The Law of Moses and its commandments : Forever unfit for purpose

pasifika · Apr 27, 2020

literaryjoe said:
Good question, pasifika.

"This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void."

When Paul states in Galatians that "the law" came 430 years after the covenant with Abraham, he is not being literal in a couple different ways.

First, it was more than 430 years after the covenant with Abraham; rather, it had been 430 years that the Israelites were in Egypt (Genesis 15:13; Exodus 12:40-41; Acts 7:6), and the covenant was made with Abraham a minimum of 172 years before Jacob entered Egypt at age 130 (Isaac was married at age 40, but we don't know how long Rebekah was barren before Jacob was born). So to be technical, it had been at least 430+172+3 months when the law was given on Mt. Sinai, since the final form of God's covenant was made with Abraham in Genesis 17.

Second, when Paul says that "the law" came 430 years after the covenant with Abraham, he is not saying that the law did not previously exist, but is referring to when it was given in a codified form at Sinai. God had instructed people in His law from the beginning: Cain knew better than to offer whatever he did on the altar, Noah knew which animals were clean/unclean, and Abraham obeyed God's voice and kept God's charge, commandments, statutes, and His laws (Genesis 26:5). Jewish tradition tells us that Abraham and Isaac used to travel to Mt. Moriah to meet with Shem, who would teach them the details of God's law, and the math works out that this would have been possible.

So, what Paul is doing is emphasizing the time that Israel was in Egypt "without" the law. Of course, no one immediately forgot what they had been taught when they entered Egypt, but 430 years in a foreign land, and a certain period of that time as slaves will definitely cause one to forget, and begin to identify with your host land. Think how deeply many of us identify as "Americans" and America has only existed for half of the time that Israel was in Egypt. Consider how fast the children of immigrants begin to identify with their host country and forget the language and the ways of their country of origin. In my children's school, the first generation from those who traveled here already don't speak Spanish, and the grandchildren barely identify as Latino. That's less than 50 years.

Paul's point here is that while a people who remembered only that a covenant promise had been made to Abraham and that they were Abraham's descendants were given/reminded what the "charge, commandments, statutes, and laws" of this covenant were, this portion or addendum (not really, but from their perspective) did not alter the promise of the covenant, and consequently it has never been the case that participation in the covenant was obtained via the keeping of those laws, but instead was on the basis of faith, and it has been that way since the beginning.

He is not saying that the law was "introduced" out of thin air at Sinai, and suddenly the people's justification depended on keeping the law, but previously it hadn't been that way, and then after the New Covenant it was no longer that way. Justification has been by faith for all time, and sanctification (in the progressive sense) is realized and grows in our lives increasingly by heeding the voice of the Spirit and walking according to what the Spirit wrote at one point on stone tablets, but also writes on the heart of those who have faith. By the way, the Spirit wrote God's law on Moses' heart, and also on Abraham's heart, just as he did on Peter, Paul, and John's hearts, and on ours. This has always been the case...

So, how do Paul's "the law of God in my mind" and "the law of sin and death" relate? In the same way that the law on stone tablets and the law on our heart relate. If we read God's law but think we can earn God's acceptance and approval by our own effort, then that law serves as a "law of sin and death" to us, or we might say, as Paul also does, that "the curse of the law" applies to us. In other words, it condemns our sinful failure. If, however, in faith we accept that no effort of ours could ever earn God's acceptance and approval and we receive His gift of eternal life, then the Holy Spirit begins writing that same law on our hearts, and we find ourselves not leaving it on stone/paper but cherishing it in our hearts, like the Psalmist did, and at that point it is no longer the "law of sin and death" but the "law of God in our mind/heart"

Hello, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, appreciated..
I was not implying that there was no law before Sinai in reference to Galatians 3:17, the law of God has always there from the beginning because God existed. What Law given in Sinai is the Righteous requirements of the law of God through mans works, but faith was the Righteous requirement of God’s law by God own work on man, and that was always the way God used to teach man.and every man has a mind and a conscience where God’s Spirit can work and enable man to do righteous acts of Gods law within them..

Gentiles did not have the law, do by nature things required by the law which are law for themselves even though they do not have the law...Romans 2

Josheb · Apr 27, 2020

expos4ever said:
Jesus said this (according to Young's Literal Translation):

It hath been finished

To me, this is awfully close to His use of "until all is accomplished" in Matthew 5.

But, as I believe I and others have argued, if the Law of Moses is to come to an end at the Cross, Jesus says these words during the time that the Law of Moses remained in force. This may seem like a contrived technicality, but we need to evaluate all the evidence. And that evidence includes a range of events where Jesus clearly challenges the Law of Moses. One of the most clear examples is where, in Mark 7, He directly repudiates the kosher food laws. And we have Paul who, in multiple places, makes it clear that the Law has come to an end.

