Paul not under the Law - but subject to the law of Christ.

[expos4ever]

To repeat, you're negating Deut17:6; 19:5 legally requiring two or three witnesses. The Text clearly says there were no witnesses in the end. Jesus would have broken the Law to judge her guilty.

And you, like others, are simply not taking Jesus at His word. Sure, He could have set her free on this basis - I have never denied that He could have done so. But that is not the explanation he offers - His explanation is clearly that no one is qualified to carry out the execution. I am mystified that people seem to ignore the rather clear explanation Jesus offers. You appear to believe that just because there is an alternate possible explanation for letting her go, that explanation might fit. But it does not - Jesus tells us the real reason. And in so doing, "possible" alternatives disappear.

Also, there's probably something to be considered in John12:47

I am not sure what that might be

If anyone hears My [t]teachings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Where do Jesus' teachings include the edict to stone adulterers? Or look at it this way: if Jesus is in the business of granting people pardons from the application of the Law, he is ineffectively bypassing it. Are you aware of any provisions in the law of Moses for reprieve? I certainly am not. Again, watch what people do with this story. They engage, for example, in all manner of unsubstantiated speculations about the possible innocence of the woman in order to evade the notion that Jesus is breaking this law. Is there any evidence that she is innocent? Quite the contrary, we know she is guilty from these words: "Go and sin no more"

 

[GDL]

Agree, although, as per Romans 7, this "amazing law", good as it is in itself, did function to intensify and empower sin in Israel

That's part of the amazing. It did what it was designed to do.

Sure. No one, I believe, is denying that scripture contains many commandments that fall outside the framework of the Law of Moses.

So, there were God's commandments and statutes (translated in the LXX as dikaoma BTW) and laws pre-Moses, agreed?

Any Law that falls outside the framework of the Law of Moses in our era?

Any Laws that were contained in the Law of Moses that passed into our era?

If by this you mean a lawful use of the Law of Moses, I have posted an argument that Paul is really speaking about what was the case in the past. One thing I believe is clear: Paul is 100% committed to leaving the Law of Moses completely in the past - there is so much evidence for this that I believe it is beyond dispute.

I mean what Scripture says, a lawful use of Law. And, as I said, many [or all] of the sins Paul lists are from Mosaic Law. If this is Paul being 100% committed to leaving the Law of Moses completely in the past, let alone how Paul uses Mosaic Law in other ways, I must conclude that you have an unbiblical bias.

This gets a little tricky. Obviously, no one, least of all me, will deny that there are obvious correlations between the law of Moses and the commandments of Jesus (and Paul for that matter). I would be comfortable conceding that, in some areas at least, the "spirit" of the Law of Moses still apply. However, as I take Paul seriously, I have to believe that the indwelling spirit is now the new moral compass for us and that returning to the law in any sense is a huge mistake - look at how he berates the Galatians over this. Look how he characterizes the Law ias a curse and a ministry of death. Furthermore, despite consistent misrepresentations to the contrary by some, to say that sin is lawlessness does not necessarily entail that the Law of Moses is needed to be lawless. If I park in my neighbour's driveway, I am not breaking the Law of Moses. But I am being lawless.

It's odd how a one-for-one quotation from Mosaic Law becomes the "spirit" of the Law.

At this point I accept we will not agree. All of these points have been addressed.

If you park without approval in your neighbor's driveway, then you are breaking Law that comes over from Moses into the NC and into laws in several current jurisdictions re: trespass, and as a Christian you are breaking the Law of Love for God and Love for Neighbor that comes forward specifically and directly from the Law from Moses. I accept that you think the Spirit told you to do this and since there are no cars in the Bible, you assume what this spirit told you is OK to do makes sense. This is the problem with those who work so hard to reject Biblical Law. They become autonomous but the spirit approves, so all is OK.

