Remember ye the Law of Moses

[Dkh587]

It obviously can mean abolish in at least some settings - please do not deny the obvious. If I "fulfill" the admission requirements when applying to college, I do not keep applying college after I show up on campus.

Words in the Bible are defined by context & use in the Bible, not modern English definitions.

Colossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Did Paul abolish the word of God?

 

[Soyeong]

Did Jesus fulfill the prophecies? Are the prophecies needed to be fulfilled again? You know the answer Soyeong. He brought those prophecies to an end just as He brought the law to an end. The law and the prophecies were finished at Jesus last breath. He is King eternal, Lord of Lords. He is our Rest. We rest in Jesus every day. The Israelites rested once a week, but never rested in their Savior. We can rest today when we turn to Him.

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it, and warned against those who would relax the least part of the law or teach others to do the same, so by ignoring all the reasons that I gave for why he should not be interpreted as speaking about ending the law and insisting that he did, you are calling him lair and disregarding his warning.

If you stop a stop sign, then you are fulfilling that law, but are not ending it. Prophesies can have multiple fulfillment and there are still prophesies left to be fulfilled. In Titus 2:14, it describes what Jesus finished on the cross not by saying that he gave himself to end any laws, but that he gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so ending any laws is the opposite of what he gave himself to accomplish. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, and he did not go to the cross in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example.

The goal of the disciple was to come under a rabbi's yoke in order to learn from them how to obey the Mosaic Law, and in Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting people to become his disciples and to find rest by taking his yoke upon them not by rejecting it. By saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Mosaic Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls. This rest for our souls comes from having faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live through His law, not from taking a break from following His guidance.

In Hebrews 4:9, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, so we should therefore continue to the 7th day holy. In Hebrews 4:6, they failed to enter into God's rest because of their disobedience and in 4:11, we should strive to enter into that rest so that no one may fall away by the same sort of disobedience, so using entering into God's rest to justify the same sort of disobedience is exactly the opposite of what was being said. Something that is holy is set apart and in order for there to be something that is set apart there needs to be something else that it is set apart from, so to treat every day the same is to treat none of them as holy. If we did not every day what God wants us to do on the Sabbath, then we would do no work, but God also wants us to work. The Israelites rested through faith in the promised Savior in the same way that those who keep the 7th day holy do.

Gentiles were never under the laws you tell us we are under. What gives you the right to write on this forum that gentiles have somehow morphed into now having to keep the now defunct old covenant laws? It doesn't make any sense now does it?

The existence of sin requires there to be a standard of what is and is not sin, and that standard is God's law. Gentiles are either under God's law are are obligated to refrain from sin or are not under God's law, have no obligation to refrain from sin, and have no need of salvation from their sins. However, Gentiles are not permitted to sin (Romans 6:15), so Gentiles are under God's law. God is sovereign, so we are all under God's law and are obligated to obey it, even those who aren't even in a covenant relationship with Him, such as when God judged the world with the Flood. They didn't get to choose whether or not they wanted to be under God's law and neither do you, but the choice you do get to make is whether or not you are going to heed the Gospel message, repent, and obey.

It's not me who obligates you to obey God, I'm just informing you of that fact. God's eternal righteousness will never become defunct and neither will any of His eternal laws. The way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under if any. As part of the New Covenant, those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10). Furthermore, even before God made any covenants with man, there existed a way to act in accordance with God's righteousness, which we would still be obligated to follow.

The Israelites were to observe the Sabbath because of their release from bondage in Egypt. Deut 5. Gentile nations were not led out of bondage in Egypt. Why would God lay keeping a celebration on people who had nothing to celebrate over? ?Think about it.

That the God of Israel saves His people out of bondage in Egypt does not teach us about the Israelites being something special, but rather it teaches us about who God is and and what He has done. Everyone who wants to become a follower of the God of Israel should seek by faith to learn how to live in a way that testifies about who He is and what He has done. We should celebrate that we follow the same God as the God of Israel who frees His people out of bondage and should live in a way that testifies to this fact rather than acting like we follow a different God with different ways.

 

[expos4ever]

Titus 2:14 describes what Jesus accomplished on the cross not by saying that he ended any laws, but rather he gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so abolishing laws is the opposite of what he accomplished on the cross.

This kind of faulty reasoning appears frequently. Just because the writer of scripture does not say something (X) in a particular text does not mean he does not believe X to be the case. Here, X is the proposition that that Law of Moses has come to an end. The fact that Paul does not say, in this one verse, that the Law of Moses is retired does not, obviously, support the conclusion that he believes the law is still in force.