All mentions of the law's end all have specified context.

The logically necessary conclusion of what you are arguing is the end of sin! If sin is lawlessness and there is no law then there can be no sinful lawlessness. Paul tells us sin reigned from the time of Adam to Moses when there was no law. He states there is no accounting of sin where there is no law (Romans 5). Paul rights this in the context of there has always been a Law! The law began in Genesis 1:28 and 2:17. Furthermore, the law of sin and death still remian: if you sin then you will die and no one is without the need for Christ because ALL have sinned and fall short of God's glory.... including those born after Calvary.

Not everything is finished.

This ought to be obvious to you every day of your still-sinful life in the flesh. It was true of Paul. It was true of Peter. It is true of me and every other poster in this forum. Including you. We all still need to use the law lawfully and profitably for training in the conditions commuted to us in Christ so that we can be equipped to do the good works for which we have been created in Christ; works God had already planned for us to perform. Whole bunch of stuff the Law of Moses is no longer applicable to or useful for because Christ fulfilled it, but a whole lot of stuff tied to its original purpose remains.

Josheb · Apr 27, 2020

expos4ever said:
Here is a text that I imagine will pose quite a challenge...

Why do you "imagine" this?

The verse verse before this one tells us quite plainly and explicitly its context. Why do you ignore these things? Why do you ignore them further when pointed out to you? Why, instead, do you "imagine" negatives upon others instead of discussing what is plainly, undeniably, irrefutably stated in God's wrord?

expos4ever said:
I believe that some have tried to argue that Paul is merely saying that we no longer need to look the Law of Moses for our "justification", but that we still need to follow it. That sounds reasonable, especially given that Paul has elsewhere made it clear that the Law does not justify the Jew.

Whether it "sounds reasonable" or not that is in fact what Paul wrote and what Paul practiced and insinuating others are being unreasonable does not change that fact.

expos4ever said:
But, if we believe Paul chose his words with reasonable care...

Ah... the variation of the "no true scotsman" fallacy and fallacious appeal to "reasonable care." God chose Paul's words with reasonable care and what God chose to say through Paul was plain and simple: the law is annulled as a means of justification and righteousness and it has been fulfilled in many ways that were all originally intended to point a person to Christ resurrected. As a means of training in that commuted righteousness and equipping for good works planned in advance for us to perfrom the law remains good, holy, righteous, lawful, and spiritual. This is especially true of the spiritual man.

And you're still avoiding all these concerns. Your personal imaginations don't change any of these facts.

expos4ever said:
More generally, I would caution all to watch out for people stretching a word or concept to the breaking point and beyond - it is a tell-tale sign of a problem.

Start with yourself. You first quoted Romans 1verses that explicitly mention "righteousness" but you ignored that word and stretched the verses to say things they do not state.

And we have been cautioning you not to do so. Log, not speck.

Zao is life · Apr 27, 2020

expos4ever said:
I would have thought this text alone would be enough to close the matter - the Law has been clearly left behind.

Just watch the naysayers will do with this text, or others like it. To preserve their view that the Law carries on, they have to greatly distort the meaning of concepts like "died to the law" or "released from law".

In normal settings, no one would ever say they need to follow a "law" that they have been released from and for which a new mode of moral guidance has been provided. Silly analogy: suppose there was a law that prohibited driving over 70 miles per hour. Now suppose you were told you were "released" from the law and you were given a pill that altered your brain so that you "automatically" know that you should not drive over 70 mph. Would any normal person say that they still referred to this law they have been released from and not, instead, to this new "inner sense"?

Of course not!

And yet, I suggest, this is really what the defenders of the "Law of Moses" is still in force position have to do.

I agree. Re-interpreting or changing the plain and obvious meaning of the text in order to uphold laws that formed the basis and foundation of a covenant that was broken precisely because the elect were incapable of obeying those laws. In Christ we are a new creation. He died and rose again. No need to attempt to drag the old into the new. It's like moving from a dilapidated, rusty old trailer into a mansion and then pulling the trailer into the living room to go live in the trailer again.

Zao is life · Apr 27, 2020

Josheb said:
There is an important detail being left out her.

The law fails in that it brings curses and death to all who seek to live by it AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING JUSTIFICATION AND RIGHTEOUSNESS.

That's all. That is the explicitly specified context of Paul's comments on the law. Going beyond those two givens and making larger statements about the law is adding to scripture.

No that's not all. The Law fails because it cannot bring life - it only brings death to those who think they can live by it:

Rom 7:13 "Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful."

Therefore those who are baptized into Christ are baptized into His death, and have died to the Law:

Rom 7:6 "But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter."

