This is not the place for a detailed response to Räisänen, but J. D. G. Dunn is correct in saying that any hypothesis which contends that Paul was contradictory must only be accepted as a “last resort.”[4] Whether or not one sees contradictionsin Paul on this issue that cannot be harmonized, or paradoxeswhich although they appear to be contradictory are ultimately harmonious, is often a matter of perspective. Not only is Räisänen’s starting point unlikely, but the texts where he sees insoluble tensions can be explained in a more satisfying way. We shall limit ourselves to two examples which relate to the issue of the abolition and fulfillment of the law. In 1 Cor. 7.19 Paul says: “h peritomh ouden estin kai h akrobustia ouden estin, alla thrhsiV entolvn qeou” (“circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God”).

Räisänen argues that the statement is in tension with Paul’s parallel statements in Gal. 5.6 and 6.15.5 Indeed, the assertion smacks of Paul’s “conservative” and `almost “legalistic” stance in 1 Corinthians. Räisänen concludes that 1 Cor. 7.19 is “very much Jewish” and “very little specifically Christian.” Räisänen is entirely right to point out the difference between 1 Cor. 7.19 and Gal. 5.6 and 6.15,[5] and he is also right to suggest that the different emphasis is due to the particular situation to which Paul is responding. However, his contention that this statement is closer to being Jewish than Christian is completely misleading.[6]

Instead, C. K. Barrett is correct when he says that this is one of the most radical statements that Paul makes about the law, for he now speaks of obeying God’s commandments without including circumcision among them![7]

The Developmental View

Several other scholars have also seen contradictions or tensions in Paul’s statements on the law, but they can be distinguished from the previous position because the contradictions are not discernible in the same letter. Rather, the contradictions or tensions are detected between various letters, and thus a theory of development for the Pauline understanding of law is suggested. Those who espouse such a position invariably see the mature Pauline statement in Romans.[8] Appealing to the development of Paul’s thought on the law is not an acceptable solution for at least three reasons.[9]

1. A suitable period for significant evolution in Paul’s thinking about the law is lacking, this is even the case if one subscribes to an early date for Galatians,[10] but it is especially the case if Galatians was written later.[11] One should not forget that Paul had been involved in missionary work a number of years before any of his letters were written, and thus he had probably already hammered out the essence of his theology. 2. Räisänen is correct in pointing out that the developmental view does not really solve the problem, for problematical statements on the law are found within the same letters.[12] 3. Finally, while there are noticeable differences between, say, Galatians and Romans, these should not be ascribed to a development in Paul. The varied nature of the response is explicable on the basis of the specific occasion which Paul was addressing. Paul’s statements on the law in Galatians are more negative than in Romans because of the Judaizing opposition which was such a severe threat to the Galatian churches.[13]

A Critique of Legalism

Others claim that Paul’s negative statements on the law refer to his critique of legalism, while the law as it expresses the will of God is still binding and authoritative.[14] This interpretation has received its major impetus from the magisterial commentary on Romans by C.E.B. Cranfield.[15] Despite the reservations of some scholars, it is probable that Paul does wage a polemic against legalism in Galatians and Romans.[16] Nevertheless, to limit Paul’s critique of the law to legalism is not a comprehensive answer, even though legalism was a major problem that Paul faced.[17] A brief analysis of Gal. 3.15ff. Indicates that Paul believed, in some sense, in the abolition of the Mosaic law. This does not imply that the Mosaic law was inherently legalistic, even though the Judaizers were distorting it and using it in a legalism way. Paul’s point is that God intended the Mosaic covenant to be in force for only a certain period of salvation history.

The chronological argument that Paul uses in Gal. 3.15ff: where he demonstrates the priority of the Abrahamic covenant over the Mosaic covenant, proves that he is not exclusively referring to legalism. He is also referring to the Sinai covenant. It was not legalism which was handed down on Mount Sinai, but the Mosaic law. Paul is employing a salvation-historical argument in Galatians 3 which indicates the priority of the Abrahamic covenant over the Mosaic covenant. Now that Messiah has arrived the Mosaic covenant is no longer in force (3.19). The temporal argument is underlined in 3.23-25. We were guarded under the law until faith came “pro tou de elqein thn pistin upo nomon ejrouroumeqa” (“before faith came, we were held in custody under the law,” v. 23)

The faith Paul has in view must be specific faith in Jesus as Messiah. Abraham, after all, had faith in God during the OT era (Gal. 3.6fi, and so, presumably, did many others. What Paul is referring to here is the faith which was revealed later in salvation history “eiV thn mellousan pistin apokalujqhnai” (“to the faith which is about to be revealed,” v. 23), i.e. faith in Jesus as the Christ. The parallel between w. 24 and 25 demonstrates that Paul had this particular faith in Christ in mind, for he clearly uses the word faith “thn pistewV” in v. 25 as a synonym for “Criston” (Christ)in vs. 24. Verse 24 says that the law functioned as our “paidagwgoV...eiV Criston” (pedagogue until Christ). The preposition “eiV” should be translated temporally (“until”) since the parallel statement in v. 25 employs the temporal idea of no longer “ouketi” being under the child attendant. What Paul says here about the “paidagwgoV” clearly applies to the Mosaic law. Now that Christ has come believers are no longer under the law. Obviously, the Judaizers were still living under the Mosaic law. Thus, Paul’s point is not that it is impossible to live under the Mosaic law, for that is precisely what the Judaizers were doing. His point is a salvation-historical one. Now that the new era has arrived in Christ one shouldnot live under the Mosaic law.

The Abolition of Torah

Some scholars who stress the abolition of Torah in Paul contend that the positive statements on fulfilling Torah in Paul do not indicate that external commandments are still binding for the Christians.[18] They emphasize instead that the believer naturally fulfills God’s will by the power of the Spirit, and that “law” is for Paul counterproductive to authentic Christian experience. Probably the best defense of this view is found in an article by S. Westerholm, who presents the following arguments:[19]

1. When Paul says Christians are not under law (Rom. 6.14; 1 Cor. 9.20, etc.), he means that Christians are not under any obligation or constraint to do or observe what the law commands. 2. That Paul thought the law did not have to be obeyed is clear from his attitude toward food laws (Rom. 14.14, 20; cf. Leviticus 11; Deut. 14.3-21), and his stance toward observing festival days and the Sabbath (Rom. 14.5; Gal. 4.10). 3. Even though the phrase “everything is lawful“ in 1 Cor. 6.12 and 10.23 is not a full description of Pauline ethics, Paul’s qualifying explanation shows that he avoids speaking of any obligation upon the Christian to do what the law demands. 4. The Christian cannot concretely discover God’s will in the law, but must discover it by giving himself to God (Rom. 12.1-2; Phil. 1.9f.), by testing what is excellent, and by the renewal of the mind. 5. Paul does speak of fulfilling the law, but the point here is not that one is bound to fulfill the concrete demands of the law; rather, such obedience is the natural result of life in the Spirit. Furthermore, Paul usually distinguishes between “doing” the law and “fulfilling” it; the latter more indirect way of expressing obedience is preferable for Paul.

Although Westerholm rightly stresses the role of the Spirit, and the importance of the believer’s testing and proving the will of God, he wrongly downplays the place of external commandments in Pauline ethics. l. Both W. Schrage and T.J. Deidun have demonstrated conclusively that concrete external commandments are still binding for Paul,[20] for the Pauline parenesis shows that he is not content with simply saying that God wants a person to be committed fully to him. Instead, Paul demands that this obedience be expressed concretely.
The Spirit and the Word work in harmony for Paul (Gal. 3.2; Rom.10.16-17).39 In 1 Cor. 6.18-19 Paul commands the Corinthians to flee “inappropriate contenteia” but in the same context he speaks of the presence of the Spirit.

Thus, Westerholm’s generalizing conclusions on Pauline ethics are unconvincing. But are his particular statements on the relationship of the Mosaic law to ethics more accurate? Although this issue is more difficult, his arguments are not conclusive here either. l. What Paul means when he says Christians are not under law (1 Cor. 9.21; Rom. 6.14; Gal. 3.23; cf. 3.25; 4.3-5) will be explained shortly, but he does not mean that all OT commands are unbinding and matters of adiaphora. The commandments cited from the Decalogue in Rom 13.9 illustrate that these commandments are still externally binding for the Christian. To be sure, they cannot be fulfilled apart from love, but love cannot be manifested apart from the commandments either (cf. Gal. 5.14), i.e. no one can claim to be practicing love and be involved in adultery at the same time. In 1 Cor. 14.34 Paul supports his restriction on the women at Corinth by appealing to the OT.[21]

Westerholm rightly cites texts which show that Paul was indifferent about some OT laws (cf. Rom.14.14, 20; Gal. 4.9-10), and concludes that the OT law is not authoritative for Paul. Nevertheless, all his citations prove is that some of the OT law was not binding for Paul. The phrase “panta moi exestin” (“all things are lawful for me”) in 1 Cor. 6.12 and 10.23 seems to indicate that Paul’s stance toward the law was lax, but the precise phrase is probably a citation of the opponents’ argument.41 What is more pertinent, moreover, is the context of that statement. Paul is not baldly agreeing that “all things are lawful”; rather, he is speaking of adiaphora.[22] Paul certainly does not think that “all things are lawful” because in this very context he forbids “inappropriate contenteia” (“sexual immorality”). 4. Westerholm’s distinction between “doing” and “fulfilling” the law is tenuous. If Paul is speaking of Christian obedience in Rom. 2.25-29,43 then he uses the verbs “prassein”(“to do”),“julassein” (“to guard”), and “telein” (“to keep”) to describe that obedience. 5. Lastly, while the claim that believers naturally fulfill the claims of the law by the Spirit has an element of truth, it is not sufficiently nuanced. For if Paul thought that believers would naturally obey the entire law by the Spirit, then why did he give any commands at all? Paul must have believed that concrete parenesis, and yes even binding and obligatory statements (1 Cor. 7.l0ff ) were necessary for Christians. And that they were even necessary for Christians who were progressing well in the faith is indicated by 1 Thess. 4.1-8. Thus one should not conclude that parenesis is only intended for weaker Christians.

