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

[Zao is life]

Whew, that was a marathon! If you don't buy what I'm saying (I can readily understand that this would be unlikely in a single 24-hour period), I bless you on your continued walk with Christ. I hope that I have not betrayed any impatience, though I readily admit to having become eager to move to other tasks by the end of this post. I have labored to speak as plainly and as convincingly as I could of a manner of reading the Scriptures which has become too infrequently recognized in this day and age, but I also realize that looking at something afresh is a difficult task, so I bear you no ill will if you choose not to embrace what I have described. It is clear from your communication that God is perfecting a work of reformation in your heart, and I rejoice in the maturity you have displayed. My best wishes for your ongoing walk!

Though we disagree I liked your post, enjoyed reading it, and read all you said thoroughly, in order that I might bear in mind your point of view in order to consider it over time.

Thank you for taking the time to complete the task. It's important for anyone who reads this thread to get both points of view.

 

[Hiroko]

This is not really controversial Christian theology, but the theology of Christ and His apostles. I'm placing it here in this forum because of the threads that MAY bring those who belong to Christ back under bondage to the Law, if those who belong to Christ are not wide awake to them.

Exo 24:3 "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD has said will we do."

Exo 24:7-8 "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD has said will we do, and be obedient.

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words."

The elect had to make a promise of value in that covenant, therefore it was considered God's marriage-contract with Israel, and God (the "husband") promised Israel abundance of blessing in the land IF they obeyed ALL that God had commanded though Moses - but curses and exile from the land if they disobeyed - and because they are incapable of obeying, all that the law brings is curses and death.

Also, a marriage covenant is only "everlasting" until the 'wife' breaks the covenant, and as God said through Jeremiah, the "wife" had broken the covenant:

Both the ten Northern tribes and the tribe of Judah continuously broke the covenant, but in His mercy God promised a New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah which would NOT BE ACCORDING to the covenant He made with them at Sinai:

Jer 31:31-32 "Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, says the LORD."

"Though I was a husband unto them" is the same as saying that though God remained faithful to His vows, the "wife" had continuously been unfaithful, and had therefore broken the covenant - and so their new moons, sabbaths and feasts became utterly distasteful to God, to the point that God even calls Israel "Sodom and Gomorrah":

Isa 1:10-14 "Hear the word of the LORD, all of you rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, all of you people of Gomorrah.

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? says the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

When all of you come to appear before me, who has required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them."

UNFIT FOR PURPOSE:

The Covenant God made with Israel "in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt" had proved unfit for purpose in two ways:

1. It was unfit for purpose in terms of God having an everlasting covenant relationship with His elect; and
2. It was unfit for purpose to bring life and righteousness to God's elect:

Rom 7:12-14: "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

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

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin."

The Law and the covenant at Sinai was unfit for purpose not because God was not faithful and capable, but because His elect were neither faithful nor capable.

THE TWO COVENANTS RATIFIED BY BLOOD - THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT

Blood has to do with sacrifice for sins and forgiveness for sins. The first covenant, given at Sinai, was ratified with blood:

Exo 24:8 "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words."

Likewise the New Covenant was ratified by blood - but not with the blood of bulls and goats - with Christ's blood:

Mat 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

FOREVER

The New Covenant is everlasting, the old covenant is gone:

Heb 8:13 "In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away."

COMMANDMENTS IN THE LAW WHICH CONTAINED THE WORDS "EVERLASTING" AND "FOREVER"

.. are done away with and cease to exist - BECAUSE THEY WERE BROKEN BY THE PEOPLE AND THE COVENANT WHICH WAS BASED UPON THEM HAS BEEN REPLACED.

INSULTING THE BLOOD OF THE EVERLASTING COVENANT

It's an insult to God the Father and His Messiah who is Christ the Lord to seek to keep alive commandments (such as sabbath-keeping) which are part of the Old Covenant and have been done away with because the "wife" broke the covenant.

When God used the words "everlasting" and "forever" when He gave the Law and its commandments to His elect at Sinai, it's because HE was faithful and capable of keeping HIS vows - and IF (ONLY IF) the "wife" in that marriage-covenant had remained obedient and faithful, would that covenant INCLUDING ALL ITS COMMANDMENTS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED, have remained "everlasting" and "forever".