I do not believe this conclusion can be drawn from Romans 3:19. The Romans 3 context context shows that, as always, it is the Jew and the Jew only whose sin is revealed by the Law:

Throughout this passage up to verse 9, Paul maintains a distinction between Jew and Gentile. Verses 1 to 8 focus on the Jew. And then in verse 9, Paul declares the Gentile is equally bad. And so we then have verses 11 through 18 that tell us all humanity - both Jew and Gentile - are sinful. Now we get to verse 19. But, of course, we should not forget there are many other texts that it assert it is the Jew only who is under the Law! For example, this from only a few sentence further on:

Where then is boasting? It has been excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the [z]circumcised [aa]by faith and the [ab]uncircumcised through faith is one.

This passage logically forces us, with no alternative, to conclude that Paul believes only Jews are subject to the Law.

In verse 19, then, Paul is saying this:

We know, of course that the Law says what it says to those who are under it - the Jews. But, as I (Paul) have just shown, all humanity is sinful and accountable to God.

So, with all the context of Jews and Greeks "every mouth and all the world" becoming guilty before God Rom 3:19 and "no flesh will be justified in His sight" is Jews only?

Is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe 3:22 also Jews only?

Did you not see that I pointed out that the language in 3:19 does not say "under the law" but "in the law" and thus is not Paul's normal wording for "under [the] law" as he says when dealing with Israel under Moses and the Christian post-Moses?

I think you're taking one mistranslated phrase and using it to erroneously interpret verses that clearly continue to speak of all men, both Jews and Greeks.

I see no logic asserting what you're saying forces what you say. My statement just above applies here also.

I see no such distinction. I believe no one is currently under the jurisdiction of the law. Are you prepared to argue otherwise? Since no one is under the law then for all practical purposes the law does not exist. What does it mean to say a lot exists if it applies to no one?

Again, some of the things I've said already argued otherwise. When Paul speaks of "we" are not under law, but under grace, does this apply to all mankind?

Your statement that law does not exist is where I thought you would go but was hoping you wouldn't. There are too many logical and Scriptural points that have been presented to you and rejected in this absolute statement of finality to think it can be productive to repeat or go further. A single statement like a lawful use of law should tell you that you should be rethinking your unScriptural bias. The logic here is that there can be no lawful use of law if law doesn't exist. But law obviously does exist and there is a lawful use of it. You've carried your antinomianism fairly well. But you've just stated it in no uncertain terms. Honestly, your final position is that of most Spirit only positions.

As I have said above, believe that the "spirit" of some elements of the law of Moses lives on. But, again, Paul is a very clear - we are to put the law of Moses behind us.

This would be the same Paul that spoke of the lawful use of Law and brought into the NC as Christ's Apostle some clear commandments directly from and through the Mosaic Law and commanded Christians not to sin/do lawlessness. There's no lawlessness if there's no Law. That seems pretty simple logic.

 

[GDL]

And you, like others, are simply not taking Jesus at His word. Sure, He could have set her free on this basis - I have never denied that He could have done so. But that is not the explanation he offers - His explanation is clearly that no one is qualified to carry out the execution. I am mystified that people seem to ignore the rather clear explanation Jesus offers. You appear to believe that just because there is an alternate possible explanation for letting her go, that explanation might fit. But it does not - Jesus tells us the real reason. And in so doing, "possible" alternatives disappear.

Apparently, the trap they were setting for Jesus didn't work. He simply asked if there were any without sin among the accusers. This is not an explanation, but an inquiry with the knowledge that He was being tested so they could bring charges against Him. It seems there's some bad intention involved here. Maybe what Jesus wrote in the dirt was Deut 19:16-21 re: false witnesses who in this case would be put to death for lying. Maybe Jesus was giving them an out besides calling their bluff to trap Him. In any case, not one of them was willing to stand their ground and maintain the accusation. The reason given for letting her go is given in John 8:10-11. No more accusers. And this is the only reason we're given within the story for His not sentencing her.

The following narrative interestingly contains Jesus' statement re: 2 witnesses 8:17. It also contains Jesus' statement that He judges no one 8:15 which is one reason I referenced John 12:47 for you.

Yes, Jesus told her to go and sin no more. And we can read into this statement whatever we want to. He can say the same thing to any of us at any time and the command would be appropriate.