Liberation From the Law

But if the Sinai covenant has been abolished, as was argued above contra Cranfield, then how can the above criticisms of Westerholm stand? Here it is crucial to make a very important distinction. When Paul says that Christians are no longer under law (Gal. 3.23-25; 4.4S, 21;1 Cor. 9.20; Rom.6.14-15), that they are released from the law through the death of Christ (Rom. 7.1-6), that the law was an interim period in salvation history (Gal. 3.15ff ), that the Mosaic “diakonia” is impermanent and has come to an end (2 Cor. 3.7ff; cf. Rom.10.4) he means that the Mosaic law in terms of the Mosaic covenant has ceased.[23] The Mosaic covenant was intended by God to be in force for a certain period of salvation history (Gal. 3.15ff; 2 Cor. 3.7ff ), but it was always subsidiary to the covenant with Abraham, for the promise to bless all people would only become a reality through the promise to Abraham and the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3.8, 16; cf. Gen. 12.3; 18.18-19; 22.18; 26.4; 28.14).

What does it mean, though, to say that the Mosaic covenantis abolished, and yet the ethical commands from the same law are binding? The insights of the “new perspective” on Paul[24] should be included at this point. It has already been noted that Paul contended that Gentile Christians did not have to obey the entire OT law, but what is remarkable is that the laws which Paul specifically excludes, as Sanders and Dunn have pointed out, focus on circumcision (Gal. 2.3ff.; 5.2ff.; 6.15; 1 Cor. 7.19; Rom. 2.25-29; 4.9-12; Phil. 3.3), food laws (Gal. 2.llff.; Romans 14-15; 1 Corinthians 8-10), and the observance of certain days (Gal. 4.10; Rom. 14.5f.; cf. Col. 2.16f.).[25] Now it is precisely these practices that separated Jews from Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world. It is well known that these particular practices were the object of scorn and curiosity in the Greco-Roman world, and that they distinguished the Jews from the Gentiles.[26] For Paul the Mosaic covenant was of such a character that it separated Jews and Gentiles. The promise to bless all nations which was contained in the OT was to be fulfilled in and through the Abrahamic covenant, not through the Mosaic covenant. Of course, for Paul this did not mean that the Mosaic covenant was evil; instead, the Mosaic covenant had only a temporary role in salvation history.

To sum up: Paul spoke against particular ritual practices in the Mosaic covenant which separated the Jews from the Gentiles because it was these practices which uniquely characterized that covenant, and uniquely characterized the Jews.[27] Now that Christ the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3.16) had arrived and had taken upon himself the curse of the law (Gal. 3.13) the Mosaic covenant was no longer in force for those who had believed in Christ. The new era had dawned, and the blessings of the new age were now available to all nations.

But if the above explanation is correct, then why does Paul speak of the condemnation of the law,
of sin being provoked by the law, of sin increasing because of the law, and of the believer dying to the law through the death of Christ (Gal. 2.15ff; 3.10-13,19, 22; Rom. 5.20; 7.1-25; 1 Cor. 15.56; 2 Cor. 3.7ff? These texts seem to imply that the dissolution of the law is necessary because through the law sin is provided with a bridgehead and even increases in its power. This would also suggest that the problem with the Mosaic law was not only cultural and ethnic, i.e. that it created a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but the law also had an intrinsic problem, namely that because of sin it ended up producing more unrighteousness.

Therefore, one could infer, as Westerholm seems to, that the law as a whole must be abolished in order to counter sin. Furthermore, Paul’s statement about the law producing transgressions in Gal. 3.19 must refer to more than just transgressions in the ritual sphere, but it must also include transgressions in the moral sphere as well (cf. Rom. 5.20; 7.7ff ). And this would suggest that it is improper to limit the dissolution of the Mosaic covenant to the particular ritual practices which distinguish Jews from Gentiles.

It would seem to prove that the whole law is abolished now that Christ has come (see Gal. 3.1525; 4.1-7), not just the ritual aspect of the Mosaic law. The above objections can be satisfactorily answered. Doubtless Paul sees a close relationship between the law and sin, but he never sees a problem with the law per se (Rom 7.12, 14; Gal. 3.21). The problem is with the flesh or with sin which use the law to produce sin (Rom. 7.8,11,14,17-18, 24). Thus, when Paul speaks of release from the law (Rom. 7.6) he is not implying that all external law is counterproductive for Christians. The point is that the person in the flesh cannot obey the law of God (Rom. 7.14-25; 8.5-8). The problem is not with the law, but with sin and the flesh. So the necessity of freedom from the law which Paul speaks of must be carefully explained. Believers need freedom from the law in this sense because they cannot obey it, because they are in slavery to sin. However, in the new age the power of the Spirit makes obedience to the law possible (Rom. 8.4). Thus, when Paul relates sin and the law to each other, he has the moral demands of the law in mind, and he does argue that the person who is in the flesh cannot obey the law and therefore is condemned (Gal. 3.10-13), but his solution is not to do away with all external commands. He asserts that Christians by the power of the Spirit can now fulfill what the law demands.[28]

Thus, Paul had at least two things in mind when he spoke of the dissolution of the Mosaic covenant. The nature of that covenant was such that it divided Jews from Gentiles, and thus the covenant was intrinsically nationalistic. With the arrival of Christ the time of particularism was over and now the universal blessing promised to Abraham was available for all nations. But Paul conjoins with this another thought, namely, the idea that those under the law are under a curse (Gal. 3.1x13), that to be under the law is to be under sin (Gal. 3.21-25; Rom. 6.1415; 7.1-6), and that the commandments of the law even provoke one to sin (Rom. 7.7ff.), and that the power of sin is found in the law (1 Cor. 15.56). Paul is still using a salvation-historical argument here, for in his mind obedience to the law was simply impossible for those who did not have the Spirit, who were dominated by the flesh (Rom. 8.5-8). But Paul strains to make it clear in Rom. 7.7ff. that he sees no intrinsic problem with the content of the law. The commandment is still from God; the problem is the lack of power to dowhat God has commanded.

Thus, Paul can speak of being liberated from the law in two senses. 1. It can signify liberation
from the Mosaic covenant which contains rites that are particularly Jewish and therefore leads to a separation between Jews and Gentiles. 2. It can also signify liberation from the power of sin which uses the law as a bridgehead. But now that the age of the Spirit has arrived and Christ has broken the power of sin by his death, the age of slavery to sin has ended. Paul does not carefully distinguish these two notions of liberation from the Mosaic law because they were inextricably intertwined in the era before the descent of the Spirit, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, and the death and resurrection of Christ. Before the new age arrived the Mosaic covenant erected barriers between Jews and Gentiles by requiring Gentiles to be circumcised, to observe certain days, and to keep the food laws. What I am suggesting, of course, is that there is a distinction in Paul’s mind between the ritual and moral law. The dissolution of the Mosaic covenant also implies the abolition of practices, such as circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws, which separated Jews from Gentiles. On the other hand, Paul still thinks that the universal moral norms contained in the Mosaic laws are authoritative for the church. Believer by faith in the power of the Sprit can obey the moral norms of the OT law. Thus, when Paul says believers are not under the law, he s not saying that they are liberated from all moral norms. Such a distinction between the moral and ritual law is still held by some scholars,[29] but it is rejected by most.

Continued...

[1] Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism (1711) 3.66.

[2] For a survey of recent research see D J. Moo, “Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years,” SJT 40 (1987): 287-307. O. Kuss (“Nomos bei Paulus,” MThZ 17 [1966]: 177-210) has a helpful summary of older literature on Paul and the law.

[3] H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr,1983; reprint, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). He sees inconsistencies in many other areas of the Pauline theology of the law as well. A J. M. Wedderburn (“Article Review: Paul and the Law,” SJT 38 [1985]: 613-22) thinks Räisänen’s case is convincing.

[4] J .D. G. Dunn, “Works of Law and the Curse of the Law,” NTS 31 (1985): 523-24; cf. here the comments of P. Stuhlmacher, “Paul’s Understanding of the Law in the Letter to the Romans,” SEA 80 (1985): 102-103.

[5] Räisänen Paul and the Law, 68.

[6] Ibid

[7] C. K Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 169; cf. G .D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 312-14.