That's all. That is the explicitly specified context of Paul's comments on the law. Going beyond those two givens and making larger statements about the law is adding to scripture.

Josheb said:
Part 2:

No, that is not the reason Jesus sums up the law in one command. The law was always summed p inone command and that command is stated in the OT! (Dt. 6:5; Lev. 19:18) In other words, Jesus is quoting the Law of Moses. So too is Paul in Romans 13. Is it that you do not know Jesus is referencing the shema, or is it that you did not understand his words are found in Deuteronomy? Because if you've posted this argument knowing Jesus was quoting the Law of Moses then you have another problem beside a failure to understand what the work of Christ does to the Law of Moses as asserted by Christ and the epistolary writers in both word and practice.

Of course I know that the words Jesus quoted when he made a summation of the Law are found in the Law, and of course I know which books the Law is found, and of course I've read those books (more than only once).

Of course I also know that (unlike you) Jesus stated that ALL the Law and the prophets hang on (only) those two commandments I mentioned.

Josheb said:
Yes, it is true we cannot fulfill the Law of Moses. If we could do so then Christ would be unnecessary.

What you cannot see is that your above statement makes the rest of your argument mute. Not least because this is exactly why it is ALSO stated "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Rom 10:4).

What you are doing is to change the meaning of all these scriptures to suit your determination to move back into something old and unfit for purpose, like someone who moved from living in a dilapidated, rusty old leaking trailer into a mansion someone else bought for him, and then moved the trailer into his living room to live in the trailer again.

Josheb said:
I have already addressed this matter, at least in part, in earlier posts when I noted Jesus was always going to come prior to sin ever existing and the finite's inability to reach the Infinite.

The above statement shows that another trouble you are having is that you seem to have a problem with God's pre-ordained plan - the way He has chosen to arrange things.

Josheb said:
The problem with what you're stating is that no one can fulfill the law of love, either! All you've accomplished is to replace on unattainable standard with another.

You are absolutely right no one can fulfill the law of love either - and it's not me who said it, it's Jesus who said it:

John 15:4-5 "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."

It is by the Spirit of Christ in us - it is not we who write the Law of Love on our hearts - it is God who does it:

Jer 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

Josheb said:
And you've done so by asserting the Law against the veracity of the Law!

Not so, as you can see from all the above facts which I have mentioned in my replies, it is you who are trying to fulfill the Law which you cannot fulfill and which Jesus has fulfilled on your behalf. You're attempting to move into God's House and bring your dilapidated, rusty and leaky old trailer with you to live in it.

It's self-contradictory. And therefore self-refuting. And self-defeating.

literaryjoe · Apr 28, 2020

expos4ever said:
Here is a text that I imagine will pose quite a challenge to those who believe the Law of Moses remains in in force:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I believe that some have tried to argue that Paul is merely saying that we no longer need to look the Law of Moses for our "justification", but that we still need to follow it. That sounds reasonable, especially given that Paul has elsewhere made it clear that the Law does not justify the Jew.

But, if we believe Paul chose his words with reasonable care, it seems hard to rationalize that view with Paul's decision to use the word "serve". There is quite a disconnect between the concept of "serving" and the concept of "being justified by".

More generally, I would caution all to watch out for people stretching a word or concept to the breaking point and beyond - it is a tell-tale sign of a problem.

Au contraire. This is not the slightest difficulty when simply read in context.
Shall we begin by quoting the pericope?

"Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:1-6 (ESV)

Paul begins by positing a hypothetical scenario that all can understand to evidence that a change in relationship or circumstance changes one's relationship to a law, in this case, but he's about to use that example to argue that a change in one's circumstance alters one's relationship to the law.

Having made his point with the woman whose husband dies scenario, Paul now moves to his main point. Let's paraphrase/summarize to show the simple expression of Paul's often complex language.

You used to belong to the law, but you have died to it (in Christ) so that you may belong to another, in order that you may bear fruit for God, instead of fruit for death. Having been released from the law (no longer belonging to), we still serve, but in a new way, not in the old way.

And what, one might ask, is the "tool" of our serving? In the past, the law worked/served in our members to produce fruit for death, but now, in the new way of the Spirit, the law works/serves to bear fruit for God. Because we no longer "belong" to it, but to God. Consequently, there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, though the righteous requirements of the law will be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the old way/the flesh, but according to the Spirit. And are consequently not hostile to God's law, but can (and do) submit to it.

literaryjoe · Apr 28, 2020

pasifika said:
Hello, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, appreciated..
I was not implying that there was no law before Sinai in reference to Galatians 3:17, the law of God has always there from the beginning because God existed. What Law given in Sinai is the Righteous requirements of the law of God through mans works, but faith was the Righteous requirement of God’s law by God own work on man, and that was always the way God used to teach man.and every man has a mind and a conscience where God’s Spirit can work and enable man to do righteous acts of Gods law within them..

