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

[Soyeong]

This action on God's part constituted a divine desecration over-riding the authority of the temple priesthood..

Again, is that what is stated in the text or what you have assumed?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Again, is that what is stated in the text or what you have assumed?

If you think I am wrong say so...

 

[fhansen]

I am not sure exactly what you mean, but Paul does not add such caveat - he says we have been released from the Law and no longer serve according to it dictates. Period, full stop.

What I'm saying is that, if a person were to live strictly and only by the Spirit they would be sinless, i.e. lawful, as to the moral law. They would love God with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and their neighbor as themselves; they would be perfected in that love, their justice/righteousness complete, the law fulfilled. But in truth this is a process; we will be challenged, tempted, tested; we will fall at times-and hopefully get up at some point and become stronger in our faith, hope, and love, and in the overcoming of sin simultaneously. We will become refined, holier. If we persist in serious sin we're already living by the flesh, not the Spirit, already estranging ourselves from God again. So the law continues to play its part in guiding us because we should know that we must obey it-although without being under it.

John tells us that sin is lawlessness. And Paul says that while we are now set free from obeying by the letter of the law -we must still obey, but by the Spirit now. We must come to obey by the law that God is writing in our hearts.

The following two verses are reconcilable with the two that follow them:

“If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:13

with:

“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.” Rom 3:20

“But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Rom 7:6

Being “under the law” and “works of the law” are different in kind, with different motivations, from being under grace and works of the Spirit. The former are about ME and my own “righteousness“ in fulfilling/performing them while the latter are about me allied with God in a union that I was created for and through and from which true righteousness flows.

“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” Rom 3:21-22

 

[Soyeong]

If you think I am wrong say so...

I think that your claim is not supported by the text.

 

[Carl Emerson]

What do you mean by 'supported by' ???

Does non-mention constitute error ???

 

[trophy33]

I don't see Lev19:18 as a general principle. I see it as a commandment still applicable in the NC that summarizes many other OC Commandments beginning with the 5 or 6 of the 10 stated in Paul's explanation. IOW I'm concerned that the law as principles concept is taken too far.

I agree that the entire Mosaic Law does not apply. Heb7:12 says the law changed. Not only has the Priesthood changed, but at minimum all the laws re: animal sacrifices are not applicable. The break one break them all structure thus seems inapplicable (so how do we deal with James?) and the curse of the law has been dealt with (Gal3).

Since Torah at root means "instruction" all Torah was/is instructional. I think good law is always instructional and tells us what is good and bad for us and others. Even today, the balcony railings I mentioned can be seen to be derived from Torah and is practically and instructionally good for us and others. This is where the principles concept makes sense. To say love for God & Neighbor is simply a principle goes too far.

Same comment re: principles. There are 1,000+/- commands in the NC. When we get to lists like the one I mentioned in Gal5, we might just as well put a "thou shall not" in front of each one of the offenses against law listed there. And they are all sins, which means they are all lawlessness (1John3:4) and unrighteousness (1John5:17) and the Rom6 instruction against continuing in sin/lawlessness and the commandments there to not sin/do lawlessness provide the commandment. So, many sins per Moses are still sins per Paul on behalf of Christ and these lists are derived from Moses. They are more than just principle.

This is one of the reasons I appreciate some of the discussion from the Messianic point of view from those like @Soyeong.

It's also the reason I like some of the reformed thinkers here and favor those who have published works like "By What Standard" and "By This Standard". If not God's Law, then what?

It's also why I enjoy RCC input here from those like @fhansen.

God's Law is always the standard of righteousness, and this standard is universal. The way I read our Text, this has been made clear at minimum by Rom3:9-19 (with a focus on 3:19 which IMO tells us the whole world is in the jurisdiction of God's Law and there should be fear of God in the eyes of all men 3:18 - BTW, "under law" in 3:19 is not the best translation, because it literally says "in the law").

The end of all this (IOW telos = conclusion here) is that I should be able to travel globally and eat tacos, pasta, hummus, barbecue, curry, etc., etc., and never think about being murdered no matter where I travel. God's standards are universal, and all mankind is going to realize this one day. For us since Christ, it's just a matter of what the content of Law is and how we use it.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is a general principle, because, well, its general. Its ambiguous and it means various things in various situations.

NT does not have a universal list of "commands". Its not the genre of letters. Those are practical instructions to specific situations the churches were dealing with. The letter to 21st century Netherlands or to 2nd century Norway would be a bit different, considering social issues and topics. General principles would be the same, though.

The standard, as I already said, is God's Law "written in our hearts" if you want it poetically, or living by our renewed conscience, if you want it more prosaically. What specifically it is, is dependent on our specific situation.
As I said, we must take into consideration that Christianity is for the whole world and for all ages - its not possible to postulate specific rules for everybody everywhere in every time, except of general principles (like do not murder, do not steal, love your neighbor...).

Anybody who reads the Mosaic Law today, with all its 6 hundred rules, can easily see that they are not for today. Even those who claim to keep it, judge it by their own mind, what to keep and what not, i.e. they are extracting just the general principles from it, anyway.

 

[GDL]

I am not sure what you are asking. I believe, following Paul's position, that adultery is sin. And, by faith, I believe that truth is made known to me by the Spirit. If someone says that the Spirit told them it wasn't sin, I would conclude they are lying.