[8] In Galatians, according to H. Hübner (Law in Paul’s Thought [ET: Edinburgh; T. & T. Clark, 1984], 148-49), Paul rejects the law totally, but in Romans he rejects only the misuse and abuse of the law. J. W. Drane perceives Paul’s view on the law in Galatians to be close to libertinism, while he veers dangerously close to legalism in 1 Corinthians. In 2 Corinthians, however, Paul is on the road to a balanced statement between these two extremes, and this balanced statement finds its definitive expression in Romans (Paul Libertine or Legalist? A Study of the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles [London: SPCK, 1975]). Cf. F. Hahn who maintains that for Paul the law only relates to Jews in Galatia, but in Romans Paul now sees the law relating to all, both Jews and Gentiles (“Das Gesetzesverständnis im Römer- und Galaterbrief,” [8]NW 67 [1976]: 59-60). Wilckens (“Entwicklung”) also sees Paul as coming to amore balanced position on the law from Galatians to Romans.

[9] For a critique of the notion of development in Pauline theology an older article by J. Lowe is still helpful (“An Examination of Attempts to Detect Developments in St. Paul’s Theology,” JTS 42 [1941]: 129-42). See also Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 7-10.

[10] So Drane, Paul, pp.140-43.

[11] So Hübner (Law in Paul’s Thought, 63) who, despite this, says there was at least a significant period of time between Galatians and Romans. See J. Hall, “Paul, the Lawyer on the Law,” Journal of Law and Religion 3 (1985): 370-76, for a critique of Hübner.

[12] Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 9.

[13] The identity of the adversaries in Galatia continues to be debated. For a recent treatment see B. H. Brinsmead, Galatians-Dialogical Response to Opponents (Chico: Scholars, 1982). That the opponents were Judaizers still seems most probable. So e.g. F. F. Bruce, “Galatian Problems 3: The ‘Other’ Gospel,” BJRL 53 (1970-71): 253-71.

[14] C. E. B. Cranfield, “St Paul and the Law,” SJT 17 (1964): 55, 60-66; idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-1979), 853, 857-61; C. F. D. Moule, “Obligation in the Ethic of Paul,” Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer, C .F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 391-93; C. H. Cosgrove, “The Mosaic Law Teaches Faith: A Study in Galatians 3,” WTJ 41 (1978-79): 146-64; D. P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 65-120, 199-204.

[15] Ibid

[16] R. H. Gundry (“Grace, Works and Staying Saved in Paul,” Bib 66 [1985]: 1-38) convincingly argues that legalism was a problem which Paul opposed.

[17] Cf. Räisänen (Paul and the Law, 42-50) and D. J. Moo (“’Law’, ‘Works of the Law’, and ‘Legalism in Paul,’” WTJ 45 [1983]: 85-88) for a critique of Cranfield’s thesis.

[18] S. R. Westerholm, “Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics,” NTS 30 (1984): 229-48; idem, “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1, 3-11),” ST 36 (1982): 79-95; idem, “Fulfilling the Whole Law,” 229-37; F. F. Bruce, “Paul and the Law of Moses,” BJRL 57 (1975): 259-79; Belleville, “Under Law,” 53-78, esp. 70-71.

[19] Westerholm, “Letter and Spirit,” see esp.): 242ff.

[20] Schrage, Einzelgebote; Deidun, New Covenant, esp. 188-217.

[21] The text is often suspected of being an interpolation (see the recent discussion by Fee, First Corinthians, 699ff), but contra Fee et al. the evidence for an interpolation is not impressive. Such a theory should only be embraced as a last resort. The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly favors the inclusion of the verses. Fee claims (p. 700) that no one would insert the text after v. 40 because all agree that the placement of the text is Logical here. But such a statement assumes what cannot, in fact, be proven. Some copyists may not have thought the text was logically placed, and they may not have understood it as well as Fee thinks they would have.

[22] Schrage, Einzelgebote, 57-58; Fee, First Corinthians, 252.

[23] Cf. Moo, “Works of the Law,” 88-89.

[24] To borrow J. D. G. Dunn’s term (“The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 [1983]: 95-122).

[25] Dunn, “New Perspective,” 107-10, 114-15; idem, “Works of Law,” 524ff.; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 100-03. Nevertheless, Dunn’s attempt to limit “works of law” to these identity markers is not successful. For a more convincing explanation see Moo, “Works of Law,” 90-99; cf. H. Räisänen’s (“Galatians 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism,” NTS 31 [1985]: 543-53) criticism of Dunn.

[26] M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. I, 1976, Vol. II, 1980) see sections 195, 258, 281, 301.

[27] On this point see K. Kertelge, “Gesetz und Freiheit im Galaterbrief,” NTS 30 (1984): 391; N. T. Wright, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” TynB 29 (1978): 61-78; M. Barth, Ephesians (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 290-91; C. Haufe, “Die Stellung des Paulus zunm Gesetz,” TLZ 91 (1966), 173.

[28] For the view that significant ethical righteousness is now possible in Christ see B. J. Byrne, “Living out the Righteousness of God: The Contribution of Rom. 6.1-8.13 to an Understanding of Paul’s Ethical Presuppositions,” CBQ 43 (1981): 557-81; A. van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus (SBM, 5; Stuttgart; Kathohsches Bibelwerk, 1968), 140-52, 158-68, 185-204.

[29] G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 510; Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” 49-52, 66; Gundry, “Grace,” 7; C. F. D. Moule, “Obligation,” 397; D .P. Fuller, “Paul and the Works of the Law,” WTJ 38 (1975): 38-39; Haufe, “Paulus zum Gesetz,” 171-78; J. Hempel, “On the Problem of the Law in the Old and New Testaments,” ATR 34 (1952): 229-31. For the view that such a distinction was implicit in the teaching of Jesus see K. Berger, Die Gesetzauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament (Teil I: Markus und Parallelen) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1972)pp.171ff.; R. H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus Teachings (Philadelphia: Westminster,1978), 102-104; D. Wenham, “Jesus and the Law: An Exegesis of Matthew 5.17-20,” Themelios 4 (1979): 5.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Last one, again, from 8 years ago:

The Law and the Christian Pt. 8
A Defense of the Moral Ritual Distinction in Paul

That Paul made a distinction between the moral and ritual law seems to be indicated by Rom. 13.8-10. Paul clearly did not require circumcision (2.25-29; 4.9-12), the observance of certain days (14.5f.), or the observance of food laws (14.1-23) in Romans. But he does call believers to fulfill the law through love (13.8-10; cf. Gal. 5.14). Love, furthermore, cannot be separated from the specific commandments which Paul cites from the Decalogue in 13.9, namely, the prohibitions against adultery, murder, stealing, and coveting.[1] It is easy to see that these commandments are in a different category from circumcision, food laws, and the observance of days. The commandments cited here refer to matters which would be acknowledged universally as moral norms. It is not the case that Paul thinks these demands are normative only because they are loving; rather, there is a mutual and dialectical relationship between love and the demands cited here. No one can claim to be loving end yet at the same time be guilty of murder, adultery, stealing, and coveting. But these external commands are necessary so that one can measure, at least to some extent, what love is. Love without specific and concrete moral explication easily becomes a plastic notion which is molded in the way each person desires. Adherence to these commands is not a sufficient indication that one is living in love, but no one can claim to be living in love and at the same time transgress these commandments. Thus, love of necessity involves the observance of these commandments, but these commandments are not a comprehensive description of what love is.[2] One can do very noble things, after all, and love may be lacking (1 Cor. 13.1-3).[3]

Rom. 8:4 speaks of fulfilling the “dikaiwma” (ordinance) of the law, and here Paul stresses that this is possible by the power of the Spirit. Käsemann argues, on the other hand, that Paul is not speaking of the fulfillment of the Torah in the new age, although Paul’s citation from tradition has wrongly given many interpreters this impression. Instead, according to Käsemann, Christology is the focus of the passage, and it is the objective work of the Spirit and the cross which is predominant in this text.[4] The most straightforward reading of the text, however, suggests otherwise. The cross-work of Christ and the gift of the Spirit enable the believer to fulfill the “legal claim” of the laws Käsemann rightly sees that Paul is referring to the objective work on the cross here, but this objective work of Christ is linked directly to concrete obedience to the requirement of the law. Paul’s point in this passage is that those in the Spirit manifest the work of the Spirit in their lives. As 8.13 says, “they put to death the practices of the body by the Spirit.”

Thus, when Paul speaks of fulfilling the “dikaiwma” of the law in Rom. 8.4, he is referring to the fulfillment of the moral norms contained in the Mosaic law It was the inability to fulfill these moral norms which produced frustration and despair (so Rom.7.14-25). The singular “dikaiwma” in 8:4 shows that Paul is thinking of the moral norms of the law as a unity, and the context indicates that the moral norms of the law are fulfilled by the power of the Spirit, not by human effort.[5] Paul’s use of “dikaiwma” elsewhere in Romans confirms our interpretation.[6] In Rom.1.32 Paul says Gentiles know the , i.e. they know what God requires, but they delight in evil anyway. The “dikaiwma tou qeou” (“the ordinance of God”) which the Gentiles have knowledge of cannot refer to the ritual law of the OT, for Gentiles were not universally aware of the ritual requirements contained in the OT law. The preceding verses indicate that the ordinance of God which Paul refers to here concerns moral norms which the Gentiles disobeyed.

In addition, Paul says in Rom. 2.26 that the Gentiles keep “ta dikaiwmata tou nomou” “the ordinances of God”. The use of the plural of dikaiwma (“ordinance”) does not suggest the fulfillment of a different law from that described in Rom. 8.4, for as we have already pointed out the singular in 8.4 is used to show that the moral norms of the law could be fulfilled as a unity by the power of the Spirit. The singular is not used in 8.4 in order to deny the plurality of God’s commandments. The plural of dikaiwma is used in 2.26 to itemize various commandments of the law which are fulfilled by Gentiles.

