I refer to it is "the Law of Moses" because there are many people who see "the Law of God" and think "the Ten Commandments" when I am referring to all the commandments that God gave through Moses.
Okay. But since we've been talking about
Paul's words, why not use his terms? The farther you move away from Paul's words, the more certain it is that you'll misunderstand his meaning. I do agree that the Ten Commandments do not cover all of the Moral Law laid out in God's word to us, however - which is, perhaps, why Paul doesn't refer to the Ten Commandments but more generically to the "law of God."
The OT also uses refers to the Law of God, the Law of the God, the Law of the Lord, and the Law of Moses, and in a number of cases these terms are used interchangeably and are different ways of referring to the same thing, so I'm not seeing any justification for interpreting these as referring to different categories of law.
But we are talking about Paul's words, what he has said and means when referring to the "law of God." And Paul, it seems to me, is very precise and clear about his meaning, as I've already explained.
Paul spoke about the Law of Moses (
1 Corinthians 9:9), the law of conscience (
Romans 2:14-15), a law of works/works of the law (
Romans 3:27), a law of faith (
Romans 3:27), the Law of God (
Romans 7:25), the law of sin (
Romans 7:25), and the law of sin and death (
Romans 8:2), so a number of these terms are referring to the same law,
This obscures rather than clarifies Paul's meaning in
Romans 7. It doesn't help to get at what he meant by the "law of God" and the "law of sin and death" by offering a brief survey of his use of the term "law" in other places in his writing. Paul is quite plain, I think, in the immediate context in which these two phrases appear that he was using them interchangeably. Knowing that he used the term "law" in
Romans 3:27 or
1 Corinthians 9:9 in different ways and topical contexts from how he used it in
Romans 7 adds nothing to an understanding of his words in
Romans 7.
In
1 Corinthians 9:9, Paul's example from the Law of Moses was not to muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain, which is a valid law in the NT, which Paul affirmed again in Timothy 5:18, so that would undermine the position that he was speaking against coming under the yoke of the Mosaic Law or that the yoke of the Mosaic Law was referring to ceremonial laws.
I have never asserted that the Mosaic Law was
only ceremonial law. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Mosaic Law encompasses three basic types of law:
1.) Moral laws: Universal laws governing moral and immoral action under which all of humanity is bound (do not fornicate, honor God, do not lie, do not murder, love your neighbor, etc).
2.) Laws of separation: Laws intended by God to distinguish His Chosen People from all other nations (no mixed fabrics, no eating shellfish or cloven-hoofed animals, no tattoos, Year of Jubilee, etc.)
3.) Laws of ceremony: Laws establishing the correct way to perform sacrifices to God, observe religious feasts and rituals, and serve in the Levitical order.
Those moral laws commanded in both Testaments are binding upon NT believers, yes, but the laws of separation and ceremony are abolished (See:
Galatians 3, 4, Hebrews 6-9, Romans 3, 4, 5). I have found it is necessary to clarify this with those who are keen to press fellow believers into law-keeping, because many of them believe that the OT laws of separation and ceremony are still in force - as the Judaizers of Paul's day did. This may not be the case with you, and I hope it isn't, but your determination to refer to the "Law of Moses" in place of "the law of God" suggests you might have a Judaizer bent to your thinking.
while I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same laws for how to express His nature. In Acts 21:20, Paul continued to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he delighted in the same law as David.
God does not change in His essential nature, but His laws have. Some laws He issued
only to the Israelites, not so much to reveal His nature, but simply to distinguish them from the pagan nations that surrounded the Israelites and to remind the Israelites at every turn that they were His people. For example, we don't learn much about the essential nature of God in His ordinance to the OT Israelites not to eat "unclean" animals. God, after all, was the One who made these "unclean" animals. As part of His "very good" Creation (
Genesis 1:31), and devoid of any moral sense, they had no intrinsic fault or evil in them, so it is a mistake to think God is showing His holiness, or some such thing, in His command to His Chosen People to avoid eating these "unclean" animals. In fact, He rescinds this law in a brief exchange with Peter (
Acts 10), pointing out that, as God, if He has declared an animal "clean," it is, just as declaring it "unclean" makes it so - forensically speaking.
Of course, God was speaking about Cornelius, a Gentile, whom Peter would have to shortly accept as a brother in Christ. Just as Peter had been declared righteous by God - again,
forensically, not literally - by Peter's faith in Jesus, Cornelius, too, though a Gentile (and a Roman soldier, to boot) would also be justified by faith. Peter was going to have to change his thinking and attitude toward the "unclean" Gentiles (even the oppressive Roman ones) because God, through Christ, had instituted a New Covenant with all who would come to Him for redemption and adoption into His kingdom and family.