By control, I mean standard. You conclude the Spirit told you something. I conclude the Spirit told me something that is in direct and obvious conflict with you. We both conclude the other is lying. What is the standard we use to resolve the matter? Does the written Word of God play no role anymore? It seems you think it does not, yet you seem well versed. Is there a conflict between what is written in God's Law and what His Spirit teaches?

NKJ Proverbs 1:23 Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you (Hebrew parallelism - God pouring out His Spirit on you is to make His words known to you)

NKJ 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. - unity between the Father the Word and the Spirit

NKJ Acts 28:25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, - the Holy Spirit spoke what was written.

Then of course there are the Bereans who confirmed with the written Word what Paul was saying and Scripture commends them.

And there is Jesus using the Law to rebuke what the adversary was offering Him.

Then the question, is the Law being written on our hearts of different content than the Law written on stone and paper?

Then.........

I do not agree with your presumption that the written Law remains applicable. If we are going to take Paul seriously, how can we adopt that position? After all, he says we have been set free from the letter (that is, from the Law of Moses) I realize there are some subtleties here. I believe adultery is sin, and the Law says it is sin. But, strictly speaking that does not mean the Law still applies to me. Analogy: I believe it is wrong to commit murder. It seems really obvious, to me at least, that I could have come to hold that view even if there were no law in my country (Canada) against murder! So I see no reason at all to believe that the Law remains in force in any sense.

So, assuming the letter is the Mosaic Law, is the Mosaic Law the only Law? What does the pre-Moses Gen26:5 refer to? Why does God tell Cain that sin, which is there to get him Gen4:7? Why is God dealing with sin in Gen18? Why does the Word of God, the Torah in this case, deal with sin from the beginning if there is no righteous standard in existence?

I think you are seriously wrong here and that you will find both in life and at the telos that God's standard of righteousness - God's Law - written on your heart and also contained in the written Word applies to you and to all of us. With respect, you seem to be guiding us away from the Word as if it has no role anymore.

I have presented several examples of how God's Law (what @fhansen refers to as "moral law" to distinguish between the Mosaic Law and the everlasting standard of righteousness seen throughout the Word of God as well as within the Mosaic Law) is still used. I'll put this one forth once again; Gal 5:

• 11 Paul is not proclaiming physical circumcision (pursuant at minimum to Mosaic Law) which conflicts with the cross
• 12 Paul has a nice wish for those who proclaim circumcision and going back to Mosaic Law
• 13 Christians are called to freedom - but not to use that freedom as opportunity for flesh (which he will soon describe in terms of sin/lawlessness) - and he commands Christians to serve one another through love
• 14 the whole law is fulfilled in one statement - Lev19:18 love neighbor as self (so Paul has now said we are free but not free to provide freedom to flesh and not free to disregard doing what fulfills all [written] Law)
• 15 a warning that doing what is not loving [neighbor] (not doing what fulfills all [written] Law) will end up in mutual destruction
• 16 a command to walk [in] Spirit and you will not complete (teleo from telos) desire [of] flesh (this not completing desire of flesh could also be a form of command)
• 17 the flesh desires against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh - the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another - so if you desire somethings, these things you do not do (sound like the reverse of Romans 7? - as I've been saying, the battle in us is not over - but the odds that were stacked against us are now in our favor - it's no longer the mind of man with just the written on paper code against sin in flesh using Law to bring death - it's now the love neighbor summary of written law commanded to be fulfilled with us and the Spirit against sin in flesh - the NC system of Law and Spirit vs. the OC system of Law w/o Spirit)
• 18 if we are being led [in/by] Spirit, then we are not under Law (under Law is the OC system - led by Spirit is the NC system that will fulfill Law - summarized as Love) - (are we under Law if not led by Spirit? If we go back to the OC system, then we're rejecting true Righteousness in Christ and Christ will be of no benefit) - (note that this infers under Law is still a possibility)
• 19-21 the listed works of the flesh are evident (they are sins some of which are readily identifiable in written Mosaic Law. If there is no Law, then these are not sins. If such things are to be taught only by the Spirit, then why the written list? These are all against Law and thus against Love, and against the Spirit and against Love. Against the Law is against the Spirit. The Word and the Spirit are parallels Prov1:23))
• 21 There is more to this list of sins - in context desires of flesh which are against the Spirit and against Love and against God's Law) - those who are doing/accomplishing/engaging in these things will not inherit God's Kingdom - Paul has taught this to them before and he is repeating it (apparently due to its importance).
• 22-23 the Spirit will be producing things in us that there is no Law against (so, there is still Law against the desires of flesh)
• 24 Those who are Christ's crucified the flesh together with its interests and desires (Christ's have put to death the things that are against God's Law and Spirit)
• 25 Assuming we live [in Spirit] then we are commanded to conform [to] Spirit (this "conform" is active which means we do this in obedience to the command - it is a word that means to be in line with a person or thing as standard for one's conduct (BDAG))
• 26 another command in the negative that is in essence commanding us to love one another.