Gentiles did not have the law, do by nature things required by the law which are law for themselves even though they do not have the law...Romans 2

I apologize beforehand because I'm not at all confident that I am accurately understanding what you're saying, but I think it is the following; please correct me if I have misunderstood:

The law given at Sinai revealed what man would need to do if they could earn salvation by their own effort.
However, it has always been by faith that men are saved, and not by works
[Once redeemed and regenerated] God works His law out in the life of men via their conscience and His Spirit

Am I close?

pasifika · Apr 28, 2020

literaryjoe said:
I apologize beforehand because I'm not at all confident that I am accurately understanding what you're saying, but I think it is the following; please correct me if I have misunderstood:

The law given at Sinai revealed what man would need to do if they could earn salvation by their own effort.

However, it has always been by faith that men are saved, and not by works

[Once redeemed and regenerated] God works His law out in the life of men via their conscience and His Spirit

Am I close?

Yes, thank you that is what I was trying say, you put it in a simple and clear explanation.

Zao is life · Apr 28, 2020

FULFILLING OF THE LAW (A)

"Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the law until all is fulfilled. Therefore whoever shall break one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven." (Matt 5:17-19).

"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matt 22:40, 37-39).

"And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

He said to Him, Which? Jesus said, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness,honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mat 19:17-19).

FULFILLING OF THE LAW (B)

"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Rom 13:9-10)

"And as you desire that men should do to you, you do also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31).

FULFILLING OF THE LAW (C) - the "How"

"Now you are clean through the Word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you.

As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered. And they gather and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:3-6).

"For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13).

THIS IS GOD WRITING HIS LAW ON THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO ABIDE IN CHRIST:

"but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (Jer 31:33).

REDEMPTION FOR THOSE WERE UNDER THE LAW:

"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods." (Gal 4:4-11 and 21-31).

THE GRAVE ERROR OF RETURNING TO THE WEAK AND BEGGARLY ELEMENTS OF THE LAW: PLACING YOURSELF AGAIN IN BONDAGE TO THAT WHICH CANNOT SET YOU FREE OR CAUSE YOU TO BE PLEASING TO GOD:

"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." (Gal 4:4-11 and 21-31).

THE FREE GIFT TO THE POOR MAN LIVING IN AN OLD, RUSTY TRAILER

A poor man lives in an old, rusty, leaky trailer.

A rich man takes pity on him, and purchases all the material, tools and equipment needed to build the poor man a mansion, and purchases the land too, paying a great price for it. Then the rich man builds the mansion for the poor man himself.

The poor man then moves into the mansion, but places his old, rusty, leaky trailer in the living room - not as a memory to remind him of the life he was freed from - but to live in it.

That's what those who go back to the weak and beggarly elements of the Mosaic Law do. The Law is holy, and just and good. There's nothing wrong with the Mosaic Law, but there's something wrong with humanity, which renders the Law unfit for purpose - but you don't have to listen to them of follow them in that futile exercise - you can abide in Christ and let Him write His love for God and for neighbor and for the brethren upon your heart.

Josheb · Apr 28, 2020

Do you not know, brother, that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body... on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Thank God for His Son because there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
No that's not all. The Law fails because it cannot bring life - it only brings death to those who think they can live by it:

[Romans 7:13]

That's all. That is the explicitly specified context of Paul's comments on the law. Going beyond those two givens and making larger statements about the law is adding to scripture.

Correction: The law fails to bring life because it cannot bring life. Context! The law does not fail in its ability to train in righteousness and equip for good works, The law does not fail when used lawfully.

When ops like this one are written in the future an effort should be made to make sure the context stated in scripture is stated in the op. Otherwise the ops read like broad, sweeping, over-generalized statements about the law that do not accurately represent God's word.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Therefore those who are baptized into Christ are baptized into His death, and have died to the Law:

Rom 7:6 "But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter."

Yep, and because of all of that he had written up to that point the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. That is how Paul concludes that portion of the narrative.

At the beginning of the chapter he stated the law has jurisdiction while a person still lives and at the end he stated he himself was un the Law in his flesh. Paul was a redeemed and regenerate believer writing to redeemed and regenerate believers about redeemed and regenerate believers and what he wrote still applies to redeemed and regenerate believers like you and me.