Sin is the transgression of God's law....

Where are you getting this from? I am quite sure there is no text from the New Testament that declares that the only way to sin, or to be "lawless", is to violate the Law of Moses.

In fact if what I believe you are saying is true - that sin is "defined" in relation to the Law of Moses, then all the people in the world who knew nothing about the Law of Moses could not be considered sinners.

 

[Soyeong]

I have already made what I believe is a strong case that Paul uses the word 'law' in two different senses: (1) the Law of Moses (the written code); (2) the "law written on the heart". I believe that here in Romans 3:31, Paul is using "law" in this second sense. The clear fact is this: in Romans 2, Paul refers to a "law" that the Gentile follows even though these Gentiles are NOT under the Law of Moses - Paul's words, not mine. So we know that Paul sometimes uses the term "law" to refer to something that is not the Law of Moses. This is really not debatable. So, perhaps, the "law" he refers to in 3:31 is this second "law".

You have not made the case for why we should consider changing the medium upon which God's law is written to being written on our heart to be also changing the content of what it instructs. The New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts so that we will obey it, not so that we will have an excuse to reject it.

In Deuteronomy 6:4-8, 10:12-22, 30:1-16, and Jeremiah 9:1-26, having a circumcised heart refers to loving God with all of our heart and soul, to knowing God, to walking in His ways, and to obeying the Mosaic Law, while having an uncircumcised heart refers to not knowing God and forsaking His law. Paul said a similar thing in Romans 2:26, where the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law. Likewise, in 1 John 2:3-6, equated following Christ's commands with saying that those who are in Christ ought to walk in the same way he walked, which was in obedience to the Mosaic Law, while those who say that they know Christ, but do not obey his commands are liars. In 1 John 3:4-6, sin is the transgression of God's law and those who continue to practice sin have neither seen or known him. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said he would tell people that he never knew them and to depart from him because they were workers of lawlessness. Furthermore, he said that only those who do the Father's will will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Father straightforwardly makes His will known through His law:

Psalms 40:8 I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”

True, but this fact on its own certainly does not mean the Law of Moses is still in force. I delighted in my youth, but that is now in the past.

Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness will remain in force for as long as God's righteousness remains eternal. However, even if they were not in force, we voluntarily do what we delight in doing, so the fact that we ought to delight in getting to obey the Mosaic Law means that we ought to live in obedience to it.

The fact that God's law is truth does not mean that truth cannot be communicated to us directly by the Spirit, eliminating the need for a written code. Please answer this question: does not the Holy Spirit guide the believer?:

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Galatians 5:18.

The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), the Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:13), and God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142). However, the Spirit does not lead us to rebel against the Father, so it wouldn't make any sense to interpret Galatians 5:18 as referring to the Mosaic Law, especially when everything listed in 5:19-22 as being against the Spirit is also against the Mosaic Law while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. Rather, in Galatians 5:16-18, Paul described the desires of the flesh as causing us not to do the good that we want to do, which is exactly how he described his struggle with the law of sin in Romans 7, so when we are led by the Spirit we are under God's law, but not under the law of sin.

Walking in the Spirit looks like obedience to God's law (Romans 8:4-7), so I don't see the problem with saying that we ought to live in obedience to God's law or the need to deny the need for the written law. If we believe Psalms 1:1-2 that blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who mediate on it day and night and believe Psalms 51:11 that David had cause to want God to not take the Holy Spirit from him, then we will see the presence of the Holy Spirit as being hand in hand with how we ought to live in accordance with Psalms 1:1-2.

 

[expos4ever]

Words in the Bible are defined by context & use in the Bible, not modern English definitions.

I am not sure what your point is here. For whatever reason, the English word here is "fulfill" - what choice do we have - if we are to understand the text - than to use the definition of fulfill. And, in any event, there is nothing in the context of Matthew 5 to suggest that Jesus is using the word "fulfill" (or its Greek equivalent) in a manner that excludes the possibility that such fulfillment entails abolition.

 

[expos4ever]

Let's suppose as you say - that instead of the text we find in Eph 6 -- we find something-of-this-form "Children obey your parents for Christians should honor father and mother. You have this from me an inspired Apostle who also writes scripture"... (something of that sort). No appeal at all in it to Moses, or the order in which such a command is found in the Law of Moses' ten commandments, (as if its inclusion in the law of Moses had some sort of authority above Paul alone saying it).