A few more notes:

• We are free but under the authority of Christ's Apostles, which is to be under the authority of Jesus Christ - I have said several times in this thread that we are not under law, so not under the lordship of sin, but that Jesus Christ is our Lord. He said His yoke was light, not that there is no yoke. Our freedom is ultimately to be free from sin, but never to be out from under His authority. There are 1,000+/- commands in the NT for us to willingly obey. The only other option is to be free from Him, which is ultimately a non-option.
• It is clear to me at least that Law is still in effect in identifying sin/lawlessness - the thinking and behavior opposed to the Spirit and the Law being written on our hearts.
• It is also clear to me that some sins are listed for a reason: Our responsibility is to listen to the Spirit and study the Word of God and that these 2 are not opposed to one another and that we are to check what we hear with what is written. FWIW, I've encountered way too many infants in Christ (defined in part at the end of Heb5 as the immature who are unlearned and unskilled in the Word of Righteousness and therefore unable to judge between good and bad) who think we just listen to the Spirit and who know little of the Word and are deceived by sin and doing sin. Spiritual growth to maturity and beyond is a process and our tools are the Word and the Spirit not one without the other.

If you are asking me if the Spirit will ever "tell" someone it is ok, to murder, steal, and commit adultery, of course I will say "no".

Good. What else will the Spirit not tell someone it's OK to think or do? How much do you have written on your heart that you can reel off for me apart from reading God's Word and His Law? How many professing Christians are approving of things the Law/Word says are sins? If your interior content is not complete, then what will you use to tell that professing Christian they're wrong (BTW, this is the original context of Lev19:18 love neighbor- to rebuke for wrong)? Is it your word against theirs? The Spirit told you against the Spirit told them?

Please make your question more specific - is there a particular text you have in mind?

In 1Cor5 Paul is aggressively dealing with an issue of fornication in the congregation. Do you think Paul's identification of this sin/lawlessness is simply that the Spirit told him it was wrong? When Paul gets down to 1Cor5:10-11, did the Spirit alone tell Paul this short list of things is sin, or was Paul well versed in God's Law? When Paul continues and talks about judging fellow Christians, do you believe such judgment is only by what the Spirit has told us, or what Law the Spirit has taught us to read and understand - written Law that we can all look at and not be left giving our version of what the Spirit told us? When Paul begins another list of sins in 1Cor6, again, why the list if we're only to listen to the Spirit, and are not these sins stated in God's Law/Word for our benefit?

We deal with such questions in secular society without need for a divine law, so I see no mystery here. Just as members of Japanese society (a society where Christianity has almost no foothold, I believe) agree that murder is wrong, for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the Law of Moses, so can we, the church, adjudicate behaviour in the absence of the Law of Moses.

Again, student of God's Law and Word will tell you that these similarities in the consciences of men of all races came from God who created man and man's consciences. Paul deals with some of this in his talk to the Jews about gentiles who do things in Law by nature and thereby reveal law (God's Law) written on hearts and thus having functional consciences. Once again, this is about that thread of God's Law - @fhansen "moral law" - that exists within and without the Mosaic Law. You're missing this thread and this fact of some light within all men. It originated from God and not from something apart from God.

I for one would seriously hate to be adjudicated by professing Christians claiming to have heard from the Spirit apart from the Word and Law of God. I, like my Lord, would put things forth from the written Word to challenge any judgment that was not according to His written Law.

Again, it seems really obvious to me that Paul thinks the Spirit replaces the Law: "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law."

This is part of the problem that is the OP of this thread. Not being under law does not mean there is no Law. In part what you are reading is a verse that says the old era has ended and the new era in Christ has begun. It's no longer the losing battle of man's mind against sin in his flesh using law to bring death. It's now the winning battle of man with Spirit opposing and overcoming sin in flesh and having life. Hopefully you've understood some of this by now from the content re: Gal5 above.

Here is 1 Tim 1:8: But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully

I confess I do not understand completely what is being said here.

1Tim1:5 The telos of the instruction/command is love from a clean heart and a good conscience and genuine faith.

• The goal/end of the instruction/command refers back to 1:3 where Paul made a strong request of/urged Timothy to remain in Ephesus and command/instruct certain men not to teach contrary to standard teaching.
• The goal of this command/instruction is to make mature Christians, with clean hearts, good and functional consciences, and genuine faith.

1:6-7 Some turned away from this goal going astray into empty talk desiring to be law teachers neither understanding what they're saying nor concerning what they're insisting

1:8 Law is good if someone uses it lawfully

• Please note that Paul does not say the Law has ended

1:9-11 Law is not in place [for a] righteous [man], but is in place for lawless [men] (please read the rest of Paul's descriptions of sinful people) and for anything else opposed to correct teaching according to the Gospel

• These listed sins (seems to be a favorite practice of Paul to list things that are against Law) are opposed to correct teaching - the context is Law teaching - according to the Gospel.

God's Law used lawfully according to the Gospel is still in place and it identifies lawlessness/sin. Once again, God's written Law remains to identify lawlessness, and this is not just about hearing the Spirit. It's also about teaching Law correctly.

But I think one thing that is relevant to the topic we are discussing is clear: to say that the Law is good does not, of course, by itself, mean it remains in effect. It is not news to me that Paul says the Law is good - I have acknowledged this. But something that is good need not last forever.