Paul's narrative - the narrative in which Romans 7 occurs - begins in Romans 5 and it begins with the statement, "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God." Leading up to that statement Paul had said to those who bore the name "Jew," "he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God," subsequently stating a righteousness from God has been manifested apart from the Law. Paul stated God will justify both the circumcised and the uncircumcised by faith and therefore we do not nullify the law, we establish it (3:31). Paul then uses the pre-Law Abraham as an example to explain how justification and righteousness has always come by faith and never by the works of the Law. Throughout the narrative between Romans 2 all the way to the end of Romans 8 Paul explicitly couches the entire narrative within contexts of righteousness and justification.

Nothing I have read here proves otherwise.

Josheb · Apr 28, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Of course I also know that (unlike you) Jesus stated...

Do you think it is appropriate for you to tell me what I do and do not know? Do you think it is appropriate for you to unnecessarily make snide derogatory snotty comments like, "unlike you"? Do you think it appropriate to elevate yourself above me with what you know and what is imagined I do not know?

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
What you cannot see is...

Do you think it is appropriate for you to tell me what I can and cannot see? Do you think it appropriate to turn the discussion away from the op and away from the op-topic and away from the scripture and deride someone you've never met before?

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
What you are doing is to change the meaning of all these scriptures to suit your determination to move back into something old and unfit for purpose, like someone who moved from living in a dilapidated, rusty old leaking trailer into a mansion someone else bought for him, and then moved the trailer into his living room to live in the trailer again.

Do you think it appropriate to post baseless accusations that misrepresent what was posted?

Do you know what an ad hominem is? Do you think it appropriate to attack the poster rather than the position asserted?

Assuming your answers are "No, Josh, my bad, I do not think those comments are appropriate," please briefly explain why that happened and why they are inappropriate. And if you know what to do to correct those errors then please tell me where it might be that you find those remedies.

Thx

Josheb · Apr 28, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Not so, as you can see from all the above facts which I have mentioned in my replies, it is you who are trying to fulfill the Law which you cannot fulfill and which Jesus has fulfilled on your behalf...

Straw man.

I am not trying to fulfill the law.
I am not trying to fulfill the law and you won't be able to find a single sentence in all my posts that ever state, imply, or insinuate any such thing.
I have stated, exactly as you have Jesus is the fulfillment of the law! and I have stated it more than once in this very op.

It is much easier to grossly misrepresent what has been posted and then argue against a straw man, though. Doesn't change anything scripturally or logically but it is easier.

expos4ever · Apr 28, 2020

literaryjoe said:
And what, one might ask, is the "tool" of our serving? In the past, the law worked/served in our members to produce fruit for death, but now, in the new way of the Spirit, the law works/serves to bear fruit for God.

Do you not realize what you have done here? Up to this point in the argument, I was with you 100%, but here you make the unsubstantiated claim that the law works to bear fruit. Paul never says this! In addition, you have ignored the fact that Paul says we have "died" to the Law, and that we now serve not "according to the letter."

I think you are trying to use this contrast to make the case that the law still applies:

1. In the past, the law worked/served in our members to produce fruit for death;
2. Now, in the new way of the Spirit, the law works/serves to bear fruit for God.

Number 1 is true, but I see nowhere at all that Paul ever says that the law (of Moses) serves to bear fruit for God.

literaryjoe said:
Consequently, there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, though the righteous requirements of the law will be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the old way/the flesh, but according to the Spirit. And are consequently not hostile to God's law, but can (and do) submit to it.

Whether we "can" submit to the Law of Moses once we have the Spirit may indeed be the case. But the fact that we can submit to a law certainly is not evidence that the law is still in force. You also appear to be implicitly arguing that this statement from Romans 8 supports your position that the Law is still in force:

so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

But, by itself without broader context, this "requirement of the Law", or "righteousness of the Law" as in a literal translation, that is fulfilled in us can be interpreted many ways:

1. That we actually follow the Law successfully (this is your interpretation);
2. That what the Law was aiming at (e.g righteousness) is now fulfilled by the action of the Spirit (this is my interpretation.

I see no case here at for the Law remaining in force. At best, the text from Romans 8 is ambiguous and the broader picture is clear: Paul believes the Law has come to an end, as perhaps most clearly evidenced here in Ephesians 2:

But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,

What is this "Law of commandments" that has been abolished, if not the Law of Moses?

Zao is life · Apr 28, 2020

Josheb said:
Do you think it is appropriate for you to tell me what I do and do not know? Do you think it is appropriate for you to unnecessarily make snide derogatory snotty comments like, "unlike you"? Do you think it appropriate to elevate yourself above me with what you know and what is imagined I do not know?

Do you think it is appropriate for you to tell me what I can and cannot see? Do you think it appropriate to turn the discussion away from the op and away from the op-topic and away from the scripture and deride someone you've never met before?

Do you think it appropriate to post baseless accusations that misrepresent what was posted?

Do you know what an ad hominem is? Do you think it appropriate to attack the poster rather than the position asserted?