So to the question: "Whatever happened to forever?" - those who belong to Christ know the answer - "forever" and "everlasting" in that covenant's commandments WAS BROKEN BY THE PEOPLE, and so the entire covenant needed replacing.

God would NEVER have first promised the New Covenant and Christ would NOT have come to shed His blood as a remission of sins if that covenant and those commandments were fit for purpose - but they are NOT fit for purpose.

Jesus said:

John 13:34 " A new commandment I give unto you, That all of you love one another; as I have loved you, that all of you also love one another."

He said,

Matt 22:40 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself."

Paul said,

Rom 13:9-10 "For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. Love works no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

NOT A LICENSE TO SIN

DEAD TO THE LAW

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

THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST HAVE DIED TO THE LAW BECAUSE CHRIST ABOLISHED IT IN HIS FLESH WHEN HE DIED:

Eph 2:15 "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them;"

DEAD TO SIN:

Rom 6:1-4 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know all of you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

So the apostle John could write,

1John 2:1-3 "My little children, I write these things to you so that you do not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He is the propitiation concerning our sins, and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the sins of all the world.

And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments."

WHICH COMMANDMENTS?

1. LOVE THE BRETHREN

John 13:34 " A new commandment I give unto you, That all of you love one another; as I have loved you, that all of you also love one another."

2. LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR

Matt 19:17-19 "And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

He said to Him, Which?

Jesus said, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

IT'S JUST AS PAUL LATER SAID,

Paul said,

Rom 13:9-10 "For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.

Love works no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

3. LOVE YOUR ENEMIES (IT'S PART OF LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR)

Matt 5:43-44 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven. For He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

HOW DO WE KEEP THESE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST?

Jesus told us how:

John 15:4-6 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.

I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered. And they gather and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

AGAIN, IT'S JUST AS PAUL LATER SAID,

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

Turning away from grace back to the Law and commandments of Moses will cause you to fall from grace:

John 1:17 "For the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

JESUS REPRESENTS US BEFORE GOD, AND HE PERFECTLY OBEYED THE LAW OF MOSES AND ITS COMMANDMENTS ON OUR BEHALF - BECAUSE GOD'S ELECT WAS INCAPABLE OF OBEYING THEM, AND BROKE THE COVENANT.

THE LAWS OF MOSES AND THEIR COMMANDMENTS ARE FOREVER UNFIT FOR PURPOSE. CHRIST'S BLOOD AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD ARE FOREVER FIT FOR PURPOSE.

　
I agree with you in the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus says I'm the Way, the Truth and the Life.
He has done away with the Old Testament, by overruling it with the New Testament.
Our Father's name is NOT YAWH nor Jehovah who actually the prince of the world.

 

[literaryjoe]

Hello, just to ask about the law of God in our mind and the law of sin and death in the flesh...can you elaborate more on how the two laws related?

Galatians 3:17...states that the law was introduced 430 years after the covenant with Abraham..

Good question, pasifika.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Josheb]

I know this was not directed at me, but if I may moot an answer: No, at least not in full.

Then the answer is, "Yes, at least in part," and you have chosen to frame your response in the negative. Unnecessarily. I exhort you to pay attention to this due to Luke 6:45, especially if it is habit.

The Law of Moses contains many elements that have no apparent moral content, such as a law about mixing cloth.

The law against mixing cloth does have moral content. I have already addressed your point so, again, matters already addressed (even if only in summary) are being raised in a manner that does not further the conversation. Here's the key: principle over over letter or particular.

Plus, the Law of Moses were given to Jews and Jews only...

Yes, it was given to the Jews alone but this is because A0 They were holy (separated) for the purposes of spreading God's law and 2) the stranger, alien, sojourner was to abide by those laws, too.

So.... Fail.

Plus, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that we should build another temple and start slaughtering animals on the alter.

Yep. That is because the law testified to Christ and Christ has fulfilled the law. Besides, God never wanted a temple built of stone made by human hands. There was not "law for a temple, btw. Never. Jesus was the only temple God ever intended to have built (2 Sam. 7).