Disagreed. The Law is good, it is still in place for God's purposes, it is to be used lawfully to identify and call out sin, it is consistent with God's perfectly righteous character, it in this sense lasts forever, it is not in place for righteous men who have Law on hearts who walk in Spirit and exist in Christ and thus who will be walking Law and perfected Love as was their Lord and first-born Brother. In effect, if you know not to murder and you cannot ever be convinced to murder, then please feel free to skip over reading that portion of Law unless you need to use it point out to a murderer that he has committed a capital sin against God, or unless you need to point out to a fellow Christian that says murder is OK and the Spirit told them this.

 

[expos4ever]

Setting aside how some cannot see law being called a ministry of death, back in our old friend Rom7 Paul's saying the law is a good thing is in the context of sin using law to bring death. I think this at minimum integrates the 2 and I think this was God's intent and design to bring sin in the flesh to light.

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 heart was in the law. Taking it to the level of changing minds and hearts is not new to law. Loving God with all heart, mind, soul, strength conveys some of this. The writing of law on minds and in hearts in Christ in Spirit will accomplish this.

What was amiss with law was sin in flesh and the apparatus of mind + writing on external media apart from the new creation in Christ in Spirit with part of the ministry of the Spirit being to bring us to keeping the statute of law (Ez36).

I do not understand what you are saying in the first two sentences of the first paragraph. With respect to the writing of Law on the heart, I cannot believe that this simply means to internalize or otherwise memorize the law - that does great violence to the metaphor of writing the law on the heart (I am not suggesting that this is your view, although I am not sure). Instead, I have to believe that the idea here is that we do not need the written law in our hearts, but rather the underlying principles if you will. And I believe this is what we get from Jesus in the new testament.

I am not quite sure what you are saying in the second paragraph. I believe that Paul believes the Law in and of itself is good; however, it acts on fallen human flesh and thereby intensifies sitting desires. The problem is not the law, but rather fallen human nature. I think you believe that now that we have the Spirit, we can do what the Law says. I do not see how such a position is tenable for a whole raft of reasons. First, I believe that Jesus repeatedly challenges the Law. Second, I think that, for example, Sabbath does not make conceptual sense in the New Covenant as Jesus has initiated a new creation - to honour the Sabbath would show that we are still celebrating the "old" creation. Third, I believe Paul repeatedly advises us to not be concerned with "food, festivals, and special days" - a clear reference to the Law. Fourth, the Law was the charter document of one people - the Jews. And as the author of Ephesians says, in chapter 2, that one of the key markers of the New Covenant was the dissolution of the distinction between Jew and Gentile, specifically by putting the Law behind us.

All "food" even today is not pure. Anyone who thinks and lives like it is, is likely sick or becoming sick. As for foods being ritually cleansed or allowed by God, this is a larger discussion.

The food laws never had anything to do with health - I believe scholars are almost unanimous on this. As for "the larger discussion", I believe it is very clear from Mark 7 that the food laws are now abolished. How could the statement "nothing that goes into a man defiles him" be interpreted any other way?

When Jesus deals with Sabbath, which He observed, He does so in the context of mens' traditions and He takes them through a few levels of law to show that there are provisions of law to deal with breaking Sabbath, which the Priests did to perform their Sabbath duties. He also shows through David's actions, that Sabbath is ultimately for men and not to be used to prevent men in need of being helped.

Jesus was clearly challenging mens' traditions and legalistic harsh treatment of people in need.

Jesus clearly did challenge "man's traditions", but, for reasons I have gone into at length either in this thread or others, He also challenged the Law. Again, how can the statement "nothing that goes into a man defile him" not mean the end of the food laws?

As for the Sabbath, I have already made my argument about John 5 where Jesus declares that He is, yes, working on the Sabbath. He does not plead for a special exception. And consider this from theologian Greg Boyd:

Some scholars argue that the disciples were merely violating a Pharisaical tradition surrounding the Sabbath, not any actual OT law regarding the Sabbath. In this view, Jesus was trying to bring out the true meaning of Sabbath (i.e., showing that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath) and to demonstrate his authority as Lord of the Sabbath. While I grant that this was certainly part of Jesus’ intent, I do not see how this absolves his disciples from the charge of Sabbath-breaking. After all, according to the OT—not merely a Jewish tradition—people were to be executed merely for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Nu 15:32-36). Moreover, Moses’ prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath explicitly included a prohibition on gathering food (i.e., manna) (Ex. 16:23-29). Hence, in this particular instance it seems the Pharisee’s had some biblical basis for their criticism of Jesus.

 

[expos4ever]

I want to talk about this whole line of reasoning that when Jesus appears to break the Sabbath, He is not really doing so but is instead, obviously implicitly, claiming an allowable exception since what He is doing (e.g., healing on the Sabbath) is "good for man and the Sabbath was made for man". Here is an example from Mark 2:

One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Before I attempt to reconcile Jesus' teaching here with my view that He is effectively breaking the Sabbath, let me point out that the "exception based on helping others" argument can be applied in so many circumstances that it makes the Sabbath prohibition against work almost entirely meaningless. Almost any kind of work can be spun as an activity that "helps people" and is therefore exempt from the Sabbath rule. Suppose someone is building a large apartment building to provide low cost housing for the poor. Using the line of reasoning that some here are appealing to, we could say that this work is a legitimate exception. And the sky is the limit. I suggest that well over 90% of the work we humans do can be justify as helping someone. Sure, a hitman working on the Sabbath is not helping people. But surely the vast majority of human activity we normally call "work" does indeed helps someone.

