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.
You nailed it; that's exactly what I'm doing, because that's what Paul is doing.
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.
It's all over the NT (and Old) and you know all the verses I could quote to you, so what can I do to communicate effectively? It's a real challenge....
As I see it, I have two main options: I can (1) quote the Scriptures you've already read and interpreted another way, providing my commentary/explanation/amplification, so that it, hopefully, begins to dawn on you that there is a simpler and more unified way to read/understand all these potentially contradictory verses, or I can (2) quote other notable Christians who read the Scriptures in the same manner I do, as evidence that there is an historical consensus.
I guess I'll take one more whack at showing how the reading I am trying to highlight represents the exegetical force of the text itself, and must actually be resisted in order not to be perceived. After all, I began my responses in this thread with several quotations of other believers, and that seemed to make no impression whatsoever.
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.
It is encouraging, at least, that you are following my reasoning well. I would tweak the two options you've listed as follows, which I hope will be elucidating. First, let me clarify that since the sinful nature remains at war with us, I would probably not say that we "follow the Law
successfully." Rather,
- We are enabled, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to walk in the way of God's law, which is to say characteristically produce the fruits of the Spirit, and His regenerating influence causes us to desire to do so. (I'm certain you can readily "hear" all the passages I'm recruiting to my cause via allusion with these intentional word choices.)
- What the law aimed at (righteousness, aka, the character of Christ) was accomplished by Christ, so that with His character/presence/Spirit within us, we too might now walk according to His character.
Look, re-read the passages you know so well and note how "action-oriented" they all are. The "goal" of the Torah was not accomplished so that it could henceforth be ignored. The tutor does not train us so that we can subsequently ignore his training once we're adults. Contemplate the corollaries: if the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to His law, then what is the inescapable conclusion? The mind set on the Spirit ... ?
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,
Whew! I just find your opening claim there stunning, which is probably how you feel about me, so that's not really helpful to mention is it? Anyway, there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about Rom 7 & 8:1-17 (they are inextricably tied together and form one thought-unit). Granted, chapter 7 can be super confusing to follow, but the opening verses of chapter 8...so clear, so incontrovertible, so obvious.
Paul does believe the law has come to an end (though it never had a beginning, except in man's vain imagination)
for justification, but he never suggests that it has come to an end as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. The idea is incomprehensible to Paul, and we must realize this. And any time there is a statement made by Paul which could be understood in the manner you have been reading it, he always hasten to follow that statement with a clarification, to ensure that he is not so grievously misunderstood. "Shall we continue to sin that grace may abound? God forbid", or "What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!", or "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means!"
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?
Have you noticed that there is no enmity between Jew and Gentile contained in the Law of Moses? Have you noticed that nowhere else does Paul refer to the law of Moses with "
ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin"? There is an extra-biblical use of this phrase and it referred to human customs. Like Jesus in Matthew 15/Mark 7/ Luke 11, Paul may be indicating that the traditions of the elders cannot be permitted to overturn God's commands, nor prevent God's purpose to have One People (who are instructed by one God and one book, by the way).
Or, he may be saying this: as the exclusive possessors of "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" there has been enmity between Jew, since the Jews have what the Gentiles do not. No more, Jesus is abolishing the barrier between the two [caused by] the law of commandments contained in ordinances. Not by taking this precious gift away from both Jew and Gentile, but by including the Gentiles in the group to whom it has been given: the commonwealth of Israel, the one new man.
The passage should be read like this: "
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both groups into one and destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall, by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances."
One can see how either reading I have suggested may be seen there: either "
ton nomon ton entolon..." refers to man-made accretions, or it specifies what caused the enmity. Either way, what is indisputable is that it is the enmity that is abolished, and not the law.