Then of course we could follow your suggestion that maybe it is deleted but then returned in its same form -- based on Paul. (The logic in deleting it and yet turning around to bring it back exactly as it was would of course need to be defined - since that would still be missing).

I do not understand your point - it seems like you are agreeing with me. And I doubt that is the case. Again, the simple fact is this: if the Law of Moses says "do X", and Jesus (or Paul) also say "do X", this is not evidence that the Law of Moses is still in force. Jesus could, of course, do away with the Law (which I believe He did, but that's another issue) and yet still say "do X".

I understand why that may be confusing. Perhaps this will help: Jesus could believe (and I think this is what He indeed did believe) this: the time of the Law of Moses has come to an end precisely because the function of the Law of Moses as marking out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile has now become problematic. Why? Because I, Jesus, am about to do something (go to the Cross) which will dissolve the need for this distinction. So while I still want you to "do X", do so because I tell you to, not because the Law tells you to.

 

[expos4ever]

You have not made the case for why we should consider changing the medium upon which God's law is written to being written on our heart to be also changing the content of what it instructs.

I could write a lot about this, but I will start with these two things:

1. You are suggesting that having the Law "written on our hearts" basically cashes out to memorizing the 613 elements. To me, this obviously this is simply a memorized written code. And Paul is clear: we no longer serve in the "oldness of the letter of the Law of Moses.

2. Jesus breaks the Law of Moses! By declaring Himself to be the place to go for forgiveness, He is directly violating the Law of Moses which declares that one goes to the Temple for forgiveness.

 

[expos4ever]

Words in the Bible are defined by context & use in the Bible, not modern English definitions.

Colossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Did Paul abolish the word of God?

I missed the second part of your post. I have never denied that "fulfill" can exclude abolition. But, in other settings, it can equally entail abolition. How do you interpret this verse from Romans 7? Is it not a clear statement that we no longer turn to the written code - which is obviously what Paul is referring to here by "the letter"?

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

 

[Soyeong]

This kind of faulty reasoning appears frequently. Just because the writer of scripture does not say something (X) in a particular text does not mean he does not believe X to be the case. Here, X is the proposition that that Law of Moses has come to an end. The fact that Paul does not say, in this one verse, that the Law of Moses is retired does not, obviously, support the conclusion that he believes the law is still in force.

You are correct that the fact that I can point to a place where Paul did not say that the Mosaic Law is retired does not establish that it is still in force. However, when I can point to a place where we would expect Paul to say that if your position were correct and he says the opposite, then that is significant.

Where are you getting this from? I am quite sure there is no text from the New Testament that declares that the only way to sin, or to be "lawless", is to violate the Law of Moses.

I think this gives a pretty clear definition of sin:

1 John 3:4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

The existence of sin requires there to be a standard that defines what is and is not sin, so what else do you think that that standard is if not God's Law? The Israelites needed to be taught about what sin is, so how else do you think that they were taught if not through God's law. When John the Baptist told his audience to repent from their sins and be baptized (Mark 1:4) and when Peter told his audience the same thing (Acts 2:38), then how else do you think they knew what sin is? In Romans 3:20, God's law was given to give us knowledge of sin and in Romans 7:7, Paul would not have known what sin is if not for God's law.

In fact if what I believe you are saying is true - that sin is "defined" in relation to the Law of Moses, then all the people in the world who knew nothing about the Law of Moses could not be considered sinners.

I don't see how what you said follows from what I said. If God's law defines sin, then those who do not live in accordance with it a sinners regardless of whether or not they know about God's law.

Romans 3:31, Paul is using "law" in this second sense. The clear fact is this: in Romans 2, Paul refers to a "law" that the Gentile follows even though these Gentiles are NOT under the Law of Moses - Paul's words, not mine. So we know that Paul sometimes uses the term "law" to refer to something that is not the Law of Moses. This is really not debatable. So, perhaps, the "law" he refers to in 3:31 is this second "law".

I realized I forgot to address a few things. Nowhere did Paul say that Gentiles are not under the Law of Moses. I completely agree that Paul used multiple different categories of law, such as God's law, the law of sin, and works of the law, and that he often was not referring to the Mosaic Law, though I don't see good grounds for the distinction that you are trying to make for why the law written our our heart would have a different content. It appears as though you are arbitrarily deciding that any verses that appear that Paul is speaking in favor of the Mosaic Law are actually speaking about the law written on our heart instead even though it is the Mosaic Law that is written on our hearts.