Assuming your answers are "No, Josh, my bad, I do not think those comments are appropriate," please briefly explain why that happened and why they are inappropriate. And if you know what to do to correct those errors then please tell me where it might be that you find those remedies.

Thx

I was not deriding you, nor insulting you. I also never reacted like you are now when you also insinuated that I did not know that Jesus quoting of the greatest commandment in the Law is found in Deuteronomy and = what the Jews call the sh'ma.

Your resorting to false accusations of me using ad hominem attacks on you smacks of a childish tantrum because you know you cannot refute what I've said.

If you cannot be civil there is no point in us continuing this discussion.

expos4ever · Apr 28, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
FULFILLING OF THE LAW (A)
...FULFILLING OF THE LAW (B)....FULFILLING OF THE LAW (C) - the "How".......THIS IS GOD WRITING HIS LAW ON THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO ABIDE IN CHRIST......REDEMPTION FOR THOSE WERE UNDER THE LAW....THE GRAVE ERROR OF RETURNING TO THE WEAK AND BEGGARLY ELEMENTS OF THE LAW: PLACING YOURSELF AGAIN IN BONDAGE TO THAT WHICH CANNOT SET YOU FREE OR CAUSE YOU TO BE PLEASING TO GOD, etc.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. Your general point appears to be that the New Testament, at multiple places, characterizes ways of "fulfilling the Law" in a manner other than following the prescriptions of the Law of Moses. To the extent that this true, we have a Biblically defensible position on how the Law can be "fulfilled" without actually following the written code. Good stuff.

Since I believe you have been following my posts, you will probably know that I make different kinds of arguments for abolition (retirement, really) of the Law. In particular, I discuss specific claims that the Law has been "abolished" and I make a "covenantal narrative" argument to the effect that, at the Cross, the real purpose of the Law was achieved, and therefore it is no longer needed. But we need arguments like yours as well.

Zao is life · Apr 28, 2020

expos4ever said:
If I understand you correctly, I agree. Your general point appears to be that the New Testament, at multiple places, characterizes ways of "fulfilling the Law" in a manner other than following the prescriptions of the Law of Moses. To the extent that this true, we have a Biblically defensible position on how the Law can be "fulfilled" without actually following the written code. Good stuff.

Since I believe you have been following my posts, you will probably know that I make different kinds of arguments for abolition (retirement, really) of the Law. In particular, I discuss specific claims that the Law has been "abolished" and I make a "covenantal narrative" argument to the effect that, at the Cross, the real purpose of the Law was achieved, and therefore it is no longer needed. But we need arguments like yours as well.

I agree and thank you for your posts. It's a "touchy" subject these days, even though the Lord was very practical regarding what He said about the Mosaic law code, and so was Paul in his teaching.

Rom 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

It's made so clear to us, but not all agree.

expos4ever · Apr 28, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
It's made so clear to us, but not all agree.

I think some people believe that to say the Law of Moses has been retired implies that it is ok to murder or commit adultery. Obviously, we are saying no such thing. I think other people have difficulty with the concept that God can "change" His way of dealing with us. Well, I think it is abundantly clear that scripture presents an evolving narrative. Others hang their hats on the "forever" language that is used in the Old Testament in relation to the Law. However, as I (and perhaps others) have shown, the original Hebrew word translated as "forever" can be interpreted as a finite duration. Still others don't feel comfortable with Jesus "breaking" the Law, believing this would make Him a sinner; however, they overlook the possibility that, as God incarnate, Jesus has authority to bring the Law to a close. Finally, some understandably point to Matt 5:16-20 where it certainly seems that Jesus is saying the Law applies till heaven and earth pass away. However, as has been shown, such "end of the world" language is often used by Jews as a metaphorical means to refer to socio-political change.

Zao is life · Apr 28, 2020

expos4ever said:
Context and knowledge of how the Jews used cosmic imagery imagery is needed:

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

As I have argued in detail elsewhere, the Israelite culture was such that "end of the world" language was often used as a metaphor for socio-political change. So while a literal reading supports the notion of an eternal law, a Biblically-informed reading does not. This will always be covered up by those with an agenda to cast Jesus as declaring that the Law will still apply going forward.

And, interestingly, what does Jesus declare on the cross?

"It is finished"

To the attentive reader, the connection to "until all is accomplished" (above) should be an "a-ha" moment.

Now then, why does Jesus then advocate obedience to the Law in verse 19? Well, the Law has not yet come to an end until the Cross where Jesus declares "it is finished".

In someone else's words, Jesus is saying this: Far from wanting to set aside the law and the prophets, it is my role to bring into being that to which they have pointed forward, to carry them on into a new era of fulfillment.

Great post!