I am not sure what that might be

If anyone hears My [t]teachings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Where do Jesus' teachings include the edict to stone adulterers? Or look at it this way: if Jesus is in the business of granting people pardons from the application of the Law, he is ineffectively bypassing it. Are you aware of any provisions in the law of Moses for reprieve? I certainly am not. Again, watch what people do with this story. They engage, for example, in all manner of unsubstantiated speculations about the possible innocence of the woman in order to evade the notion that Jesus is breaking this law. Is there any evidence that she is innocent? Quite the contrary, we know she is guilty from these words: "Go and sin no more"

You're clearly not talking about me. I never said she was innocent. I simply provided Scripture/Law that Jesus lived by. He simply asked the witnesses a question and wrote something in the dirt that we can only speculate about. They, beginning with the elders (which is also interesting) departed on their own accord. No accusers, then no sentence. I guess this is reprieve. It's really quite simple.

 

[trophy33]

Sorry I missed this; I think I missed it, but I'm having some issues with this site.

I don't think it's general principle or ambiguous. It simply needs definition what it means to love neighbor as yourself and I think Paul for one goes to sufficient lengths to explain it (Rom13:8-10). I also think Gal5:14 and James 2:8 help. I also think anyone trying to explain away Paul's explanation of this single command being a summary of several of the 10 commandments and any other applicable commandment, by negating the commandments it summarizes, doesn't know how a summary works. If we negate the list, it's no longer a summary and in this case a stand-alone command without explanation, which is what some seem clearly to want it to be so they can make up what it means.

Disagreed. I've compiled them myself and studied them and taught some of them. One of the points of Christian studies of the Text is to determine what applies to us and how. Love God and Neighbor, for example, are not general, but universal, specifically for all Christians of all times, and in another sense for all of humanity since God desires all humanity to be saved (1Tim2:3-4). I'd also say the prohibition against murder, adultery, etc. is universal, no matter Netherlands or Norway. At some point all will come to know this.

I disagree with your opinion re: what is possible for God. Those you list are not general principles, but very specific commands. Try telling Him you know His command to not murder, but He didn't understand life in the 21st century and His commandment was just a general principle you determined meant something else.

Setting aside your repeating your theory of general principles for the moment, I agree with you about the 613 said to be contained in the Mosaic Law. Many are not applicable today and the curse for not obeying all of them was dealt with by Jesus. Yet, love God and love neighbor and all they summarize are applicable today just as they were in 1st century Christianity, and they are universal, and they are not general principle. I'm not here arguing for keeping the Mosaic Law, but for identifying what is appliable and defines love for God and Neighbor, and for knowing what is sin/lawlessness today so I can be matured (Heb5) and fulfill the Law of Christ (Gal6) in Christ in Spirit.

If you do not agree that, love God and neighbor are general principles which can have many shapes and forms, meaning various specific things in various situations, then there is not much more to say regarding this topic.

They are clearly general, because we must define for ourselves what actions we must take. Thats basically the definition of something being a general principle.

Regarding issues with this website, I have many, too. This design and functionality is terrible, the old one was much better.

 

[trophy33]

There are many places where Gentiles are told to refrain from sin and the Mosaic Law is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20).

Romans 3 is about Jews, not about Gentiles or Christians. Its obvious from the context. We must resist the temptation to use verses taken out of their context just because they sound as we need, but are not what we need, in reality.

My question is where are Gentiles or Christians told to keep the Mosaic Law.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Something is not false just because it isn't supported by the Bible, those things that you make up shouldn't be treated as through it has the weight of being supported by the Bible.

How do you know it is 'made up' ?

What do you think God was doing when He tore the temple curtain from the top?

 

[GDL]

Regarding issues with this website, I have many, too. This design and functionality is terrible, the old one was much better.

Agreement is good, albeit rare in this forum.

If you do not agree that, love God and neighbor are general principles which can have many shapes and forms, meaning various specific things in various situations, then there is not much more to say regarding this topic.

They are clearly general, because we must define for ourselves what actions we must take. Thats basically the definition of something being a general principle.

We may be seeing "general principles" differently. Are committing murder, not stealing, not committing adultery, etc., all general principles we must decide for ourselves as to what actions to take? They seem to be quite specific commands. These are part of the Love Neighbor & Love God Commands.