This is a complex matter but I suggest it is pretty clear that the Law of Moses is not something...

It's pretty clear you don't understand the Law of Moses as I have expounded upon it and you haven't taken the time and care to consider what I have posted and prefer to approach that content unnecessarily negatively, critically, not critiqually.

 

[expos4ever]

Romans 7:4-6: "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 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.

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

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

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

Of course not!

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

 

[expos4ever]

Which would be you 1) reading into the text(s) things never stated and 2) ignoring what is stated in the text.

(1) It is entirely reasonable to draw plausible inferences from the text. I am offering a perfectly plausible explanation for why Paul continued to, at times, follow the Law of Moses. Your argument is based is based on the unrealistic premise that unless a reason X is specified for every action Y, we cannot posit that X was the reason why Y happened.

(2) Where, and please be specific, does Paul, or any other New Testament writer, state that we should follow the law for a reason that precludes the possibility that following the Law was a pragmatic decision in order to appease Jewish sensibilities.?

 

[expos4ever]

Your comment has to do with "How does the law still apply?" and I have already answered that in at least two different ways: 1) the example provided by the epistolary writers when they frequently and repeatedly (near constantly) assert and apply the OT to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ

I believe you have still have not offered a satisfactory counterargument to my position that adherence to the Law was a pragmatic concession out of respect to Jewish sensibilities.

and 2) Paul direction to Timothy, stating quite explicitly the Tanakh is profitable for training in righteousness (once righteous in Christ we still need training) and equipping for good works (which Ephesians 2:10 tells us is the purpose of our salvation).

I have already addressed this, but I will try again. I am pretty sure you are referring to this statement:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

To say that the Law of Moses has been retired is perfectly coherent with a belief that "all scripture is inspired by God" because, of course, there is every reason to believe that scriptures is a redemption narrative - an evolving story with various phases. To assert that a certain phase, such as the era of the Law of Moses, has come to an end in no way denies the truthfulness of scripture. It is "true" that the Kansas Chiefs won the Super Bowl, but this does not mean the game is still going.

Now to the more challenging bit. You appear to be arguing something like this:

1. The Law of Moses was instituted to train us in righteousness;
2. The Law of Moses is presented to us in God's inspired scripture;
3. We still need to be trained in righteousness;
4. Therefore, the Law of Moses should still be followed.

The problem with this is that it cuts out another possibility that is otherwise perfectly coherent with what Paul writes to Timothy. And that other possibility is this: An expired Law of Moses can still train us in righteousness to the extent that it foreshadows the time when the general principles that underlies the law are "written onto our hearts" by the Law of Moses. But the Law is nevertheless still retired.

Or put it this way, which I think is even more clear: suppose that there was a law against driving over 70 mph but, over time, people developed an innate sense that we should stay below 70. One could still say that the now defunct rule serves a role of promoting righteousness: one could say "yes, that law embodied an important truth about "righteousness" even though it has been supplanted.

 

[expos4ever]

So the day after the first century Christian read Paul or James he could ignore what they wrote because "going forward" it no longer applied?

Yeah, I'm gonna let that be your argument because it speaks for itself.

Mockery only works if you have a point. And here you do not: If a person rightly determines that scripture presents an evolving redemption narrative in which the Law of Moses was initiated and then came to an end, that person can "do the math" and understand that what once was the case no longer is the case.

 

[expos4ever]

There is an important detail being left out her.

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

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

I agree that the law fails in the manner you indicate, but there is more. There is a dark aspect of the Law that is often missed by people who do not examine Paul's arguments really carefully.

Consider this from Romans 7:

For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the Law were at work in our bodies……”

The Torah actually stimulates sinful passions – it arouses them. It does not merely reveal them. And there’s more:

“But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire….”

Again, the Torah is generating sinful desire, it is not merely revealing it.
And even more:

“For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death”

Again, Paul says that the Torah gave sin a means, a vehicle to deceive. This is not a statement that Torah reveals sin – it is the stronger claim that Torah empowers or energizes sin – gives it powers it would not otherwise have, at least when acting on the “fallen” nature of the human.