What is especially pertinent is that the fulfillment of the law Paul has in mind can only refer to a fulfillment of the moral norms located in the OT law, for he specifically ascribes this keeping of the law to the uncircumcisedGentile (Rom. 2.26-27). Obviously, then, the obedience to the law described here does not include the ritual law. Paul has limited obedience of the law here to the moral norms which are contained in that law.

This interpretation is strengthened by the context of Romans 2. Paul charges the Jews with specific violations of the law in 2.21-22, namely, stealing, adultery, and robbing temples. All of these sins relate to a violation of the moral law. Jews who possess the covenant sign of circumcision (2.25) and who possess the Torah (2.17-20), but who do not practice “prasshV” the law (2.25) are contrasted with Gentiles who keep the law, even though they are not circumcised (2.26-27).

But if the Jews are circumcised, then what does Paul mean when he speaks of the necessity of their practicing the rest of the law in 2.25? Clearly, he means that Jews who are circumcised but fail to observe the moral norms of the law are condemned (2.25-29). Gentiles, on the other hand, who do not possess the ritual law, but who obey the moral law are justified.

It is not possible to examine all the issues which arise in such an interpretation of Rom. 2.25-29 here, although this has been examined briefly in another article.[7] Nevertheless, a few comments are necessary here. There is no evidence that Paul is speaking hypothetically of Gentile obedience here, nor is it probable that he is referring to Gentiles who are justified apart from Christ.[8] Instead, Paul is speaking of Gentile Christians in this passage. The Gentile who is truly circumcised and who is truly a Jew (2.28-29) has been transformed by the Spirit of God. Thus the “gramma-pneuma” antithesis in 2.29 indicates a contrast between the old and new aeon.[9]

Despite the above, few scholars today believe that there is a moral-ritual distinction in Paul’s view of the law. Three male objections are usually raised to such a distinction. 1. There is no evidence for such a distinction in Paul, and Paul would have made such a distinction explicit. Indeed, Paul’s failure to cite the moral norms of the law in an authoritative manner proves that none of the law was binding for him.[10] 2. There is no evidence in Judaism for such divisions in the law.[11] 3. Such a distinction would inevitably produce a complex casuistry of trying to distinguish between moral and ritual law.[12]

This first objection, that Paul does not use the law to establish binding moral norms, is developed in depth in an article by A. Lindemann.[13] Lindemann focuses upon 1 Corinthians, contending that Paul does not base his ethic upon Torah commands. For example, in 5.1-13 peal rebukes the Corinthians for their response to the incestuous relationship, but he fails to ground his advice on the OT law. So too in 6.1-11 and 6.12-20 Paul opposes litigation and “inappropriate contenteia”, and yet he fails to use the Torah to support his case, and even renounces the Jewish model of litigation in 6.1-11. Paul’s exaltation of singleness and his stance against divorce counter Gen. 2.18 and Deut. 24.1ff respectively.

Furthermore, Jewish tradition viewed marriage as an obligation. The permission to eat food offered to idols in chapters. 8-10 violates the OT law with respect to eating unclean foods. Paul does not base his view on women’s adornment in 11.2-16 on the OT, but his argument is based on what is fitting, which is a Stoic viewpoint, not one from the OT law. 14.33b-36 can probably be dismissed as a later interpolation.

Lindemann builds an effective case against the conception that Torah is normative for Paul. Nevertheless, his analysis is not ultimately compelling. Many of Lindemann’s arguments are arguments from silence-for example, since Paul does not base his view on the OT law, it cannot have been a moral norm for him. Such an interpretation would only be successful if it could be demonstrated that Paul never uses the OT law as a moral norm.

In addition, the specific arguments Lindemann presents from 1 Corinthians do not prove his thesis. That Paul does not cite an OT law against incest in 1 Corinthians 5 is hardly surprising since he assumes that the Corinthians will agree with him on this point, and even Gentiles hold the same opinion (5.1). Paul’s failure to abide by the Jewish model in litigation and the Jewish expectation regarding marriage is irrelevant unless one wants to argue that Paul equated Jewish tradition with the OT law. Gen. 2.18 does not demandmarriage of all, and Paul is aware that not all are destined or gifted for singleness (1 Cor. 7.6-7). Moreover, Paul does not contradict Deut. 24.1ff in his words on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7, for the former passage does not demand divorce; instead, it permits it and regulates it when it occurs.[14] The failure to adhere to the food laws in 1 Corinthians 8-10 is not surprising, for these are clearly part of the ritual law.

That Paul does not cite the OT when he forbids “inappropriate contenteia” (“sexual immorality”) in 1 Cor. 6.12-20 is instructive, but it would only support Lindemann’s thesis if Paul never cites Torah as authoritative. Even in 1 Corinthians this is not the case. For example, Paul forbids idolatry in 1Cor. 10.1-13 with a clear reference to the OT.

Lindemann thinks that Paul’s rejection of idolatry is presupposed and his real ground for his rejection of idolatry comes in 10.21, namely from participation with Christ.[15] But why does Paul presuppose idolatry is wrong? He thinks idolatry is wrong because it is forbidden in no uncertain terms in the OT law. And it is illegitimate to say that since Paul argues from a relationship with Christ in 10.21 that any argument from the OT is therefore irrelevant. Paul uses both arguments to support his case. In addition, Paul explicitly cites the OT law to buttress his admonition in 1 Cor. 14.34, showing he did use the OT law in ethical decisions. It should also be said that Lindemann’s analysis rightly shows that the moral norms of the O.T. law were not the most crucial element of Paul’s ethical view. What was more important was the affections, i.e. the motives of the heart which manifested themselves in concrete actions (Gal. 5.14; Rom. 13.8-10). Paul’s focus upon the inward motive explains why he highlights and gives pre-eminence to love.

Conclusion

The only “law” that existed prior to the giving of the Decalogue at Mt, Sinai, was the commandment by God to Abraham to circumcise the male sons. The giving of the Decalogue at Mt. Sinai, marks a moment in time. For it was here that God gave His revealed will for the Hebrews. The Apostle Paul was the biggest advocates of N.T, times that the Gentiles were not under the Law. Even the first Apostolic Council agreed to the extent that only a few of the items included in the “Law” even applied to Gentiles.

Lets get this straight, the “Law” does serve a purpose, even today. It is God’s revealed will. And Paul states that it was put into place to identify what was and wasn’t sin. And for a time, it was used as a way to establish man’s standing before God by his relationship to the Law. And even Paul made the boast that one could achieve blamelessness as concerned the Law. (cf. Phil. 3:6)

The demands of the Law were strict. There was no allowances for half-hearted tries. There was no “Red-ribbon” for giving it your best shot and failing. That is why Jesus was needed. All the demands of the Law, all that it demanded of man, we could not fulfill. The harder they tried, the more they fell because they became aware that the Law increased sin.

That is why when Paul said: “teloV gar nomou CristoV” (Christ is the end of the law) as far as the Law and establishing a right standing before God, the Law has come to an end. No longer can man plea to God “Look how well I’ve kept the commandments and the Law.” The Law has been disposed from it place as mediator between God and man, and Christ has rightfully taken its place.

Borrowing from Paul’s great defense against “legalism” we need to remember three things from the book of Galatians:

First, Paul answers that the law was added to identify sin as transgression against God. In doing so, the law did more than just identify sin, it condemned those who did these acts. And while the world was under the power of sin, the Jews were imprisoned and guarded by the law (3:22). The law was meant to guard Israel until the arrival of Christ.

Second, Paul is desperately trying to sway the minds of the Gentiles in the Galatian church. When the law was in effect, not only were the Jews guarded, but the Gentiles were excluded from the promises of God. The Jews had so hoarded the promise of God by living it in a legalistic manner, that Gentiles were looked at with contempt and considered slaves like Ishmael. To return to the law willingly would place the Gentiles in the position that the Jews were once in, to be condemned by the law, and to find themselves excluded by the very nature of the law. Being in Christ means freedom from the condemnation the law naturally brings. Paul yearned for the Galatians to remain in the freedom of Christ and removed from the restraint of the law that had formerly enslaved them as Gentiles.

Lastly, according to Paul then, the law was neither positive nor negative; it was merely a necessity. More importantly it was a necessity for only a limited time, a time that had come and gone. Since that time had been superseded with the arrival of Christ, to continue to live under the law would go back to the time before Christ. No longer would the Gentiles be free, but the law that had condemned the Jews for centuries would now condemn the Gentiles.


[1] Contra Furnish, Theology, 199-200; A. Lindemann, “Die biblischen Toragebote und die paulinische Ethik,” in Studien zum Text and our Ethik des Neuen Testaments (ed. W. Schrage; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986), 242-43, and 263, n. 108. H. Ridderbos (Paul, p. 282) goes to the other extreme when he says, “The law does not find its criterion in love, but just the reverse, the requirement of love is so imperative because in it lies the summary of the law.”

[2] Cranfield perceptively says (“St. Paul and the Law,” 67) that we “need the particular commandments into which the law breaks down the general obligation of love, to save us from the sentimentality and self-deception to which we all are prone.” (Cf. Schrage, Einzelgebote, 267-71). Deidun (New Covenant, 171) rightly says that love cannot be limited `to the fulfillment of calculated ethical demands.” He goes on to say, `But if love goes beyond calculable obligation, it does not go around.”