Now let us return to what Jesus says. Granted, if not here there is another passage where Jesus describes how people broke the Sabbath rules technically but this was not held against them. Sure, this seems to align with the view that the Sabbath law has exceptions and that Jesus is in no way overturning the Sabbath law. But, it is also conceivable that what Jesus is doing is effectively doing away with the Law by pointing out that it is basically inconsistent with the higher purposes of God. One may well ask why the law was given in the first place. Fair enough, I believe there is an answer to this question, but I will not get into it in this post.

But forget all that. Here is what I believe are the most important arguments against this "exception" concept:

First, we need to interpret Jesus behaviour on the Sabbath in light of all the other examples where I suggest it is clear that He is breaking the law: He declares all foods clean, he declares himself to be the place to go for forgiveness and not the temple as required by the law; he touches unclean people, as prohibited by the law; he excuses a woman caught in adultery, again in violation of the law.

Second, here is the problem as I see it if you keep the Sabbath: you are not keeping track of where we are in God's evolving narrative of redemption. The Sabbath honors the day on which God rest from his first round of creation. Fine. But the New Testament is full of new creation theology: we are now on a new stage. When Jesus bursts forth from the tomb on the first day of a new week in, yes, a garden, with all the echoes of Eden this elicits, the messages is clear: new creation has begun and it is time to retire the Sabbath with honor. Its time has come and gone in God's purposes.

So, yes, when broader Biblical context is set aside, one can argue that Jesus is not in fact breaking the Sabbath when He, for example, allows his disciples to gather food. But I think the bigger picture shows that His Sabbath actions are intended to signal the end of this particular observance.

 

[fhansen]

Second, here is the problem as I see it if you keep the Sabbath: you are not keeping track of where we are in God's evolving narrative of redemption. The Sabbath honors the day on which God rest from his first round of creation. Fine. But the New Testament is full of new creation theology: we are now on a new stage. When Jesus bursts forth from the tomb on the first day of a new week in, yes, a garden, with all the echoes of Eden this elicits, the messages is clear: new creation has begun and it is time to retire the Sabbath with honor. Its time has come and gone in God's purposes.

I agree with this in the main. And this, and more, is why the early church until today did not consider the sabbath, out of the Ten Commandments, necessary to observe in the old way. They were very free when it came to ceremonial law, or laws that pertain to days, or dietary laws, etc. And moral law, as well, was observed in a new, freer way, by the Spirit, a way which should’ve made that law and its commands self evidently correct. And yet believers needed to be castigated in the NT, because some were taking their new freedom to mean a license to commit even lawless acts.

 

[expos4ever]

There are other takes on this, such as her accusers possibly not having actually observed the sinful actions or being involved somehow as well. When you figure out what Jesus wrote in the dirt, please let me know. With the law of 2 witnesses and no witnesses left to testify, what is the Judge left with?

I suggest these other "takes" are attempts to evade what Jesus offers in way of explanation - that while she is indeed guilty (hence "go and sin no more"), there is no one who is qualified to carry out the sentence (hence "let he is without sin....").

You will invariably see that these other explanations artfully evade these two critical utterances from Jesus. And they have to in order to maintain their speculative theories. I suggest we need look no further than to what Jesus actually says for an explanation as to why He lets her go.

The a priori assumption that Jesus could not possibly be breaking the Law appears to blind people to what the text actually says. Yes, it is a mystery as to what Jesus writes on the ground. But what is decidedly not a mystery is what Jesus says: a woman guilty of death is set free because the Law is fundamentally unenforceable in any circumstance.

 

[fhansen]

I suggest these other "takes" are attempts to evade what Jesus offers in way of explanation - that while she is indeed guilty (hence "go and sin no more"), there is no one who is qualified to carry out the sentence (hence "let he is without sin....").

You will invariably see that these other explanations artfully evade these two critical utterances from Jesus. And they have to in order to maintain their speculative theories. I suggest we need look no further than to what Jesus actually says for an explanation as to why He lets her go.

The a priori assumption that Jesus could not possibly be breaking the Law appears to blind people to what the text actually says. Yes, it is a mystery as to what Jesus writes on the ground. But what is decidedly not a mystery is what Jesus says: a woman guilty of death is set free because the Law is fundamentally unenforceable in any circumstance.

Well, it would be enforceable by God-but also forgivable by Him, alone.

 

[GDL]

You appear to assume that sin can only be defined in terms of the written code which you also seem to also assume is conferred on us by our new husband. Why can this metaphor not simply mean our old husband, the law, has died, and now we have a new husband, the Spirit? I see no necessity in this metaphor for the law of Moses to survive on into our new marriage to this second husband.

I think sin is clearly defined in the written code. I think part of the wide range of disparity in the view of Christians today is because many have been trained to disregard the written Law. I think I've been quite clear that the Mosaic Law is not the only Law and that God's Law is clearly visible in more than just the Mosaic legislation Scriptures.

I don't recall your explanation of Scripture like Gen26:5. What Law is being referred to in that verse that is pre-Sinai?