Josheb · Apr 28, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
I was not deriding you, nor insulting you.

The facts in evidence prove otherwise.

The intent to deride may or may not have existed but the derision is undeniable and irrefutable. Please correct that error.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
I also never reacted like you are now...

Ah, I see. Now I am "reacting."

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
...when you also insinuated that I did not know that Jesus quoting of the greatest commandment in the Law is found in Deuteronomy and = what the Jews call the sh'ma.

Never made any such insinuation. What I did was ask a series of questions to 1) raise awareness of the position's implication; the position I am reading in the defense of this op, and 2) to make sure I was not making negative assumptions, trusting that the answers to those questions would be in the affirmative.

And since the answers were affirmative we had a consensus from which to build.

But then I was told I don't know stuff, I cannot see stuff, and "changing scripture to suit my determination." Those are the facts in evidence.

And now we're off-topic arguing over whether or not you did what you did when the facts in evidence do not give you any basis for defending the indefensible.

And you're not going to like this next point but what is happening between us right now is op-relevant because you're position on the law has not made you a better poster, a better Christian, nor more Christlike. What you have done can and should be measured by scripture both Old and New, AND therein also lies the remedy to both repair the baseless accusations AND set a new path for a return to a discussion of this op.

And I and every single poster here gets to see whether you know and practice any of it.

It's called irony.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Your resorting to false accusations of me using ad hominem attacks on you smacks of a childish tantrum because you know you cannot refute what I've said.

Hmmm. so now the posts smack of childish tantrum and that isn't derisive.

Fullness, when posting "I know that (unlike you)..." is ad hominem. Whether intended as such that is, in fact, what it is. Look up "ad hominem" if there's any doubt. Ask two or three of the posters here whether that comment is directed against the person or the argument.

When posting, "What you cannot see...," is ad hominem by implication. It asserts as a given, without any proof, I cannot see something (and therefore the alternative is correct). Look it up if in doubt or consult two or three of the other posters here and ask them if telling another poseter they cannot see is a comment directed aganst the person or a comment on the case presented.

As to the accusation of changed meanings, there is a fundamental difference between,

"The meaning of scripture has been changed,"

and

"You have changed the meaning of scripture."

The first is a comment about the content of the posts and the latter is personal. More importantly, though, there' not a single sentence evidencing any changed meaning. The accusation is baseless; it is without evidence. Whatever you saw thinking the accusation was justified was not posted. No explanation was provided. No evidence proving changed meaning.

So the conclusion is based on the evidence, the comment was a baseless accusation that attacked the poster derisively and did not, for example, exemplify Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 2:3 , Proverbs 15:1, or James 3:10.

Do please look up those verses if in doubt or ask two or three posters here if those comments exemplify the letter or the principles ensconced in those texts.

We're talking about the Law of Moses here and its ability to do things other than provide a means of justification and righteousness. I have stated the Law is able to teach reprove, correct, and train in that already-existing righteousness and equip us for good works.

Now we get an opportunity to see whether that's true or not and its win-win for me because if we work through the scriptures then we both learn the veracity of the Law and if I don't get an acknowledgment of the wrong doing then the limits of your ability to live life in Christ is demonstrated.

Given this next comment it looks like you'll deny obedience and walk away. I hope you'll do the harder work and acknowledge the wrongdoing, repent, and make at least some attempt to make amends.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
If you cannot be civil there is no point in us continuing this discussion.

Now I'm not being civil.

That is ad hominem.

No evidence of incivility has been provided. That makes the comment a baseless accusation.

And the undeniable fact is none of it has anything to do with the op! You're off-topic in your own op! And that can't be blamed on me.

And, Fullness of the Gentiles, the civil thing to do was to point out the error in hopes of correction. That was the Christlike thing to do.

Psalm 141:5
"Let the righteous man strike me; let his rebuke be an act of loving devotion. It is oil for my head; let me not refuse it...."

Proverbs 27:6
"Faithful are the wounds of a friend..."

Proverbs 28:23
"He who rebukes a man will later find more favor than one who flatters with his tongue."

Exodus 20:16
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Exodus 23:7
"Stay far away from a false accusation."

Leviticus 19:18
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

1 Corinthians 13:4-7
"4Fullness of the Gentiles is patient, Fullness of the Gentiles is kind and is not jealous; Fullness of the Gentiles does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; he does not seek his own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 he does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 he bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Go back to to all those "you comments" in post 145 and read them through the filter of these scriptures, especially Eph. 4:29 and Phil. 2:3. Measure your words by God's word both Old and New. Do it for the purpose of obedience, reconciling us and in hopes of a return to cogent discourse about the op.

I've just stated my motive. If anything other than what is stated is read into the post then that's on you.