Again, I am not disputing your claim that a major concern of Paul's was that Jews were seeing the law as a means of obtaining "justification" and "righteousness". I just think that Paul has more to say about the Law of Moses than this.

 

[Josheb]

(1) It is entirely reasonable to draw plausible inferences from the text.

Correction: It is entirely reasonable to draw exegetical inferences from the text, not infernetial inferences.

I am offering a perfectly plausible explanation for why Paul continued to, at times, follow the Law of Moses.

No, you are not. You're making stuff up and attributing it to Paul based on sheer speculation and not anything specifically reported in the text. That's eisegesis, not exegesis.

Your argument is based is based on the unrealistic premise that unless a reason X is specified for every action Y, we cannot posit that X was the reason why Y happened.

Straw man. That is not what my argument is based upon. My dissent is based on the fact there's nothing in the text stating what you asserted and there is nothing in the context remotely alluding to what you asserted. An objective comparison between what the text states and what you say it says leads to a singular conclusion: you made stuff up and now you're arguing over it by blaming me.

That's never reasonable, rational, nor Christlike.

(2) Where, and please be specific, does Paul, or any other New Testament writer, state that we should follow the law for a reason that precludes the possibility that following the Law was a pragmatic decision in order to appease Jewish sensibilities.?

Again, I have already addressed that matter and I have done so in several posts. Not only have I done so repeatedly but I have done so in two completely different ways. You are either...

...not reading the posts, or
...reading them but not comprehending them, or
...reading them and comprehending them but you simply don't care about that content.

none of which is the basis for cogent discourse and now, having been confronted with the eisegetic speculation rather than make the exegetical case for your own assertions I'm being attacked, misrepresented, posted non sequiturs and asked questions already answered.

So you have three options:

1) Go back and re-read my posts and make an effort to understand them so as to post something that furthers the conversation and doesn't again broach content already covered or misrepresent what was posted, or

2) Prove what you posted with correctly-rendered scripture, or

3) ignore my posts.

Any of the above will work.


You are on record stating "We don't need the law anymore...." (post #17) because we have the Spirit. Scripture never says any such thing in broad terms. Neither is that the practice of the NT writers. In other words, your position fails on both accounts. Yes, it is common to hear certain Christian teachers teach that position but it is not something scripture ever actually reports. The scriptures say 1) we don't need the law for justification and righteousness (because those two conditions are commuted to us in Christ by faith), and 2) the very people arguing "we don't need the law anymore" for justification AND righteousness repeatedly and frequently applied the law. In other words those you say say we don't need the law applied the lawa dn stated quite explicitly it was profitable for training and equipping.

So if you're going to stick to this position "We don't need the law anymore then...

PROVE IT.

...and do so by not ignoring but decisively addressing what I and others have posted: Prove the law is no longer needed when Paul appeals to the law and declares it profitable, good, holy, spiritual, and lawful.

Or don't.

But please don't waste anyone else's time any more ignoring the posts' actual content, misrepresenting what others have posted, or blaming others for taking up the onus you and you alone should be carrying.

 

[expos4ever]

Josheb, I will not be discussing this matter any further with you - no hard feelings.

 

[Josheb]

I believe you have still have not offered a satisfactory counterargument to my position that adherence to the Law was a pragmatic concession out of respect to Jewish sensibilities.

I don't need to post a refutation of claims not proven. What you're doing now is called shifting the onus. It is a long-established and well-established logical fallacy. It is also avoidant.

You first need to prove Paul was making a "pragmatic concession" and you need to do so with scripture and to the point where it is at least the scripturally necessary explanation over the alternative(s).

And you haven't come close to doing that.

So stop attempting to shift the onus and take responsibility, accountability, and culpability for your own content. Do it exegetically, not eisegetically. If and when that is done I am confident everyone here will commend the effort and be persuaded. Failing to do that puts you in the position of having to handle the unprovable claims scripturally.

It's not personal, expos4ever.