 

[GDL]

Romans 3 is about Jews, not about Gentiles or Christians. Its obvious from the context. We must resist the temptation to use verses taken out of their context just because they sound as we need, but are not what we need, in reality.

Rom3:9 on is clearly not just about Jews.

 

[expos4ever]

But we've been discussing Rom7 and Rom7 clearly speaks of Paul coming to understand that sin resided in his flesh. Do you disagree with this?

I do not disagree with it. But I do not understand how your question relates to what I posted, which is this:

I agree that God's intention was to use the law to bring the power of sin to its full flower of expression in Israel. Not sure what your point is here. My position is that God uses the law in this way in order to concentrate sin in Israel so that it can then be passed on to her representative Messiah, Jesus, and dealt with on the cross,

Circumcision of hearts is in Deut10:16; 30:6; Jer4:4. Law being at the mental level is not new to Jesus who authored Law. Even what the Law was accomplishing in Rom7 gave Paul a mental understanding of what was in his flesh opposing his mind.

Not sure what you are saying here and how it relates to what I posted. My objection is to the view that to have the law written on your heart involves simply internalizing it as a list, as if a mere change in format from "reading it off a scroll" to "digging it up from your memory" makes any kind of a difference. For the metaphor to be a metaphor, surely the idea is that we have a sense of the underlying principles of the law of Moses, and not that we merely can recall them by rote.

I think you're predisposed to a point of view that causes insertion of things into this discussion that have not be stated. I certainly have not said that the process of Law written in minds and hearts is a memorizing process or technique.

Ok, understood.

Let me give an example: I lived for years as a Christian struggling against certain sins. I knew they were sins because I'd read they were.

Aha, this is the difference - I maintain that Paul believes that the spirit-filled Christian does not need to "read" anything to get a sense of what is right and wrong because we have the Holy Spirit within us. Surely you would have to agree that the spirit is certainly capable of disclosing moral truths to us? Let me me be clear in the saying this I am not suggesting that I have any kind of power that you do not have. I am simply arguing from my interpretation of the relevant texts. I believe Paul is quite clear that consulting written codes, including the law of Moses, is something we no longer need to do.

There are some commandments that we can take the basic principle from and apply them. There are others that are clear and to the point and it's simply a do or not do, and even deeper, think or not think. At the level of thought, read Heb4:15-16 to see an important provision we have in the mental battle against sin.

Not sure what your point is here. If we take "honour you father and mother" I agree we can see a basic principle here. But here is another entry from the Law of Moses: "You are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel" Do you think we should obey this law?

Again, I am not sure I understand your point. My position is this:

1. Paul is clearly against following the Law of Moses primarily, I believe, because it was a thing that divided the world into two camps: Jew and Gentile. And Paul stresses that any division - anything at all that marks the Jew out as "special" or different in any way - has to go. And the Law of Moses is number one on the list - it is clearly, and I mean indisputably, for Jews only. And so it has to go.

2. Would Paul agree that we still refrain from murder and coveting, a la Law of Moses? Of course. No one, least of all me, is saying that some of the general moral principles from the Law of Moses will align with what our new moral compass - the indwelling Spirit and the teachings of Jesus - will tell us. But that does not mean the "thou shalt not covet" command still applies: we do not need it, we have the Spirit and Jesus. New Covenant, Old Covenant retired.

3. Jesus repudiates the food laws, He repudiates temple sacrifice, He repudiates any law calling for death ("let He who is without sin...."), He repudiates the Sabbath, He repudiates other purity Laws (e.g., touching "unclean" people). We should take the hint: the time of the Law of Moses has come and gone. But, of course, Jesus endorses certain principles from the Law of Moses. But He (and the Spirit) constitute the "go to source" for moral guidance, not the Law of Moses.

 

[GDL]

I do not disagree with it. But I do not understand how your question relates to what I posted, which is this:

Your agreement is good enough. No need to delve further at this point.

Not sure what you are saying here and how it relates to what I posted. My objection is to the view that to have the law written on your heart involves simply internalizing it as a list, as if a mere change in format from "reading it off a scroll" to "digging it up from your memory" makes any kind of a difference. For the metaphor to be a metaphor, surely the idea is that we have a sense of the underlying principles of the law of Moses, and not that we merely can recall them by rote.