[3] The criterion of love is not a comprehensive explanation of Pauline ethics. Paul’s prohibitions on the basis of “nature”“jusiV” demonstrate this (Rom. 1.26-27; 1 Cor. 11.14). Natural law is not an infallible criterion for Paul, but it is a criterion he uses upon occasion. It is hardly evident how his prohibitions in Rom. 1.26-27 and 1 Cor. 11.14 are a violation of the law of love.

[4] Romans, 215-19; cf. also L. E. Keck, “The Law and ‘The Law of Sin and Death’ (Rom 8.1-4): Reflections on the Spirit and Ethics in Paul,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events Presented to Lou H. Silberman (ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel; New York: Ktav, 1980), 51-53.

[5] Note also the passive of “plhrwqh” (“is fulfilled”) in 8.4. For a filler discussion of the passage see Deidun, New Covenant, 72-75; Thompson, “Interpretation of Rom 8.4,” 33-40; Cranfield, Romans, 383-85.

[6] The use ofdikaiwmain Rom. 5.16, 18 is unusual and is commonly attributed to rhetorical considerations. So Keck, “The Law,” 52; Cranfield, Romans, 287 n. 2; Käsemann, Romans, 154.

[7] T. R Schreiner, `Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E. P. Sanders,” WTJ 47 (1985): 268-78.

[8] K. R Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace–To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 (1986): 72-93.

[9] On the letter-spirit contrast in Paul see B. Schneider, “Letter and Spirit,” CBQ 15 (1953): 163-207; E. Käsemann, “Letter and Spirit,” New Testament Questions of Today (ET: London: SCM, 1969), 260-85; P. Richardson, “Spirit and Letter: A Foundation for Hermeneutics,” EvQ 45 (1973): SOS-18; Westerholm, “Letter and Spirit,” 229-48; Provence, “Who is Sufficient,” 62

[10] Bruce, “Paul and the Law,” 266; van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes, 130ff. Moo, “Works of Law,” 84-85; D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 696.

[11] E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 1:360-65; M. Hengel, The Son of God (E: Philadelphia: Fortress,1976), 67-68, n. 123; M. S. Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1957), 85; Longenecker, Apostle of Liberty, 144-45; Guthrie, Theology, 696; Käsemann, Romans, 215; R. J. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 109.

[12] Cf. Sanders who says (Paul, the Law, 101) that distinguishing between moral and ceremonial law in the case of idolatry would be extremely difficult.

[13] Lindemann, “Toragebote,” 242-65.

[14] So P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 304-305; W. A. Heth and G J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce: The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 106-10.

[15] Lindemann, “Die Toragebote,” 256.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It's very telling what the apostasy is in your post.

Care to share your insights?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Last one, again, from 8 years ago: The Law and the Christian Pt. 8 A Defense of the Moral Ritual Distinction in Paul

Hi DD, now that you have that off your chest where in God's WORD does it say God's 10 Commandments have been ABOLISHED and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day?

 

[Bob S]

Hi DD, now that you have that off your chest where in God's WORD does it say God's 10 Commandments have been ABOLISHED and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day?

2Cor3:7-11 (and transient doesn't mean transfer) No one is saying someone or somewhere we are commanded to keep Sunday. That is just another SDA strawman dumb argument and is really worn out. You didn't even offer the $1,000.00 that they did when the dumb argument started.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

2Cor3:7-11 (and transient doesn't mean transfer) No one is saying someone or somewhere we are commanded to keep Sunday. That is just another SDA strawman dumb argument and is really worn out. You didn't even offer the $1,000.00 that they did when the dumb argument started.

Now your just making stuff up Bob. There is no strawman it is an important question to consider as those who practice SIN will not enter into God's KINGDOM.

Where does it say in God's WORD that God's 4th Commandment has now been ABOLISHED and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a HOLY DAY?

If you cannot find the scripture then it should be a warning to you because SIN is breaking God's Commandments. Those who CONTINUE in KNOWN UNREPENTANT SIN will not enter the KINGDOM of HEAVEN.

 

[DeaconDean]

Hi DD, now that you have that off your chest where in God's WORD does it say God's 10 Commandments have been ABOLISHED and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day?

The point; hum...

I have taken the time to study through God's word and see for myself what it teaches about the "Law?Torah".

SO for your sake, I'll repeat myself since apparently, you don't read.

"Lets get this straight, the “Law” does serve a purpose, even today. It is God’s revealed will. And Paul states that it was put into place to identify what was and wasn’t sin. And for a time, it was used as a way to establish man’s standing before God by his relationship to the Law. And even Paul made the boast that one could achieve blamelessness as concerned the Law. (cf. Phil. 3:6)

The demands of the Law were strict. There was no allowances for half-hearted tries. There was no “Red-ribbon” for giving it your best shot and failing. That is why Jesus was needed. All the demands of the Law, all that it demanded of man, we could not fulfill. The harder they tried, the more they fell because they became aware that the Law increased sin.

That is why when Paul said: “teloV gar nomou CristoV” (Christ is the end of the law) as far as the Law and establishing a right standing before God, the Law has come to an end. No longer can man plea to God “Look how well I’ve kept the commandments and the Law.” The Law has been disposed from it place as mediator between God and man, and Christ has rightfully taken its place.

Borrowing from Paul’s great defense against “legalism” we need to remember three things from the book of Galatians:

First, Paul answers that the law was added to identify sin as transgression against God. In doing so, the law did more than just identify sin, it condemned those who did these acts. And while the world was under the power of sin, the Jews were imprisoned and guarded by the law (3:22). The law was meant to guard Israel until the arrival of Christ.

Second, Paul is desperately trying to sway the minds of the Gentiles in the Galatian church. When the law was in effect, not only were the Jews guarded, but the Gentiles were excluded from the promises of God. The Jews had so hoarded the promise of God by living it in a legalistic manner, that Gentiles were looked at with contempt and considered slaves like Ishmael. To return to the law willingly would place the Gentiles in the position that the Jews were once in, to be condemned by the law, and to find themselves excluded by the very nature of the law. Being in Christ means freedom from the condemnation the law naturally brings. Paul yearned for the Galatians to remain in the freedom of Christ and removed from the restraint of the law that had formerly enslaved them as Gentiles.

Lastly, according to Paul then, the law was neither positive nor negative; it was merely a necessity. More importantly it was a necessity for only a limited time, a time that had come and gone. Since that time had been superseded with the arrival of Christ, to continue to live under the law would go back to the time before Christ. No longer would the Gentiles be free, but the law that had condemned the Jews for centuries would now condemn the Gentiles."

When I get to heaven, and stand before the Creator, what is going to look at?

How well I've kept the 4th commandment? (or any of the other 612 "laws")

Or, will He see Christ in me?

And therein lies the difference between you and I.

I do sincerely hope that you are "credited" as to how well you have kept the Sabbath.

I will rely on God's great infinite grace.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Now your just making stuff up Bob. There is no strawman it is an important question to consider as those who practice SIN will not enter into God's KINGDOM.

Where does it say in God's WORD that God's 4th Commandment has now been ABOLISHED and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a HOLY DAY?

If you cannot find the scripture then it should be a warning to you because SIN is breaking God's Commandments. Those who CONTINUE in KNOWN UNREPENTANT SIN will not enter the KINGDOM of HEAVEN.

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." -Jn. 8:7 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[1stcenturylady]

NEW TESTAMENT APPLICATION FOR LAW "ENTOLE"

Now according to the post above you say the GREEK word used in 1 John 3:23 is ENTOLE and because it's a different word to NOMOS then it does not mean God's LAW (10 Commandments) right?

Now let's see if this idea is correct or not according to God's WORD and the application of ENTOLE is only in reference to Christs command of love....

Matthew 22
36, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37, Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38, This is the first and great commandment.
39, And the second is like to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40, ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

Jesus is actually quoting from the OLD Testament scriptures from Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 here. Jesus is saying here that GOD'S LAW and LOVE are not separated.

Now let's look at other scriptures in the NEW Testament GREEK that use the same word ENTOLE...

Matt. 15.3-6
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment (entole) of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother (application God's 10 Commandments): . . .
But you say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, he shall be free, honors not his father or his mother. Thus have ye made the commandment (entole) of God of none effect by your tradition.


Application of ENTOLE to the 10 Commandments....

Matt. 19.17-19
And he said unto him if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments (entole) He said unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


Mark 7.9-10
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment (entole) of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother;


Romans 7
8, But sin, taking occasion by the commandment (entole), worked out in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9, For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment (entole) came, sin revived, and I died.
10, And the commandment (entole), which was ordained to life, I found to be to death.
11, For sin, taking occasion by the commandment (entole), deceived me, and by it slew me.
12, Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment (entole) holy, and just, and good.
13, Was then that which is good made death to me? May it not be! But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment (entole) might become exceedingly sinful.

Romans 13:9 For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there is any other commandment (entole), it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments (entole) contained in ordinances; in order to make in himself of two one new man, so making peace;

Ephesians 6:2 Honor your father and mother; which is the first commandment (entole) with promise

Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept (entole) to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people.

2 Peter 2: 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandments (entole) delivered to them.

1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments (entole) .