I have already addressed this, but I will try again. I am pretty sure you are referring to this statement:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

To say that the Law of Moses has been retired is perfectly coherent with a belief that "all scripture is inspired by God" because, of course, there is every reason to believe that scriptures is a redemption narrative - an evolving story with various phases. To assert that a certain phase, such as the era of the Law of Moses, has come to an end in no way denies the truthfulness of scripture. It is "true" that the Kansas Chiefs won the Super Bowl, but this does not mean the game is still going.

None of which is the problem. The problem is your position has the NT writers not-retiring what is supposedly retired. That is self-contradictory.

Now to the more challenging bit. You appear to be arguing something like this:

1. The Law of Moses was instituted to train us in righteousness;
2. The Law of Moses is presented to us in God's inspired scripture;
3. We still need to be trained in righteousness;
4. Therefore, the Law of Moses should still be followed.

Except that's not what I posted. That is a straw man. You've done this repeatedly and I won't tolerate it. You'll either lay aside the biases and learn what I've posted making a sincere effort to understand it before deciding or we won't be discussing it.

• The Law of Moses was instituted for many reasons (which have all been listed previously)
• The Law of Moses is presented in God's inspired scripture.
  
• We, the righteous, still need training in righteousness and good works.
  The NT writers both taught and practiced the Law of Moses, as well as the history, prophets and the psalms.
  
• Despite their teaching and practicing the Law of Moses they negated it overall for the purposes of Justification and righteousness, and parts of it as having already been fulfilled to the point of no longer needing practice.
  
• Therefore the Law of Moses should be followed as asserted in the NT except where explicitly negated therein. That which the NT explicitly negates (such as the dietary laws) need no longer be practiced. That which the NY explicitly asserts needs to still be practiced.

That is a better summary of what I have posted. You misrepresent me again and I'll ignore the conversation. I'll point out the errors and ignore the defense because the inability for cogent discourse has been demonstrated and proven.[/QUOTE]

 

[1213]

If you want to keep the Mosaic law, be my guest. You'll have a very difficult time of it,...

I would like to know, what is the hardest part of the law to keep?

Also, I think the best reason to keep the law is that one loves God. I don’t think it should be kept to earn something.

 

[1213]

Please see post 92 - there is a compelling case to be made that Jesus is not intending to be taken literally when he uses the phrase "until heaven and earth pass away".

... the Law has not yet come to an end until the Cross where Jesus declares "it is finished"...

Sorry, I don’t think Jesus said all is finished and I believe Jesus means what he said. But maybe I have misunderstood. Luckily, if one fails to keep all the commandments, it doesn’t mean the end, because Jesus said:

… Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19

 

[expos4ever]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[expos4ever]

Sorry, I don’t think Jesus said all is finished and I believe Jesus means what he said. But maybe I have misunderstood. Luckily, if one fails to keep all the commandments, it doesn’t mean the end, because Jesus said:

… Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19

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

It hath been finished

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

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

 

[Josheb]

Mockery only works if you have a point. And here you do not: If a person rightly determines that scripture presents an evolving redemption narrative in which the Law of Moses was initiated and then came to an end, that person can "do the math" and understand that what once was the case no longer is the case.

The scriptures don't say the Law of Moses came to an end in all things. It specifies the ways in which it is terminated and asserts ways in which it remains and you are not dealing with those facts of scripture.

You're too busy accusing others of mockery.

The fact remains you have not proven your own position. You have not proven we don't need the law (post #17) and you have not provem Paul was making pragmatic concessions (post #88). It's been two days and scores of posts and you haven't made your case in a manner that comes close to 1) being consistent with the whole of scripture or 2) covers the content of those in dissent. Instead what has been received is non sequiturs, red herrings, straw men, neglect, false accusation, and blaming.

You've based your entire argument of no more need and pragmatic concession upon the premise the Law's end "is marked out in time by the very recent work of Jesus," and you cite Romans 10:4 IGNORING THE FACT THAT VERY VERSE SPECIFIES ONE SINGULAR CONDITION:

RIGHTEOUSNESS!​

In other words, your exegetical skills and practice are observably so poor you completely ignored what is explicitly stated: Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.

For many other things the law remains applicable, holy, good, useful, righteous, and profitable.