 

[expos4ever]

The Israelites needed to be taught about what sin is, so the Mosaic Law was given to give us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and sin is defined as the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so to deny that Jesus set a perfect example of obedience to the Mosaic Law is to say that he sinned and therefore disqualified himself from being our Savior.

No.

First, the Law of Moses did indeed let the Jew what sin was. So what? Surely God can choose to say that the time of the Law has come to an end and that we now look to the Spirit.

Second, 1 John 3:4 does not say, as you are trying to bend it into saying, that if the Law of Moses goes away, then we cannot be considered sinners. Here is the text in the (accurate) NASB: Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. The term "lawlessness" is not specific to the Law of Moses! If I drive my car at 100 mph, I am practicing lawlessness, but I am not breaking the Law of Moses. You are trying to force this text to say that there is no Law of Moses, we cannot be considered sinners. But the text does not force that particular interpretation upon us.

 

[expos4ever]

Every possible excuse is used to try and get God's word to condemn His own Word. All such efforts are doomed to fail.

If you have specific Biblical arguments to make, please do so. You are drifting here into pontification, and it is not helpful.

 

[Soyeong]

No.

First, the Law of Moses did indeed let the Jew what sin was. So what? Surely God can choose to say that the time of the Law has come to an end and that we now look to the Spirit.

Second, 1 John 3:4 does not say, as you are trying to bend it into saying, that if the Law of Moses goes away, then we cannot be considered sinners. Here is the text in the (accurate) NASB: Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. The term "lawlessness" is not specific to the Law of Moses! If I drive my car at 100 mph, I am practicing lawlessness, but I am not breaking the Law of Moses. You are trying to force this text to say that there is no Law of Moses, we cannot be considered sinners. But the text does not force that particular interpretation upon us.

If you agree that the Mosaic Law was how the Jews knew the definition of what sin is, then why do you object to interpreting 1 John 3:4 as a Jew saying that the Mosaic Law is what defines what sin is? It seems to me like that interpreting it to be referring to God's law is the most basis and straightforward interpretation, especially because there aren't any other options of what could else could define sin. Sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became sinful or ceased to be sinful when the Mosaic Covenant was given or became obsolete, but rather the Mosaic Law revealed what has always been and will always be righteous or sinful.

The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law, so we are led by both the Spirit and by God's law, and there is no sense in wanting to follow just one without following the other. The Spirit leading us to obey the law demonstrates that the time of the law has not come to an end.

 

[Dkh587]

I am not sure what your point is here. For whatever reason, the English word here is "fulfill" - what choice do we have - if we are to understand the text - than to use the definition of fulfill. And, in any event, there is nothing in the context of Matthew 5 to suggest that Jesus is using the word "fulfill" (or its Greek equivalent) in a manner that excludes the possibility that such fulfillment entails abolition.

He said that he didn’t come to abolish it. You make him out to be a liar if you think he said he didn’t come to abolish it, and then turns around and abolished it.

 

[Dkh587]

I missed the second part of your post. I have never denied that "fulfill" can exclude abolition. But, in other settings, it can equally entail abolition. How do you interpret this verse from Romans 7? Is it not a clear statement that we no longer turn to the written code - which is obviously what Paul is referring to here by "the letter"?

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

It’s obviously not a clear statement to not turn to the “written code” as you say, because he taught obedience to God’s law(what you are calling the written code):

Ephesians 6:1-3
Children, obey your parents in Yahweh: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise) that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

and Paul taught the Corinthians to keep the Holy Days, specifically Passover

1 Corinthians 5:8
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

 

[BobRyan]

I have already made what I believe is a strong case that Paul uses the word 'law' in two different senses: (1) the Law of Moses (the written code); (2) the "law written on the heart". I believe that here in Romans 3:31, .

Paul is using the LAW in Rom 3:31 according to "The context" he himself gives it in Romans 3:19.

I believe "context matters" and that exegesis is a more consistent way to understand the text than simply rolling out "a new interpretation as preference demands".

Why? How do you know this?

It's called "exegesis".

Context is the third fundamental principle of exegesis - see who the word was used by the same author in the same chapter or book.

Lecture 3: Four Key Principles of Exegesis | Free Online Biblical Library

The "LAW" in Romans 3 is the Law that defines what sin is - and Paul tells us so - explicitly.