Mark 12:29-30 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments (entole) is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (from Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18)


Before Jesus.......

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments (entole) and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

hmm seems that the Chief priests and the Pharasees can even use enole....

John 11:57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment (entole), that, if any man knew where he were, he should show it, that they might take him.

....................

GUYS SAVING THE BEST FORE LAST. HERE IS ONE JUST FOR YOU

Luke 23:56
. . . RESTED THE SABBATH DAY ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT. (Entole)

....................

The above is not exhastive but you should get the picture by now with everthing presented that your application of Scripture is not biblical. The GREEK word "ENTOLE" is also used to descibe God's 10 Commandments including the 4th commandment.

All those who CONTINUE in KNOWN UNREPENTANT SIN have no REST and will NOT enter into the KINGDOM of HEAVEN.

Hope this helps..


.

I looked them all up too, and do not find a difference. I didn't find nomos and would like the Strong's number and corresponding text.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The point; hum...

I have taken the time to study through God's word and see for myself what it teaches about the "Law?Torah".

SO for your sake, I'll repeat myself since apparently, you don't read.

"Lets get this straight, the “Law” does serve a purpose, even today. It is God’s revealed will. And Paul states that it was put into place to identify what was and wasn’t sin. And for a time, it was used as a way to establish man’s standing before God by his relationship to the Law. And even Paul made the boast that one could achieve blamelessness as concerned the Law. (cf. Phil. 3:6)

The demands of the Law were strict. There was no allowances for half-hearted tries. There was no “Red-ribbon” for giving it your best shot and failing. That is why Jesus was needed. All the demands of the Law, all that it demanded of man, we could not fulfill. The harder they tried, the more they fell because they became aware that the Law increased sin.

That is why when Paul said: “teloV gar nomou CristoV” (Christ is the end of the law) as far as the Law and establishing a right standing before God, the Law has come to an end. No longer can man plea to God “Look how well I’ve kept the commandments and the Law.” The Law has been disposed from it place as mediator between God and man, and Christ has rightfully taken its place.

Borrowing from Paul’s great defense against “legalism” we need to remember three things from the book of Galatians:

First, Paul answers that the law was added to identify sin as transgression against God. In doing so, the law did more than just identify sin, it condemned those who did these acts. And while the world was under the power of sin, the Jews were imprisoned and guarded by the law (3:22). The law was meant to guard Israel until the arrival of Christ.

Second, Paul is desperately trying to sway the minds of the Gentiles in the Galatian church. When the law was in effect, not only were the Jews guarded, but the Gentiles were excluded from the promises of God. The Jews had so hoarded the promise of God by living it in a legalistic manner, that Gentiles were looked at with contempt and considered slaves like Ishmael. To return to the law willingly would place the Gentiles in the position that the Jews were once in, to be condemned by the law, and to find themselves excluded by the very nature of the law. Being in Christ means freedom from the condemnation the law naturally brings. Paul yearned for the Galatians to remain in the freedom of Christ and removed from the restraint of the law that had formerly enslaved them as Gentiles.

Lastly, according to Paul then, the law was neither positive nor negative; it was merely a necessity. More importantly it was a necessity for only a limited time, a time that had come and gone. Since that time had been superseded with the arrival of Christ, to continue to live under the law would go back to the time before Christ. No longer would the Gentiles be free, but the law that had condemned the Jews for centuries would now condemn the Gentiles."

When I get to heaven, and stand before the Creator, what is going to look at?

How well I've kept the 4th commandment? (or any of the other 612 "laws")

Or, will He see Christ in me?

And therein lies the difference between you and I.

I do sincerely hope that you are "credited" as to how well you have kept the Sabbath.

I will rely on God's great infinite grace.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Hi DD, thanks for your response and your many posts.

I agree that God's LAW is the KNOWLEDGE of SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS (good and evil). You could have said that however with 2 scriptures (Romans 3:20; Psalm 119:172).

My question to you that you have still not answered was...

Where in God's WORD does it say God's 4th Commandment has now been abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a HOLY day?

With all your posting you have still not answered the question.

thanks

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I looked them all up too, and do not find a difference. I didn't find nomos and would like the Strong's number and corresponding text.

Hi 1stcenturylady

Yes these scriptures for commandments when referring to God's LAW all used the GREEK word 'ENTOLE' quoted from post # 539 linked showing that Danthemailmans post was not correct as his argument is that ETOLE does not mean God's 10 commandments.

The greek word for commandments is also used as you know the majority of times for God's LAW as 'NOMOS' most of the scriptures in the NEW TESTAMENT use 'NOMOS'.

The STRONGS # for NOMOS your looking for is 3551.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Hi 1stcenturylady

Yes these scriptures for commandments when referring to God's LAW all used the GREEK word 'ENTOLE' quoted from post # 539 linked showing that Danthemailmans post was not correct as his argument is that ETOLE does not mean God's 10 commandments.

The greek word for commandments is also used as you know the majority of times for God's LAW as 'NOMOS' most of the scriptures in the NEW TESTAMENT use 'NOMOS'.

The STRONGS # for NOMOS your looking for is 3551.

Great! Thanks!

 

[listed]

Not at all I have only shared scripture you provide your opinion over God's. I do not share my own words but God's WORD. Sharing God's WORD is not a violation of the TOS. Nothing you have provided in your post is biblical accept the scriptures you quote that do no prove your point.

What are the commandments of Jesus? Jesus takes possession of some commandments as His property. Jesus doesn't say keep My Father's commandments. Jesus does say He keep His Father's commandments. Now what commandments did Jesus actually keep? We know that Jesus is and was a natural born and circumcised Jew. Even you will say Jesus kept the ten commandments. Jesus did issue at least 1 new commandment. If you say that is merely a loose quote from the OT.

So please provide a quote and source at least 10 years old proving the text of John 13:34 is a doctored text from the original or concede. I will accept textual proof that Jesus is the Father which means Jesus is indeed laying claim He gave the ten commandments making Him guilty of sophistry actually lying.

 

[1stcenturylady]

What are the commandments of Jesus? Jesus takes possession of some commandments as His property. Jesus doesn't say keep My Father's commandments. Jesus does say He keep His Father's commandments. Now what commandments did Jesus actually keep? We know that Jesus is and was a natural born and circumcised Jew. Even you will say Jesus kept the ten commandments. Jesus did issue at least 1 new commandment. If you say that is merely a loose quote from the OT.

So please provide a quote and source at least 10 years old proving the text of John 13:34 is a doctored text from the original or concede. I will accept textual proof that Jesus is the Father which means Jesus is indeed laying claim He gave the ten commandments making Him guilty of sophistry actually lying.

..

 

[listed]

Oh listed proves his point very elegantly. It is your preconceived beliefs that will not allow you to see the Light in his posts. Ellen was a false prophet. Following her teachings only lead her followers down a wrong path. Too bad.

Thanks. He can't explain away the Gospel of John.

 

[listed]

..

Wise post.

 

[Bob S]

Hi DD, thanks for your response and your many posts.

I agree that God's LAW is the KNOWLEDGE of SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS (good and evil). You could have said that however with 2 scriptures (Romans 3:20; Psalm 119:172).

"however" no one is ever 100% correct, according to LGW. You have to correct everyone. Well, maybe I can, from scripture, correct both of you on who the schoolmaster law was for. (By the way LGW translates "God's law as the 10 commandments.) The King James version of Gal 3:1-6
3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

The Galatians never had the "schoolmaster law". They didn't receive the Spirit because they had the Schoolmaster law. They received it by hearing about faith just as Abraham never had the schoolmaster law, he too received the Spirit by faith. That established let us look further down in the chapter where Paul talks about the schoolmaster law.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

In the course of Paul's letter he is addressing those that were under the law including himself, the we in the letter. Since the Galatians never had the law the we could not have meant them. The Schoolmaster law was the Jews way of bringing only the Jews to their knees before Christ. As seen in the previous verses the Galatians received Jesus by hearing the good news by faith just as did Abraham. Jesus commands us to go into the World and spread the good news just as Paul and Barnabas did for the Galatians. If you will read in Gal 2:15 “You(Peter) and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. 16 Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”

Yes Gentiles were sinners (without the Sinai law) even though not like the Jews who were under the Sinai law. Both become right with God through faith in Jesus. Salvation has nothing to do with any law. The law was not given to Israel for salvation. It was given as a way of life for Israel and Israel.

My question for LGW is how did keeping Sabbath become a salvational commandment?

My question to you that you have still not answered was...

Where in God's WORD does it say God's 4th Commandment has now been abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a HOLY day?

2Cor3:7-11 and as everyone know there is no command to "keep" Sunday. That is a strawman argument and you should know it by now.

With all your posting you have still not answered the question.

Oh yes we have, you are programed not to believe God's Word on the subject.

 

[listed]

From a post 8 years ago:

The Law and the Christian Pt. 3
E. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Gospels

1.The Occurrence of the word “nomoV”

To understand materially the attitude of Jesus to the Law one has to take into account stories in which the word “nomoV” does not occur. Adolph von Harnack raises this question well and points out that:

“it is doubtful in many instances whether the term is part of the original saying or statement, e.g.: cf. Mt. 7:12 with Lk. 6:31.”[1]

In the few verses where “nomoV” is found, it is simple except in the case of Lk. 2:23. Rather than having the article, it is followed up as “nomoV kurioV”. (the law of the Lord) normally, “nomoV” means the Pentateuch. In the scriptures we find “o nomoV kai oi projhtai” (Mt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Lk. 16:16; 24:44(also yalmoi)). The twofold meaning signifies both the “Law” and the Pentateuch or scripture. Predominate is the sense of the Law as that which governs what we should and should not do.