But God doesn't change, right? His laws, therefore, are as immutable as He is, correct? If we set aside His laws, we set aside Him? I don't see how this can be the case in the face of the profound changes that the Atonement of Christ and the New Covenant established in him have produced. God doesn't change
in His essential nature, but His laws and relationship to humanity have clearly changed - and changed enormously - over time. So, it is a mistake to argue from God's laws to His essential nature, making both equally immutable. Some of God's laws, at least, have actually been abolished.
Ephesians 2:11-19
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands—
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 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, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR;
18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
You have not shown where the Bible lists which laws are part of the Law of Moses as opposed to being part of the Law of God, nor have you even shown where the Bible make any sort of distinction between the two.
Actually, I have. See my earlier posts. Or see the Scripture references I've given above. In any case, where is it written that I must show a list from the Bible of all the laws that have been abolished under the New Covenant? Says who? Paul is very clear that such a situation
has occurred, but he makes no effort to stipulate an exhaustive list of which laws, exactly, have been set aside under the New Covenant. It appears he believed that his readers could extrapolate from what he had written to them to such a list, castigating the Galatian believers, in particular, for failing to do so. I don't, then, see any good reason to provide you with the list you demand. If you want one, do as the Galatians ought to have done and reason out from what Paul has written about the abolished "law of commandments contained in ordinances" what the list is.
I agree that some laws can be described a ceremonial laws just as some laws can be described as hand laws, but that does not establish that any of the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same manner, and without doing that you are reading your position into the text rather than deriving it from the text.
This is called specious reasoning. Just because I might use a different term than the next guy to refer to the same thing doesn't mean I am reading my "position" into the biblical text. And, so far, you haven't come anywhere close to showing that I have.
I don't really follow your logic here at all. If I call my dog's ball a "ball" but my wife calls it a "round toy," are we just reading into reality our view of the ball? Of course not. Despite the difference in our terms, the ball is what we are both referring to, not some alternate reality we are forcing upon the dog's spherical toy.
And I haven't ever said that the terms I've used to describe the Mosaic Law are the very same terms the authors of the Bible used. How would that even be possible, given our separation in time, and language, and vantage point from which we understand Christian doctrine? Did Paul possess the entire NT as I do today? No. Had he the long history of doctrinal discussion and codification that has happened in the intervening time between his day and mine? No. Why in the world, then, should I expect that he would use the same terms that I do? Yikes.
I have cited verses in both the OT and the NT that show that the Law of Moses was referred to interchangeably as the Law of God.
Most of which is irrelevant since it
Paul's words we are considering.
Furthermore, God commanded everything in the Law of Moses, so I don't see any grounds for thinking that any part of the Law of Moses is not also the Law of God.
??? Who has said otherwise? It is this sort of comment from you that reveals you're not really carefully considering what I've been writing to you. As far as I can tell, you're just in fortify-and-defend mode, not hear-and-consider.
On the other hand, you have simply assumed that there is a distinction between the Law of God and the Law of Moses and that that distinction is in regard to laws of ceremony and laws of separation without giving any sort of Scriptural support.
??? Again, where have I written any such thing? You are clearly not actually understanding what I'm writing.
All of the Law of Moses came from God, so it is, obviously, all the Law of God. But the Mosaic Law in the OT included laws that have been abolished under the New Covenant, specifically the laws pertaining to ceremony/ritual and separation (or whatever alternate terms you prefer to use). That these laws have been set aside in no way implies that they weren't from God. Between the OT and NT there is a difference in
the scope of the Law of God, not a difference in its
origin. If you'd just read more carefully, I wouldn't have to explain these rather obvious things...
Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (
Jeremiah 31:33).
No, Jesus did not spend his ministry doing any such thing. Instead, he was constantly teaching that he had come as the atoning "Lamb of God" precisely because the Mosaic Law had shown all those who tried to keep it incapable of doing so to God's standard - which is to say, perfectly. He dealt with Jews within their own OT context, repeatedly showing them to be falling short of what God required of them. The story of the Rich Young Ruler is a great example; as are the many exchanges he had with the hypocritical religious leaders of his day. The Sermon on the Mount in
Matthew 5-7 goes further, establishing such a high standard for human moral conduct that it was evident to all listening that it could never be attained. Why? Because Jesus was teaching that keeping the law was not the ultimate way to reconciliation and fellowship with God; that he had come to fulfill and replace the letter of the law with
himself.
Matthew 5:20
20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
John 10:7-10
7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
John 8:12
12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
It is in and through Christ that we come into relationship with God. The Mosaic Law has no power whatever to do so - as the record of the OT bears out.