Rom 3:19 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.."

IT is "in that context" that we then have a few verses later "31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."

We know that in Romans 2, Paul switches back and forth between references to the Law of Moses and a "law" that is not the Law of Moses.

Only if he explicitly says it.

What is your interpretation of this?

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

It is the same law - the one that says "do not take God's name in vain" and "do not covet", "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 the one where "the first commandment with a promise"Eph 6:1-2 is the fifth commandment.

Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
Sin’s Advantage in the Law

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

The lost wicked person covets before reading "Do not covet" but then reading it in the LAW the lost wicked person is convicted - knowing he needs salvation, he needs the gospel.

The role of that SAME Law for the wicked lost person is to convict them of sin -- it is NOT to teach them that "taking God's name in vain is really not a problem any more ---don't give it a second thought".

But for the saved born-again saint that LAW is "WRITTEN on the heart and mind" so that obedience to it is "FROM THE HEART" not merely a failed attempt at "outward conformance".

==========================================

The fact that God's law is truth does not mean that truth cannot be communicated to us directly by the Spirit, .

Scripture is authored by the Spirit of God 2 Peter 1:20-21.
It is then "the SPIRIT SAYS" that is the preface used for quoting scripture.

Hebrews 3
Be Faithful

7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says:

“Today, if you will hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
In the day of trial in the wilderness,

If you have specific Biblical arguments to make, please do so.

Agreed. That is the method I prefer

 

[BobRyan]

BrotherD said: ↑
To do away with the law is to do away with sin:
1 John 3:4 KJV — Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Here is how this text is translated in the NASB, a translation known for its accuracy:

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

See the difference? In this translation, the author merely declares that sin is lawlessness - a general term that need be connected to the Law of Moses in particular.

Transgression of the Law -- is lawlessness.

Obedience to Law is not.

Eph 6:1-2 is "specifically" the Law of Moses
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, (Ex 20:12 ) for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother Ex 20:12 (which is the first commandment with a promise),

The fact that we are still commanded to do something that was in the Law of Moses does not mean the Law of Moses is still in force.

Let's suppose as you say - that instead of the text we find in Eph 6 -- we find something-of-this-form "Children obey your parents for Christians should honor father and mother. You have this from me an inspired Apostle who also writes scripture"... (something of that sort). No appeal at all in it to Moses, or the order in which such a command is found in the Law of Moses' ten commandments, (as if its inclusion in the law of Moses had some sort of authority above Paul alone saying it).

Then of course we could follow your suggestion that maybe it is deleted but then returned in its same form -- based on Paul. (The logic in deleting it and yet turning around to bring it back exactly as it was would of course need to be defined - since that would still be missing).

This requires a careful explanation:

Indeed. "and then some".

Paul not only uses the language of the Ten Commandments he goes out of his way to appeal to this commandment's unique feature IN the Ten Commandments as if inclusion in that specific code of law is adding authority/force.

"Which is the first commandment with a promise" is only true within that one unit "of ten".

IT is the very thing that your suggestion would least predict/allow

It is entirely possible that, for whatever reason, the government could dispense with the "Smith Johnson Commerce Regulations" and enact a new set of laws that retains some of the elements of the "Smith Johnson Commerce Regulations".

If the whole purpose in repealing Smith-Johnson is that the law was not working then it is not "helpful" to repeat it again and say "for this IS IN the Smith-Johnson law".

And that is the problem with your suggestion.

I do not understand your point - it seems like you are agreeing with me. And I doubt that is the case.

I agree that it is possible as you say to use a broader term - one that also includes "sin is transgression of the Law" but also adds other aspects - like Matthew 5 where outward conformance with inward rebellion is still sin.

But it does not work "the other way". It does not work that "inwardly you do not take God's name in vain -- but outwardly you gladly do it all the time".

Again, the simple fact is this: if the Law of Moses says "do X", and Jesus (or Paul) also say "do X", this is not evidence that the Law of Moses is still in force

UNTIL you notice them saying "For MOSES SAID" Mark 7:6-13 - with direct verbatim quotes of Moses in MAtthew 19 for example. Same for Paul in Romans 7 and in Eph 6:1-2 a direct appeal to the unit of LAW in - the LAW of Moses.

Arguing an academic idea that such-and-such is "possible" is very different from being able to dismiss the very explicit examples to the contrary in scripture when it comes to direct appeals to the OT text.