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness and this is a point the OP, I, and others have made standing firmly on what the scriptures actually state and still, here at post #128, you are still ignoring.

 

[Josheb]

I agree that the law fails in the manner you indicate...

Good. Glad you agree. Why didn't you begin with that affirmation. Why have so many exchanges occurred before conceding to the obvious?

but there is more. There is a dark aspect of the Law that is often missed by people who do not examine Paul's arguments really carefully.

(josh rolls eyes) Well... let's see. In a sentence and a half some vagary of "dark aspect" that is nowhere defined or scripturally evidenced is asserted, and a baseless insinuation people miss that undefined dark aspect with the further indictment they don't examine scripture.

And all this coming from the guy who ignored the word "righteousness" in Romans 10:4.

The is fleshly posting, expos4ever. We know it is fleshly because the Holy Spirit does not argue fallaciously nor prompt believers to post vagaries, an absence of scripture, or divide the body baselessly. So if don't want me pointing out these subterfuges then don't practice them. Take greater pains with your posts.

 

[Josheb]

Consider this from Romans 7:

For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the Law were at work in our bodies……”

The Torah actually stimulates sinful passions – it arouses them. It does not merely reveal them. And there’s more:

“But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire….”

Again, the Torah is generating sinful desire, it is not merely revealing it.
And even more:

“For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death”

Again, Paul says that the Torah gave sin a means, a vehicle to deceive. This is not a statement that Torah reveals sin – it is the stronger claim that Torah empowers or energizes sin – gives it powers it would not otherwise have, at least when acting on the “fallen” nature of the human.

Again, I am not disputing your claim that a major concern of Paul's was that Jews were seeing the law as a means of obtaining "justification" and "righteousness". I just think that Paul has more to say about the Law of Moses than this.

The sinful passions already exist. They have existed since Genesis 3:7. Furthermore, by quote mining Romans 7 you've ignored the specifically, explicitly stipulated context stated in the text: living in the flesh. When we were living in the flesh the law arouses already existing sinful desires.

When you ignore context you abuse the text and there is rarely any truth garnered from such practice. This is now the second observable, undeniable, irrefutable time something blatantly obvious in the scripture text has been ignored.

When in the flesh the law arouses already existing sinful passions. But walking in the justification, righteousness, (redemption, regeneration, etc.) found in Christ then the law is good and holy and righteous and lawful and profitable for training and equipping.

You are abusing scripture by ignoring what is clearly stated.

As a consequence the scripture is not being wholly or adequately engaged; it is being parsed selectively.

Neither the scriptures nor the posts of others here are being adequately engaged. Instead you vagaries like "dark aspect," baselessly judging "many," and indicting them for neglect baseless are imagined reasonable responses.

They are not.


So take a few deep slow breaths and re-orient yourself. Notice the very verses you've cited stipulate limits and conditions you are ignoring.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2:

The Law fails in that it brings curses and death to all who seek to live by it - not because the Law is not holy (for the law is holy), but because we are unable to obey it.

Therefore Jesus sums all the Law up into ONE commandment to give us the meaning of it (the spirit of the Law rather than the letter), and then He give us this ONE commandment. Then He tells us to abide in Him so that we can bear this fruit - and both Paul and John the apostle sum the law up in the same way Jesus did:

Rom 13:8-10 "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For: "Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not lust;" and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

1 John 3:23-24
"And this is His commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. And he who keeps His commandment dwells in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He gave to us."

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

Yes, it is true we cannot fulfill the Law of Moses. If we could do so then Christ would be unnecessary. I have already addressed this matter, at least in part, in earlier posts when I noted Jesus was always going to come prior to sin ever existing and the finite's inability to reach the Infinite. The problem with what you're stating is that no one can fulfill the law of love, either! All you've accomplished is to replace on unattainable standard with another.

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

It is self-contradictory.

And therefore self-refuting.

There is a better more whole-scripture way of understanding the Law and that is by noting the specific conditions or contexts the NT states where the law is annulled. Anything other than that is either over-generalizing or reading into scripture things it nowhere states.


Reminder: this post continues what was begun in post 101