Where in Romans 8 are you referring to? Is it this:

so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk [d]according to the flesh but [e]according to the Spirit

Yes. We probably should both use Scriptures referencing to make our responses clearer and easier to respond to. Rom8:4

The greek work translated here as "requirement" is dikaiōma. Now, consider Romans 5:16:

The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one offense, [m]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the gracious gift arose from many offenses, [n]resulting in justification

The greek work translated here as "justification" is, once more, dikaiōma. But here it is not our behaviour that is at issue, but rather God's righteous decree or verdict.

Now, consider Romans 5:18:

So then, as through one offense [o]the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness [p]the result was justification of life to all mankind.

The greek work translated here as "act of righteousness" is, yet again, dikaiōma. But here, again, it is not our behaviour that is at issue, but rather God's behaviour.

It is therefore entirely plausible that, in Romans 8:4, Paul is not writing about how we need to act, but rather with something that God has done. If this line of reasoning is valid, Romans 8:4 says nothing about us needing to obey the Law.

These words stemming from Greek dikē are indeed quite a study and do have ranges of meanings.

FWIW, dikaiōma is used 135x in the Text with only 10x in the NC. Paul uses it 5x in Romans, so rather than look at 2 to compare to 8:4, I'll look at all of them. I'll use the NKJ, but acknowledge that the 11 English translations I have on screen are very inconsistent in translating dikaiōma:

NKJ Romans 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.​

​

NKJ Romans 2:26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?​

​

NKJ Romans 5:16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.​

​

NKJ Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.​

​

NKJ Romans 8:4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.​

So, 5 uses and 4 different translations. The parallel translation to Rom8:4 is 2:26 with the qualifier "of the law" used in both. It's fairly simply to see that these 2 uses of dikaiōma pertain to something in the law. A legitimate translation is "regulation."

In 2:26 a man "keeps the regulation of the law." In 8:4 "the regulation of the law is fulfilled in/by us, the ones walking according to Spirit." Fulfilled is a passive verb with a prepositional phrase telling us who fulfills/completes the regulation of the law. It's some interesting diagramming, but I think the answer to the fulfillment after the last clause in 8:4 is elaborated in 8:13 and other verses: If we put to death the deeds of the body [in/by] Spirit, then we will live. IOW, we, the ones walking according to Spirit, in/by Spirit kill the deeds of the body, and this is how the regulation of Law is fulfilled in us - actually by us with the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, I see this as the collaboration of Christians with the Spirit fulfilling/completing the regulation/requirement of Law written on minds and hearts in Christ. We can also see Christ's involvement in this in 8:10, the Father's involvement in 8:11, the Spirit's involvement in 8:9-11, and our involvement in 8:4 & 8:13. The fulfillment of the Law's regulation is the work of the Godhead with and in the Christian.

We best believe that the Godhead is working to bring the Christian into conformance with God's Law. Why else would He be writing His Law in our minds and on our hearts?

Honestly, I don't see the dilemma. This is not the Mosaic Law, but God's Law that is contained in Mosaic Law that, IMO, and not mine alone, that preceded and succeeded Moses. I have no issue with obeying God's commandments. Obeying God's commandments and not seeing it as a burden is love for God (1John5:3). More study on the topic will also show that this obedience is Love for Neighbor and the ability to fulfill Messianic Law (Gal6:1-2). The question is, 'what commandments'?

 

[fhansen]

I think sin is clearly defined in the written code. I think part of the wide range of disparity in the view of Christians today is because many have been trained to disregard the written Law. I think I've been quite clear that the Mosaic Law is not the only Law and that God's Law is clearly visible in more than just the Mosaic legislation Scriptures.

I don't recall your explanation of Scripture like Gen26:5. What Law is being referred to in that verse that is pre-Sinai?

Yes. We probably should both use Scriptures referencing to make our responses clearer and easier to respond to. Rom8:4

These words stemming from Greek dikē are indeed quite a study and do have ranges of meanings.

FWIW, dikaiōma is used 135x in the Text with only 10x in the NC. Paul uses it 5x in Romans, so rather than look at 2 to compare to 8:4, I'll look at all of them. I'll use the NKJ, but acknowledge that the 11 English translations I have on screen are very inconsistent in translating dikaiōma:

NKJ Romans 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.​

​

NKJ Romans 2:26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?​

​

NKJ Romans 5:16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.​

​

NKJ Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.​

​

NKJ Romans 8:4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.​

So, 5 uses and 4 different translations. The parallel translation to Rom8:4 is 2:26 with the qualifier "of the law" used in both. It's fairly simply to see that these 2 uses of dikaiōma pertain to something in the law. A legitimate translation is "regulation."

In 2:26 a man "keeps the regulation of the law." In 8:4 "the regulation of the law is fulfilled in/by us, the ones walking according to Spirit." Fulfilled is a passive verb needing a subject that/who fulfills/completes the regulation of the law. It's some interesting diagramming, but I think the answer to the fulfillment is in 8:13 and other verses: If we put to death the deeds of the body [in/by] Spirit, then we will live. IOW, we, the ones walking according to Spirit, in/by Spirit kill the deeds of the body, and this is how the regulation of Law is fulfilled in us - actually by us with the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, I see this as the collaboration of Christians with the Spirit fulfilling/completing the regulation/requirement of Law written on minds and hearts in Christ. We can also see Christ's involvement in this in 8:10, the Father's involvement in 8:11, the Spirit's involvement in 8:9-11, and our involvement in 8:13. The fulfillment of the Law's regulation is the work of the Godhead with and in the Christian.