In Mt. 22:36, when Jesus is asked: “poia entolh megalh en tw nmow” (which command (is) great in the Law) the meaning is not which is the greatest command in the Pentateuch, but what kind of commandment is important within the total context of the Law.[2]

Mt 5:17-18 presents an interesting contrast. In vs. 17, Jesus says: “iwta en h uia keraia ou mh parelqh apo tou nomou,” and in vs. 18 He says: “uia twn entolwn toutwn twn elacistwn.” Context here dictates that because the Law is mentioned alongside the prophets, the “nomoV” here is speaking of the whole of O.T. scriptures in particular those speaking of Him. And the “nomoV” of verse 18 is a reference to the Pentateuch because of the “iwta” and “keraia”. Heaven and earth shall not pass until the law down to the smallest point has been fulfilled. And again, in Mt. 12:5, based on the context, “nmow” here is an obvious reference to the Law, Pentateuch, I.e.: the Law of Moses.

2. Jesus’ Negation of the Law

The essential and basic negation of the Law in Jesus consists in the fact He disposes it from its position of mediation. In other words, what determines mans position to God is no longer the Law and mans relation to it. The decisive factor now is no longer the Law, it is now occupied by the Word of Jesus, even Jesus Himself. Man now finds his relation to God in his relation to Jesus. Several classic examples are found scattered thougout the Synoptics.

To illustrate this point, look at Mt. 21:28-32. A father has two sons, he says to one, go work in my vineyards. The son says no, but later repented and went. The second said yes and went not. Which of the two did the will of the father? According to the context here, what separates man from God is not transgression and negation of the Law. (21:28) In the latter part of verse 31, the reference here is not to the cleavage between word and act, but to the difference between actual refusal of the Law and the new event of conversion and doing the will of God. But that this hopeless situation can be remedied. This is seen in verse 31: “oi telwnai kai ai inappropriate contentai proagousin umaV eiV thn basileian tou qeou.” (tax-collectors and harlots go before you into the kingdom of God) The point being that tax-collectors and harlots would enter heaven because they would sooner come to repentance than those who would be justified by supposedly living according to the law which Jesus eventually accused them of “making a pretense.” (Mt. 23:14)

This is further illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. In the parable, one son leaves and one stays at home. The one who stayed obeyed his father, done all that was asked, but, he did not profit by staying home. By this we mean it is not in his relation to the Law, whether in a constant fulfillment which is not disputed or in flagrant transgression which is not condoned, that the righteous or the sinner find his definitive relation to God . If the sinner is received into pardoning fellowship with Jesus, he is at home in his fathers home. And this fact puts the man who is legally righteous the challenge whether he is building on his obedience to the commandments as hard-earned merit - this seems to be suggested by the grumbling when the prodigal returns - or whether he regards his perseverance in obedience as a joyous being at home in the fathers house. This leads us, however, that in both cases the Law is disposed from its position of mediation. The relation to the word and deed of Jesus now decides ones relation to God.

In essence, the same point is made in the sayings in Mt. 10:32. Confession or denial of Jesus decides the eternal destiny of man. Similarly, the parables collected in Mk. 2 are possible only if the Law no linger plays a decisive role between God and man, and conduct either in accordance with or opposition to the Law no longer justifies or condemns a man definitively before God.

“What Jesus did was grounded in the fact that He determined mans relation to God, not according to the Law, but in the power of His mission.”[3]

The blessing of the children in Mk. 10:13, the beatitudes in Mt. 5:3; and the saying in Mt. 11:28, all point in the same direction. Jesus pronounces these words precisely to those who are so burdened under the Law that they no longer have any “anapausiV” (rest). On the publican who falls down in repentance before God, and counts on God’s grace alone, the sentence is passed: “katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon” (this one went to his house having been justified rather than that one. Lk. 18:4), rather than on the man who can boast of his observance of the Law. (cf. also Lk. 17:7) The scribes and Pharisees close the kingdom of God (Mt. 23:13) because they will allow men to enter by fulfillment of the Law which they themselves administer.

So that we are left with this conclusion, Jesus then, bases the relation of men to God on their relation to Himself and the Lordship of God, which comes in Him. His specific invitation as the one who pardons is to sinners. This means that He firmly negates the righteousness of the Law. The Law is now forced out of its key position by the person of Jesus Himself.

3. Jesus’ Affirmation of the Law

In terms of this new position and its implied negation of the Law, however, Jesus also affirms the Law when rightly understood. Even though the Law is disposed as mediator, it is not a repudiation of the Law. We see this:

a. Jesus recognizes the Law when He acts as the One who forgives sins; and calls sinners and publicans to fellowship with Himself (Lk. 15). A plain judgment is pronounced; He is dealing wit the sick (Mk. 2:17), the lost, the victims of death (Lk. 15:3ff.; 24:32). Thus Jesus validates the Law by the judgment implied in His pardon.

b. Moreover, all incidents addressed show that Jesus is not seeking to overturn the Law when He will not make it the basis of the relation to God. (cf. Mt. 21:28 ff.)

c. Hence, it is not surprising that according to the Synoptic account Jesus Himself keeps the Law.

d. Jesus recognizes the Law to be God’s good will not only for Himself, but also for others, To the question of right conduct he gives the answer: “taV entolaV oidaV” (the commandments you know, Mk. 10:19) He does not accept as good any other will than the will of God revealed in the Law. Apart from this He does not champion any other goodness (Mk. 10:18; cf. also Lk. 10:25 ff.) The Law demands self-denying love for God and neighbor.

e. There is confirmation of the Law, but along with this there is criticism, and in reality this criticism only serves to confirm and establish in the Law, not destroy it. To explain this paradox, the first point is Jesus’ criticism is that the Law can serve to protect mans disobedience against the claim of God. By that, it is meant that the commandment “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (cf. Ex. 20:8f.) can be set aside. While it is agreed that the commandment are/were the revealed will of God, if your neighbor has a dire need, even though it may be the Sabbath, your under obligation to “love your neighbor.” That is the point Jesus is making in MT. 12:9-14. This is, however, no reduction of the Law to morality. It is a radicalizing of the Law by the question of concrete obedience in love for your neighbor.

The second point in Jesus’ criticism is linked with the first. He criticizes the Law in that it does not expose sin at the root by only condemning the act and not the heart which underlies the act. For reference, note the change in the command concerning adultery.

Finally, Jesus’ criticism of the Law is that the Law as it presupposes the sin of man as a factor which cannot be altered. In Mk. 10:5 we see: “proV thn oklhrokardian umwn egrayen umin thn entolhn tauthn.” (For the hardheartedness of you, he wrote this commandment.) With a relationship to Jesus and membership of the “basileia tou qeou” (kingdom of God), however, there is restored the order of creation which does not accept sin as a given factor.

4. The Interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the Law

This interrelation of Negation and Affirmation of the Law is seen in two points. First, it calls for full repentance, which acquires depth and concreteness from the Laws requirements. Secondly, it exhibits true obedience, the new righteousness. Both aspects are indissolubly bound up wit h the fact that Jesus bases the relation between God and man, not on fulfillment of the Law, but on the new act of God. Confrontation with God’s unconditional claim through the Law, together with recognition of condemnation by the newly understood Law on the one side, and liberation from the mediation of the Law on the other, mutually promote and control one another. Only when he renounces his own achievement and receives forgiveness is man truly able to offer the obedience of love. At the same time the question God’s new act on man and the world is contained in the radical establishment of the demand and its judgment.

III. The Conflict Concerning the Law

a. A brief introduction

A great cause of confusion today concerns the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believer’s life. While this short study cannot begin to cover all the issues involved, it is my hope that it will shed some light and remove some of the confusion.

One of the profound emphases of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul, is that Christians are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. This truth is stated in no uncertain terms and in various ways (see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18), but in spite of this, there have always been those who insist that the Mosaic Law, at least the Ten Commandments, are still in force for the Christian. In regard to the relation of Christian ethics to the Mosaic Law, Luck writes:

“There are Christian teachers of repute who consider the Mosaic law to be the present-day rule of life for the Christian.[4] A view not infrequently found among earnest, orthodox believers is that although we are not saved by the law, once we have been justified by faith, then the Mosaic law becomes our rule of life. Those holding such a view generally make a sharp division of the Mosaic law into two parts, which they distinguish as the moral and the ceremonial. The ceremonial portion they consider as having found its fulfillment in Christ at His first advent, and thus as having now passed away. But the moral portion of the Mosaic law, say they, is still in force as the believer’s rule of life. The treatment given to Christian ethics by some highly respected authors is indeed but little more than an exposition of the Decalogue.

It seems exceedingly strange that Bible-believing Christians should advocate such a view, when the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the believer in Christ is not any longer under the Mosaic law in its entirety… Indeed after having been delivered from the law, to deliberately place ourselves once again under its [control] is said to be “falling from grace.”