. Jesus could, of course, do away with the Law

Indeed. He "could have said "

"think not that I have come to uphold and comply with My OT Word -- I did not come to honor and obey it but rather to abolish it." That "could have been" Matthew 6 - much imagined.

But that is not what Matthew 5 says - not what Christ said in Matthew 19 and not His teaching regard "Moses said" in Mark 7:6-13.

Bible details matter.

Thus it is "still a sin" - to take God's name in vain.

 

[BobRyan]

I understand why that may be confusing. Perhaps this will help: Jesus could believe (and I think this is what He indeed did believe) this: the time of the Law of Moses has come to an end precisely because the function of the Law of Moses as marking out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile has now become problematic. .

1. All the "do not take God's name in vain" and "keep the Sabbath" commands were not about "because you need to be distinct from gentiles". In fact in the OT Isaiah 56:6-8 specifically singles out GENTILES for not profaning the Sabbath and Isaiah 66:23 "ALL MANKIND" is to keep the Sabbath for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth. No wonder we see gentiles on Sabbath worshiping God in Acts 13 -- and in Acts 18:4 "every Sabbath" we see them in the synagogue for worship.

2. Imagining that Jesus was "believing" something that is the opposite of the words coming out of His mouth - is "possible" ... but not likely as an accurate rendering of the text.

I prefer exegesis to eisegesis.

 

[Cribstyl]

Words in the Bible are defined by context & use in the Bible, not modern English definitions.

Colossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Did Paul abolish the word of God?

That question suggest that we're making that claim. Here's what the scriptures say is abolished.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
This is you'll probably argue to no end that law of commandments in ordinances is not the ten commandments.

 

[Soyeong]

That question suggest that we're making that claim. Here's what the scriptures say is abolished.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
This is you'll probably argue to no end that law of commandments in ordinances is not the ten commandments.

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law and warned those who would relax the last part of the law or teach others to do the same, so interpreting Ephesians 2:15 as referring to any of God's laws is calling Jesus a liar and disregarding his warning. Likewise, Paul confirmed in Romans 3:31 that our faith does not abolish our need to obey God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, so interpreting Ephesians 2:15 as referring to God's law is interpreting Paul as contradicting himself. All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160) and instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness can't be abolished without first abolishing God's eternal righteousness, so Ephesians 2:15 couldn't be speaking about any of God's laws. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law, so He had no need to break down His own eternal laws. In addition, God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs us to love our neighbors as ourselves, so there aren't any good grounds for interpreting Ephesians 2:15 as referring to any of God's laws.

 

[Soyeong]

I could write a lot about this, but I will start with these two things:

1. You are suggesting that having the Law "written on our hearts" basically cashes out to memorizing the 613 elements. To me, this obviously this is simply a memorized written code. And Paul is clear: we no longer serve in the "oldness of the letter of the Law of Moses.

25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

In the above passage, having a circumcised heart involves obeying the Mosaic Law, yet it also says that circumcision of the heart is by the Spirit and not the letter, however, you are insisting that not being according to the letter is not obeying the Mosaic Law, so you are misunderstanding what Paul was saying that no longer serving in the oldness of the letter. Again, the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law is reflected in modern discussions of law enforcement and is not in regard to following different sets of laws, but in regard to the manner in which someone obeys a law without regard to the intent behind it. For example:

Leviticus 19:12 “‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

Someone who was focused on obeying the spirit of this law would understand that its intent is for us not to swear falsely, whereas someone who was focused on obeying the letter of this law exactly how it was written would understand that we can swear falsely just as long as we don't do so in God's name, which incidentally is what Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for doing in Matthew 5:33-37. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so the law is intended to teach us how to express God's character traits. So obeying God's Law according to the letter undermines both the intent of what God has commanded His followers to do and why He has commanded us to do it, which therefore leads to death just as assuredly as refusing to submit to it, so we need to obey the law according to the Spirit.

2. Jesus breaks the Law of Moses! By declaring Himself to be the place to go for forgiveness, He is directly violating the Law of Moses which declares that one goes to the Temple for forgiveness.

Jesus was born under the Mosaic Law (Galatians 4:4), so he was obligated to obey it, and you granted that the Mosaic Law was how Jews knew what sin is, so the fact that Jesus was sinless means that he never broke it. To suggest that he broke it is to suggest that he sinned and therefore disqualified himself from being our Savior. Jesus was promoting men to join God in the redemptive work of forgiveness in accordance with Matthew 6:12-14.