We best believe that the Godhead is working to bring the Christian into conformance with God's Law. Why else would He be writing His Law in our minds and on our hearts?

Honestly, I don't see the dilemma. This is not the Mosaic Law, but God's Law that is contained in Mosaic Law that, IMO, and not mine alone, that preceded and succeeded Moses. I have no issue with obeying God's commandments. Obeying God's commandments and not seeing it as a burden is love for God (1John5:3). More study on the topic will also show that this obedience is Love for Neighbor and the ability to fulfill Messianic Law (Gal6:1-2). The question is, 'what commandments'?

Good post. There are many passages that refer to righteousness as a gift given to man, but one that we must also then express. Rom 5:17 is one:
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:20-22

 

[GDL]

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,

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 understand what you are saying in the first two sentences of the first paragraph. With respect to the writing of Law on the heart, I cannot believe that this simply means to internalize or otherwise memorize the law - that does great violence to the metaphor of writing the law on the heart (I am not suggesting that this is your view, although I am not sure). Instead, I have to believe that the idea here is that we do not need the written law in our hearts, but rather the underlying principles if you will. And I believe this is what we get from Jesus in the new testament.

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.

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. 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. I did what I'm called to do, to continue the struggle and acknowledge my failures to God. At some point I noticed I was not only not struggling as I had been, I was actually seeing those sins through an entirely different set of eyes (so to speak) and I found them to be disgusting. This wasn't memorizing. This was a change of mind and heart God accomplished in me as I walked in Spirit and continued to obey Him as best I could.

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.

I am not quite sure what you are saying in the second paragraph. I believe that Paul believes the Law in and of itself is good; however, it acts on fallen human flesh and thereby intensifies sitting desires. The problem is not the law, but rather fallen human nature. I think you believe that now that we have the Spirit, we can do what the Law says. I do not see how such a position is tenable for a whole raft of reasons. First, I believe that Jesus repeatedly challenges the Law. Second, I think that, for example, Sabbath does not make conceptual sense in the New Covenant as Jesus has initiated a new creation - to honour the Sabbath would show that we are still celebrating the "old" creation. Third, I believe Paul repeatedly advises us to not be concerned with "food, festivals, and special days" - a clear reference to the Law. Fourth, the Law was the charter document of one people - the Jews. And as the author of Ephesians says, in chapter 2, that one of the key markers of the New Covenant was the dissolution of the distinction between Jew and Gentile, specifically by putting the Law behind us.

I've answered these thoughts about Jesus disregarding Mosaic Law. I completely disagree with the theory.

I probably should make this clearer than I have; it's not the Mosaic Law I think is being written on our hearts. I think it is some of what was contained in Mosaic Law and the job is to rightly divide and discern what applies and what doesn't in Christ.

I think it best to not get into Sabbath discussions here. They can completely overrun a thread.

The food laws never had anything to do with health - I believe scholars are almost unanimous on this. As for "the larger discussion", I believe it is very clear from Mark 7 that the food laws are now abolished. How could the statement "nothing that goes into a man defiles him" be interpreted any other way?

You're obviously welcome to your beliefs and a statement like the one you've made about scholarly unanimity is not to be considered apart from some actual data. Even then, I would simply take it under advisement and ponder it myself. In one example I used with @Soyeoing recently, if you believe it's OK to eat a fish that God says not to eat, and you do the research and find that its basic designed function is to filter water of impurities of all kinds, and you think it's healthy to eat water filters, more power to you. IMO there are more than one point to such Laws, including not only the respect not to do what God commands not to do, but also to respect His creation of kinds, and His making a people holy and separate to Him, and whatever else He gave these commandments for. I don't think you're going to be rejected by Christ for eating filters, but you may find that your health suffers.

I provided what I see as the central point to Jesus' teaching in Mark7. It's what He explained to His disciples in private in Mark7:17-23. This was primarily a spiritual discussion about the heart of man, not about foods and toilets.

Jesus clearly did challenge "man's traditions", but, for reasons I have gone into at length either in this thread or others, He also challenged the Law. Again, how can the statement "nothing that goes into a man defile him" not mean the end of the food laws?

Answered above. Maybe He changed food laws. Maybe He clarified them. IMO He followed them, and they were changed after the cross. I think the central point of His teaching was most important to Him and it is therefore the most important to me.

As for the Sabbath, I have already made my argument about John 5 where Jesus declares that He is, yes, working on the Sabbath. He does not plead for a special exception. And consider this from theologian Greg Boyd:

Some scholars argue that the disciples were merely violating a Pharisaical tradition surrounding the Sabbath, not any actual OT law regarding the Sabbath. In this view, Jesus was trying to bring out the true meaning of Sabbath (i.e., showing that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath) and to demonstrate his authority as Lord of the Sabbath. While I grant that this was certainly part of Jesus’ intent, I do not see how this absolves his disciples from the charge of Sabbath-breaking. After all, according to the OT—not merely a Jewish tradition—people were to be executed merely for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Nu 15:32-36). Moreover, Moses’ prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath explicitly included a prohibition on gathering food (i.e., manna) (Ex. 16:23-29). Hence, in this particular instance it seems the Pharisee’s had some biblical basis for their criticism of Jesus.