With respect, this sounds like double-speak. If it's written in my mind and on my heart, I can not only live it in Christ in Spirit, but I can speak about it, look at a list and agree or disagree with it, and reel off my own internal list upon demand. I can even write that internal list for you to look at. What's all the opposition to anything written. Why didn't God just destroy those lists so we couldn't read them anymore? The whole dichotomy of external vs. internal writing seems extremely contrived.

Aha, this is the difference - I maintain that Paul believes that the spirit-filled Christian does not need to "read" anything to get a sense of what is right and wrong because we have the Holy Spirit within us. Surely you would have to agree that the spirit is certainly capable of disclosing moral truths to us? Let me me be clear in the saying this I am not suggesting that I have any kind of power that you do not have. I am simply arguing from my interpretation of the relevant texts. I believe Paul is quite clear that consulting written codes, including the law of Moses, is something we no longer need to do.

I know what you believe, and it was not an Aha moment for me. I have no issue with reading Law and see it as an important part of our process of spiritual growth as I have stated from many points of view with Scripture.

Not sure what your point is here. If we take "honour you father and mother" I agree we can see a basic principle here. But here is another entry from the Law of Moses: "You are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel" Do you think we should obey this law?

We probably have been using the word "principle" differently. As long as you mean something to the effect of a comprehensive and fundamental law, I'll understand you mean a law. And if I have this law in my mind and on my heart and if I read it on paper, it'll say the same thing.

As I've said several times, it's a matter of what commandments we see in our Text, including the Mosaic Law, are still in effect in this era in Christ. I don't wear tassels, but hopefully we can agree that there is a reason for such commands and that these reasons they were given can provide some insight into God's thinking and character and add to our wisdom. Paul used the Mosaic command about letting oxen eat while working to tell Christians to compensate their teaching elders. Throwing out the Law is unbiblical.

Again, I am not sure I understand your point. My position is this:

1. Paul is clearly against following the Law of Moses primarily, I believe, because it was a thing that divided the world into two camps: Jew and Gentile. And Paul stresses that any division - anything at all that marks the Jew out as "special" or different in any way - has to go. And the Law of Moses is number one on the list - it is clearly, and I mean indisputably, for Jews only. And so it has to go.

It actually was for Israel which came out of Egypt as a mixed multitude. It actually seems wrong to consider that Abraham, the beginning of the Hebrew race, was not keeping some of the same laws that God had Moses write and the same laws that God Himself wrote on stone. It actually was so wise that at least one Gentile dignitary came to Solomon to discuss it. It actually contains provision for proselytes. It actually contains commands for the whole world and some of its commands are now Christian. It actually was spoken of by Paul in a way that so-called natural law is the same as some of it. There is something to be considered in the fact that Israel was to be a priest nation.

2. Would Paul agree that we still refrain from murder and coveting, a la Law of Moses? Of course. No one, least of all me, is saying that some of the general moral principles from the Law of Moses will align with what our new moral compass - the indwelling Spirit and the teachings of Jesus - will tell us. But that does not mean the "thou shalt not covet" command still applies: we do not need it, we have the Spirit and Jesus. New Covenant, Old Covenant retired.

OC retired and not under law has been discussed at some decent length in this thread. OC retired does not mean there is no purpose for written law and its lawful use. There's no need to repeat the value of the written Law to check one another's moral compass. Have you not looked around to note how professing Christians widely disagree on moral issues? Is the Spirit not doing His job? Part, not all, of the problem is the Spirit only antinomian mindset.

3. Jesus repudiates the food laws, He repudiates temple sacrifice, He repudiates any law calling for death ("let He who is without sin...."), He repudiates the Sabbath, He repudiates other purity Laws (e.g., touching "unclean" people). We should take the hint: the time of the Law of Moses has come and gone. But, of course, Jesus endorses certain principles from the Law of Moses. But He (and the Spirit) constitute the "go to source" for moral guidance, not the Law of Moses.

No need for me to disagree with these things again. They've all been addressed.