Zao is life · Apr 28, 2020

Josheb said:
The facts in evidence prove otherwise.

The intent to deride may or may not have existed but the derision is undeniable and irrefutable. Please correct that error.

Ah, I see. Now I am "reacting."

Never made any such insinuation. What I did was ask a series of questions to 1) raise awareness of the position's implication; the position I am reading in the defense of this op, and 2) to make sure I was not making negative assumptions, trusting that the answers to those questions would be in the affirmative.

And since the answers were affirmative we had a consensus from which to build.

But then I was told I don't know stuff, I cannot see stuff, and "changing scripture to suit my determination." Those are the facts in evidence.

And now we're off-topic arguing over whether or not you did what you did when the facts in evidence do not give you any basis for defending the indefensible.

And you're not going to like this next point but what is happening between us right now is op-relevant because you're position on the law has not made you a better poster, a better Christian, nor more Christlike. What you have done can and should be measured by scripture both Old and New, AND therein also lies the remedy to both repair the baseless accusations AND set a new path for a return to a discussion of this op.

And I and every single poster here gets to see whether you know and practice any of it.

It's called irony.

Hmmm. so now the posts smack of childish tantrum and that isn't derisive.

Fullness, when posting "I know that (unlike you)..." is ad hominem. Whether intended as such that is, in fact, what it is. Look up "ad hominem" if there's any doubt. Ask two or three of the posters here whether that comment is directed against the person or the argument.

When posting, "What you cannot see...," is ad hominem by implication. It asserts as a given, without any proof, I cannot see something (and therefore the alternative is correct). Look it up if in doubt or consult two or three of the other posters here and ask them if telling another poseter they cannot see is a comment directed aganst the person or a comment on the case presented.

As to the accusation of changed meanings, there is a fundamental difference between,

"The meaning of scripture has been changed,"

and

"You have changed the meaning of scripture."

The first is a comment about the content of the posts and the latter is personal. More importantly, though, there' not a single sentence evidencing any changed meaning. The accusation is baseless; it is without evidence. Whatever you saw thinking the accusation was justified was not posted. No explanation was provided. No evidence proving changed meaning.

So the conclusion is based on the evidence, the comment was a baseless accusation that attacked the poster derisively and did not, for example, exemplify Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 2:3 , Proverbs 15:1, or James 3:10.

Do please look up those verses if in doubt or ask two or three posters here if those comments exemplify the letter or the principles ensconced in those texts.

We're talking about the Law of Moses here and its ability to do things other than provide a means of justification and righteousness. I have stated the Law is able to teach reprove, correct, and train in that already-existing righteousness and equip us for good works.

Now we get an opportunity to see whether that's true or not and its win-win for me because if we work through the scriptures then we both learn the veracity of the Law and if I don't get an acknowledgment of the wrong doing then the limits of your ability to live life in Christ is demonstrated.

Given this next comment it looks like you'll deny obedience and walk away. I hope you'll do the harder work and acknowledge the wrongdoing, repent, and make at least some attempt to make amends.

Now I'm not being civil.

That is ad hominem.

No evidence of incivility has been provided. That makes the comment a baseless accusation.

And the undeniable fact is none of it has anything to do with the op! You're off-topic in your own op! And that can't be blamed on me.

And, Fullness of the Gentiles, the civil thing to do was to point out the error in hopes of correction. That was the Christlike thing to do.

Psalm 141:5
"Let the righteous man strike me; let his rebuke be an act of loving devotion. It is oil for my head; let me not refuse it...."

Proverbs 27:6
"Faithful are the wounds of a friend..."

Proverbs 28:23
"He who rebukes a man will later find more favor than one who flatters with his tongue."

Exodus 20:16
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Exodus 23:7
"Stay far away from a false accusation."

Leviticus 19:18
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

1 Corinthians 13:4-7
"4Fullness of the Gentiles is patient, Fullness of the Gentiles is kind and is not jealous; Fullness of the Gentiles does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; he does not seek his own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 he does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 he bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Go back to to all those "you comments" in post 145 and read them through the filter of these scriptures, especially Eph. 4:29 and Phil. 2:3. Measure your words by God's word both Old and New. Do it for the purpose of obedience, reconciling us and in hopes of a return to cogent discourse about the op.

I've just stated my motive. If anything other than what is stated is read into the post then that's on you.

You are being totally un-Christlike and turning a discussion into a fight, and then accusing the party you are picking a fight with of provoking the fight.

End of discussion. I won't join your party. It's war-mongering. My last response to you, in any post of yours in any thread.

The Law of Moses and its commandments : Forever unfit for purpose

Well-Known Member

Christian

Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Vintage

Vintage

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian

Christian

Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian

Well-Known Member

Similar threads