Good points for discussion, Mr. Boyd has his interpretation. For me it would require more explanation than he has provided, and I would like to read any counter points instead of one interpretation.

You seem to be mixing John 5, which I assume pertains to the sick man and his bed. Mr. Boyd seems to speak of Matt12, Mark2; Luke6 Jesus' disciples picking & eating grain. Matt12 is where'd I'd look to read about David and his men, and the priests who desecrate the Sabbath and are innocent. Do these events make it sound like God who desires mercy and not sacrifice maintains some flexibility in judgment on this issue? Can we not consider that Jesus as the Son of Man and Lord of Sabbath has such flexibility to function in mercy and not be charging Him with lawlessness? Who knows Law, mercy, compassion, righteousness, justice, etc., better than Him? 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.

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

 

[Soyeong]

Tell me where God commands Gentiles or Christians to keep the Mosaic Law.

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).

If you want to say that only general principles like "love your neighbor as yourself" from it apply, then yes. That does not mean that the Mosaic Law as a whole applies.

Paul and other apostles used the Mosaic Law as a teaching aid they were used to and accustomed to. It was a part of their Jewish culture and of their theological language. Also, their addressees were frequently of the Jewish background. If the apostles were Greeks, they would use good principles from the Greek culture, as a teaching aid.

Christianity has no list of written laws as ancient Jews had, except of universal principles of a good living you can find in the New Testament. Such a rigid list would not be flexible enough for the whole world, all cultures and all ages. Remember, Christianity is eternal and universal, while the Mosaic Law was just till Christ and for just one small nation. Therefore, we simply follow good principles in every situation, as our renewed/reborn conscience teaches us.

Everything commanded in the Mosaic Law is an example of what it means to love God and our neighbor, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them, so they are all connected. For example, if we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit adultery, theft, murder, idolatry, kidnapping, rape, favoritism, and so forth for everything else commanded in the Mosaic Law, so if you think that Christians should obey the greatest two commandments, then you should also think that Christians should obey the Mosaic Law.

 

[Soyeong]

What do you mean by 'supported by' ???

Does non-mention constitute error ???

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.

 

[GDL]

I suggest these other "takes" are attempts to evade what Jesus offers in way of explanation - that while she is indeed guilty (hence "go and sin no more"), there is no one who is qualified to carry out the sentence (hence "let he is without sin....").

You will invariably see that these other explanations artfully evade these two critical utterances from Jesus. And they have to in order to maintain their speculative theories. I suggest we need look no further than to what Jesus actually says for an explanation as to why He lets her go.

The a priori assumption that Jesus could not possibly be breaking the Law appears to blind people to what the text actually says. Yes, it is a mystery as to what Jesus writes on the ground. But what is decidedly not a mystery is what Jesus says: a woman guilty of death is set free because the Law is fundamentally unenforceable in any circumstance.

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.

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

 

[GDL]

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is a general principle, because, well, its general. Its ambiguous and it means various things in various situations.

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.

NT does not have a universal list of "commands". Its not the genre of letters. Those are practical instructions to specific situations the churches were dealing with. The letter to 21st century Netherlands or to 2nd century Norway would be a bit different, considering social issues and topics. General principles would be the same, though.

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.

The standard, as I already said, is God's Law "written in our hearts" if you want it poetically, or living by our renewed conscience, if you want it more prosaically. What specifically it is, is dependent on our specific situation.
As I said, we must take into consideration that Christianity is for the whole world and for all ages - its not possible to postulate specific rules for everybody everywhere in every time, except of general principles (like do not murder, do not steal, love your neighbor...).

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.

Anybody who reads the Mosaic Law today, with all its 6 hundred rules, can easily see that they are not for today. Even those who claim to keep it, judge it by their own mind, what to keep and what not, i.e. they are extracting just the general principles from it, anyway.

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.

 

[expos4ever]

FWIW, I don't think we're under the Mosaic Law. Not only was that Law for a specific covenant made with a specific people, but it was clearly for an era that is now ended. That nation was also to be a priest nation with an amazing law and God that could be understood.

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

With that said, neither do I see Law as only Mosaic. Gen26:5 is one place I'd refer to. Additionally, it's been a while, but I've been through some law studies that identified several of the 10 commandments in Genesis. Also, students of law and covenants will say that each covenant has its law and there are Biblical Covenants pre-Moses.

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

...there is a lawful use of law per Paul,

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.

and there are lists of sins in the NC that come from law and we are commanded several times not to sin, which is doing lawlessness.

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.

Then there's Rom3:19 that seems to say God instituted law with global jurisdiction.

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.

There's a difference between being under law and law no longer being in existence.

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?

And Love Neighbor is OC Law as is Love God and both of these still applicable commands for us are summarizing some to many OC commandments. So, at minimum these commandments have been carried into the new era in Christ in Spirit wherein and whereby they can finally be lived. The Law of Christ - Messianic Law - is mentioned at lest 2x in the NC. I've seen no Scripture that says in Greek that we are under it. It certainly is applicable to us.

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.