 

[expos4ever]

IMO it would take an awful lot of work to figure out what He did according to Law before I would charge Him of breaking Law.

I do not think it takes a lot of work at all. For example, what is unclear about these words of Jesus?:

There is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

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

This is clearly a direct challenge to the food laws from the Law of Moses! How this is not obvious truly mystifies me. And the diversions to evade this are equally befuddling. People claim He is talking about handwashed food only since that is what initiated the conversation. First, context (i.e. a discussion of handwashing) cannot magically transform the "nothing", from "There is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him" into "nothing except for the long list of foods prohibited by the Law of Moses" Yes, as you say, Jesus' point was primarily about the spiritual state of man's heart. But, and this is absolutely vital: He still says that nothing that goes into a man defiles. You appear to simply sweep that under the carpet.

And this is only the food laws. Jesus also explicitly declared that He was the place to go for forgiveness (Matt 9). What does the Law say? this has to be done at the Temple. Again, an obvious challenge to the :aw of Moses.

Good luck judging Jesus to be lawless to the Law He was born under.

"Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? (Jn. 8:46 NKJ)

You are implicitly making the same assumption that others are making - that if Jesus breaks the Law of Moses, this is sin. What you overlook is that Jesus, as co-equal with the Father who gave the Law in the first place has the authority to set the Law aside. And one of the most effective ways of doing this is to "break" the Law publicly. Do you doubt that Jesus has the authority over the Law?

Matt 12:8: For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

 

[trophy33]

We may be seeing "general principles" differently. Are committing murder, not stealing, not committing adultery, etc., all general principles we must decide for ourselves as to what actions to take? They seem to be quite specific commands. These are part of the Love Neighbor & Love God Commands.

Yes, I see them as general principles. What exactly it means in our life situations can differ. These general principles from the Mosaic Law still apply, because they are also universal.

But for example keeping the Sabbath a) has never been universal b) had specific instructions how to do it. Similarly with the most of the now obsolete Mosaic rules.

 

[trophy33]

Rom3:9 on is clearly not just about Jews.

Its just a note that Jews (whom the chapter is about) are not better (which is what they frequently thought) than Greeks, because both Jews and Greeks are sinners.

 

[expos4ever]

Its just a note that Jews (whom the chapter is about) do not have any advantage (which is what they might falsely think) against Greeks, because both Jews and Greeks are sinners.

There should be no confusion - those under the law in Romans 3:19 are Jews only. There should be no debate about this. Why even later on in the very same chapter Paul says this, which cannot be interpreted in any other way than that he believes that the law only applies to Jews:

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,...

The fact that, earlier in the chapter, that is before verse 19, Paul has been describing the status of both Jews and Gentiles with respect to their sinful tendencies in no way requires us to understand that those under law in verse 19 are anything other than Jews. Why would anyone think this? Surely the mere fact that verses 11-18 address all humanity - both Jews and Gentiles - does not magically change a truth that is otherwise evident throughout Scripture - the Law of Moses applies only to Jews.

Analogy: Imagine that it was otherwise known that US law does not apply to Canadians. Imagine, then, this series of statements that reflect precisely the structure of verses 1 through 18:

- Americans systematically break US law
- Canadians are no better, they too break laws
- Both Canadians and Americans are lawbreakers

...and then this:

now we know that whatever the US Law says, it speaks to those who are under the US law, so that every mouth may be closed and both Canadians and Americans may be held to account.

Nobody who understands the logic of how English sentences interconnect would, otherwise knowing that US law only applies to Americans, conclude that Canadians are under US law!

And yet something analogous is being asked of us - to believe that Gentiles (and Jews of course) are all subject to the Law of Moses.

 

[trophy33]

There should be no confusion - those under the law in Romans 319 are Jews only. There should be no debate about this. Why even later on in the very same chapter Paul says this, which cannot be interpreted in any other way than that he believes that the law only applies to Jews:

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,...

The fact that, earlier in the chapter, that is before verse 19, Paul has been describing the status of both Jews and Gentiles with respect to their sinful tendencies in no way requires us to understand that those under law in verse 19 are anything other than Jews. Why would anyone think this? Surely the mere fact that verses 11-18 address all humanity - both Jews and Gentiles - does not magically change a truth that is otherwise evident throughout Scripture - the Law of Moses applies only to Jews.