But let it be immediately understood that this does not mean to say that we should necessarily behave in a manner just opposite to what the Mosaic law commands—that we should kill, steal, bear false witness, etc. Long before the law was given through Moses, it was utterly wrong to do such evil things. . .”[5]

By contrast, the age in which we live, the church age, has often and rightly been called the age of grace. This is not because God’s grace has not been manifested in other ages, but because in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ we have the ultimate manifestation of God’s grace.

Titus 2:11-12. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people. It trains us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
Grace becomes an absolutely inseparable part of the believer’s life in Christ. In the coming of Christ and His death on the cross, the Mosaic Law as a rule of life was terminated. The believer is now to live in the liberty and power of God’s grace by the Spirit, not the rule of law. This new liberty must never be used as an occasion to indulge the flesh or sinful appetites (Gal. 5:13) nor does it mean the Christian has no moral law or imperatives on his life, but simply that he or she is to live righteously by a new source of life as asserted in Romans 8.

Romans 8:2-4. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

But a great deal of confusion exists over the issues of law and grace and the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believer’s life. However, the basic principle is that the “fusion” of law and grace brings a “confusion” which results in sterile legalism. Because of man’s natural bent toward either legalism or license, the place and function of the Law has been an issue in the Christian community since the very early days of the church. There have always been those who have sought to put the Christian back under the Law or make the Law necessary for both salvation and sanctification. As a result large sections of the New Testament are written directly to this issue (see Acts 15 and the council at Jerusalem; Romans 5:10; 6:14; 7:1f; 2 Cor. 3:6-18; and the entire book of Galatians). These passages were written against a legalistic use of the Law, one which promotes works to gain points with either God or people; works of self-effort rather than a life lived by the power and personal leading of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, other parts of the New Testament are written against license and the misuse of liberty (Gal. 5:13ff. Rom. 6:1ff; 8:4ff; Tit. 2:11-14). But the answer is never to put the Christian back under the Law, but rather a proper understanding and appreciation of God’s grace to us in Christ. Christian liberty is not the right to do as one pleases, but the power, desire, and will to do as one ought in and by the power of God and a regenerated life.

This is ultimately the focus of Titus 2:11-14. The glorious manifestation of God’s grace in Christ instructs and trains believers in how to live.[6] This grace provides the incentive, the motive, and the means. Regarding Titus 2:11-14 Ryrie writes:

“The verb teaching encompasses the whole concept of growth—discipline, maturing, obedience, progress, and the like. This involves denial of improper things and direction into proper channels. These five terms—godliness, worldly lusts, soberly, righteously, godly—do not describe the content of grace teaching so much as they indicate the object and purposeful goal of that teaching. And this intent is, according to this passage, the ultimate purpose of the Incarnation of Christ. He came to display the grace of God in the changed lives of his people. The final cause of the revelation of the grace of God in Christ is not creed but character.”[7]

In Romans 6:14, Paul gives us a fundamental principle as it relates to the Christian’s understanding and the place of the Law in a believer’s life. “For sin will have no mastery over you, becauseyou are not under law but under grace.” (emphasis mine). Romans 6 deals with the believer’s walk or sanctification. In this regard, under grace is never to be taken as an excuse to sin as one pleases since he is under grace (6:1-2) and it is placed in strong contrast[8] with under law. Two things are prominent here: (1) these two (law and grace) are set forth as complete opposites, and (2) the text also makes it clear that the only way the believer is going to experience true sanctification (victory over sin plus the production of positive righteousness) is by grace (the work of God in Christ) and never by law. The reasons, which will be set forth below, are bound up in two issues, the weakness of man’s flesh and the nature of the Law and its inability because of man’s weakness to produce a truly holy life. This is not to say that the Mosaic Law is not good and holy and does not have a function, but this too will be set forth below.

b. The Primitive Community

Up to this point, we have shown the development of the Greek word “nomoV” from a meaning of “to allot” to “Law.” We have seen how the commandments were handed down to Moses from God and were regarded as the Law. We have the view of the Law in the Synoptics and the interrelation of Jesus’ negation and affirmation of the Law and how they are interwoven so that it actually restores and establishes the intent of God in His revealed will.

Now we come to a most difficult area which brought conflict nearly two millennia ago, and one which still brings conflict today. The conflict concerning the Law and its relevance to Christians then and now. There is no clear cut definitive picture of just what the understanding of the Law was in the primitive community. But it is a certainty that they did in fact keep the Law, but as to the extent of the keeping of the Law it is not certain from the account in Acts because no distinctive can be discerned in this record. So what we can do, however, is to look at what records we do have concerning the conflict which are found in the book of Galatians and in Acts 15.

The question of the Law first became an issue when the Apostles began their missionary journeys. When they moved out to the Gentile world, more specifically the Gentile nations, there was so much conflict that the first Apostolic Council is recorded. With regards to this meeting, and the decision they came to, we can work best work out what the fundamental understanding of the Law was in the primitive community.

A problem that had existed from the Day of Pentecost was how to integrate Gentile believers into the church. Apparently, Paul taught his Gentile converts that they did not need to submit to the Law in order to be members in good standing, a point which not all agreed on. Paul’s first missionary journey took him from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and back to Jerusalem which led to the first Apostolic Council meeting. AS in Paul’s day, there were a group of people who are commonly called “legalists.” Of whom believed that not only was a belief in God required, but also a strict observance to the Law of Moses was required.

According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Paul’s gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: “aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin” (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: “emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento” (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word “important” thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.

The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle was not so fully cleared up as to make impossible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes it in Galatians 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indirectly does Paul have any word of censure from James. The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jew may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the Law. In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lord’s Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the Law. The measure of clarity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the Law with the consent of the primitive community, and purely Jewish Christian churches should keep the Law with the consent of Paul.

The findings of the Apostolic Council, then, are that the Law is not to be kept as though one could be righteous by its observance, that faith in Jesus brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Law is still binding on Jews. On this basis, it seems that the separation of Gentile and Jewish evangelization (Gal. 2:7) had to be accepted by both Paul and the primitive as necessary and appropriate.

c. But this raises the question of why Jewish Christians were obliged to keep the Law. The main reason is concern for the possibility of the Jewish mission. The preaching of Jesus as the Christ of scripture could not be believed by Jews if His followers left the Law of God. That Paul could agree with this view is shown beyond any question in 1 Cor. 9:20. He neither demands nor makes any demonstration of his freedom from the Law which might consist in transgression of the Law.

d. From the basic and practical decision of the primitive community in these matters we may work out its understanding of the Law during the preceding period. The actual commitment to the Law was not monism in the sense that fulfillment of the Law w regarded as a presupposition of belonging to the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, it regarded observance of the Law as the obedience concretely required of it as this people - an obedience which it had also to render for loves sake in the service of the Gospel. What constituted the community and separated it from others, however, was not a specific understanding of the Law but faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Historically speaking, it is probable that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ attitude to the Law are correct and that fundamentally the primitive community took its attitude to the Law from Jesus Himself.

e. Further developments in the primitive community is also to be understood in light of the conflicts, motives, and decisions brought to light in the first Apostolic Council and the events relating to it. The radical party, traditionally called the Judaizers, insisted that in spite of the councils decision, circumcision and the Law must be laid on Gentile Christians, since otherwise they could not enjoy salvation or belong to the community of Christ. They evidently propagated this view with zeal, especially in the Pauline churches, though it is open to question whether the situation presupposed in Rome can be explained by Judaising propaganda.

f. Distinct from the position of the Judaizers is that of James, Peter, and the community controlled by them, who seem to have kept essentially to the lines laid down by the Apostolic Council. This certainly corresponds to the depiction of James in Acts 21:148, and it is confirmed by the account of his death in Josephus.[9] In regards to Peter, it is best to assume that he returned to the position of the Apostolic Council and James after accepting the view of Paul for a period in Antioch. Certainly the attempt to make Peter a champion of the Judaizers lacks enough exegetical support in the available sources and it suffers from intrinsic improbability.

As concerning the understanding of the Law in normative circles of primitive Christianity, it may thus be said that they regarded the Law as the obedience to be rendered by Jewish Christians. They were also conscious of being under this obligation for the sake of winning the Jewish world for the Gospel. They did not believe that by achieving this obedience man could attain to righteousness before God. They were prepared to extend brotherly fellowship to Gentile Christians even though the latter did not keep the Law. In mixed congregations, Gentile Christians were obliged to observe such points as would make fellowship of Jewish Christians with them defensible in the eyes of the Jewish world.

Continued...

[1] Adolph von Harnack, Beitrage zur Einlertung in das NT, II: “Sprucle u. Reder Jesu” (1907), 11f.

[2] T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Matthausev, 1905

[3] A. Schlatter, Kommentar z. Mk., 1930

[4] For further information on this subject, see the article by Roy l. Aldrich, “Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 116:463:221-29, July 1959

[5] G. Coleman Luck, “Christian Ethics,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 118:471 - July 1961, Theological Electronic Library, Galaxie Software

[6] The verb “train” or “instruct” is paideuo,,,” to bring up, instruct, educate, train,” then, “correct, practice, discipline, give guidance.”

[7] Charles C. Ryrie, The Grace of God, Moody Press, Chicago, 1963, pp. 51-52

[8] In this clause, “but” is alla, a conjunction that expresses strong contrast.

[9] Josephus, Ant., 20, 200

God Bless

Till all are one.

Nice post. Very long and doubt many will read it. I don't believe the pro law people will attempt to refute any of it.