This is not rocket science. Imagine that it was otherwise known that US law does not apply to Canadians. Imagine, then, this series of statements:

- Americans systematically break US law
- Canadians are no better, they too break laws
- Both Canadians and Americans are lawbreakers

...and then this:

now we know that whatever the US Law says, it speaks to those who are under the US law, so that every mouth may be closed and both Canadians and Americans may be held to account.

Nobody who understands the logic of how English sentences interconnect would, otherwise knowing that US law only applies to Americans, conclude that Canadians are under US law!

And yet something analogous is being asked of us - to believe that Gentiles (and Jews of course) are all subject to the Law of Moses.

Agreed.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Can we broaden the discussion to consider what God was doing when He tore the curtain in the temple from the top.

Commonly this action is referred to as symbolic of opening the living way to His presence through Jesus.

But is there not more to this ???

Was He not removing the position and authority of the Levitical Priesthood in committing this act of desecration ?

Was He not taking away the priesthoods commission to oversee the keeping of the Law.

Was this not because the curse and therefore the power of the Law was broken, and Jesus became the new and living way to righteousness rather than the Law?

Have I lost my marbles of does this make sense ???

 

[GDL]

I do not think it takes a lot of work at all. For example, what is unclear about these words of Jesus?:

There is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

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

This is clearly a direct challenge to the food laws from the Law of Moses! How this is not obvious truly mystifies me. And the diversions to evade this are equally befuddling. People claim He is talking about handwashed food only since that is what initiated the conversation. First, context (i.e. a discussion of handwashing) cannot magically transform the "nothing", from "There is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him" into "nothing except for the long list of foods prohibited by the Law of Moses" Yes, as you say, Jesus' point was primarily about the spiritual state of man's heart. But, and this is absolutely vital: He still says that nothing that goes into a man defiles. You appear to simply sweep that under the carpet.

And this is only the food laws. Jesus also explicitly declared that He was the place to go for forgiveness (Matt 9). What does the Law say? this has to be done at the Temple. Again, an obvious challenge to the :aw of Moses.

You are implicitly making the same assumption that others are making - that if Jesus breaks the Law of Moses, this is sin. What you overlook is that Jesus, as co-equal with the Father who gave the Law in the first place has the authority to set the Law aside. And one of the most effective ways of doing this is to "break" the Law publicly. Do you doubt that Jesus has the authority over the Law?

Matt 12:8: For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Asked and answered. If you'll read my answers more closely, you'll see that under my carpets are clean. I've not said food laws remain.
Maybe since others answer differently than you, you may be wrong.

 

[GDL]

What exactly it means in our life situations can differ.

I'll keep this in mind next time I encounter situations where murder, adultery, fornication, stealing, perjuring, dishonoring parents, coveting, etc., may come up.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I'll keep this in mind next time I encounter situations where murder, adultery, fornication, stealing, perjuring, dishonoring parents, coveting, etc., may come up.

Didn't Rahab lie about where the spies were ?

 

[expos4ever]

Asked and answered. If you'll read my answers more closely, you'll see that under my carpets are clean. I've not said food laws remain.
Maybe since others answer differently than you, you may be wrong.

I think you have been inconsistent in your answers. If, here, you are saying the food laws are indeed gone, then what am I to make of these words of yours:

IMO it would take an awful lot of work to figure out what He did according to Law before I would charge Him of breaking Law. BTW, in this light, here is the first commandment in Romans:

Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged." (Rom. 3:4 NKJ)

Good luck judging Jesus to be lawless to the Law He was born under.

Can you not see how these words suggest you believe Jesus did not break the Law of Moses at any point? And the food laws are definitely part of the Law of Moses. I am merely pointing out that, yes, Jesus broke the food laws. Or to be more precise, He asserted they no longer apply. To me, this difference is inconsequential, although you and others may see it differently. And, in any event, I believe He clearly broke other elements of the Law - He touched people who were ritually unclean, for example.