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

[literaryjoe]

True, he does not explicitly connect "law" to covenant, but the Law of Moses - which includes the "thou shalt not covet" command that Paul does explicitly mention - is the charter of Israel's covenant with God. I would be astonished if any serious student of the Old Testament would not know that the Law of Moses and the covenant go hand-in-hand. So if Paul is talking about the Law of Moses, he is also talking about the covenant.


What is your Biblical evidence that Paul ever conceives of the redeemed Christian having a relationship with the Law of Moses - I see no such evidence in the New Testament. What I do see, is that Paul unpacks a relationship between the redeemed man and the goal of the Law. But that is not quite the same thing.

I suspect my response in post #179, will sufficiently address this question, though I hadn't yet read this one.

 

[literaryjoe]

I think this is misleading - it is partially true but glides around the point that is relevant to the status of the Law of Moses. Look at what Paul writes here in Romans 11:

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!

In context, the "they" here are obviously unbelieving Jews. And what has happened as a result of their refusal to believe in their Messiah? Salvation has come to the Gentiles, that is "the nations"! So clearly Paul sees the events surrounding Jesus as demonstrating that Israel has indeed blessed the nations. That is pretty major, and is consistent with the claim that the Israel project has achieved at least one of its major goals.

Dear Sir, did you fail to note the last phrase of what you quoted? Israel's purpose is not complete, a "fulfillment" awaits! What I stated is not just partially true, it's straight to the point. You're just not comfortable with the conclusion.

Plus, I think the reasoning you provide backfires if the intent is to argue that the Law remains in force. As you rightly say, the Jew and Gentile are now united. But, in Ephesians 2, Paul clearly states that the abolition of the "Law of commandments" - clearly the Law of Moses even people construct awkward counterarguments - is one of the things that signals the uniting of Jew and Gentile. And this makes perfect sense since a major function of the Law (again routinely denied) is to set the Jew apart from the nations.

I already addressed Eph 2:13-16; the abolition is of the enmity--this is the plain, unequivocal statement of the text. The question becomes in what manner does the appended phrase relate, and I discussed that in post #179.

I agree a major function of the law was to set the Israelites apart; and... God's law should serve to set us apart as well. We are grafted in, we also should point people to God by virtue of our distinctiveness, our way of life, the evident wisdom of our communities. We are called to be holy, which means... yep, set apart or distinct.

 

[Josheb]

.....The mind set on the Spirit ... ?

View attachment 275605

Point of clarification: The Greek does not have the phrase "set on," or "governed by." In the Greek this is immediate; it is "the mind of flesh," versus "the mind of Spirit." The inclusion of "set on" implies some volitional intent that isn't being asserted and the inclusion of "governed by" implies so control that also isn't being asserted in the text. Paul has repeatedly asserted a very simple a dichotomy, a true dichotomy, not a false one: we are either slaves of flesh or slaves of righteousness. We are either dead in sin or dead in Christ; dead in sin or alive in Christ. To be alive in Christ is to be dead to sin.

The confusion occurs because 1) we like to imagine ourselves as autonomous creatures not slaves (of anything), and 2) the flesh and Spirit exist or occur simultaneously on this side of the grave. We are by definitions creatures of flesh but in Christ we are (also) by nature creatures of the Spirit because the Spirit has regenerated and indwelt us. The same Spirit at work in each of us is the same Spirit who was at work in Christ, the Spirit of God (Romans 8:9).

Lastly, this is important because even the moral act done in the flesh has no soteriological merit and outside of our salvation they have very little other value because God needs nothing from the creature. Everything we have came from God and everything we do should be in accordance with the Father's will. Jesus exemplified this throughout the gospel of John every time he said "I do only what my Father in heaven tells me to do," or "I say only what my Father in heaven tells me to say,"and "Not my will but Thine." Jesus had a mind, affection and will of his own but he was/is completely submitted to his Father. And this is what he asks of us in John 15 = "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love; just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in His love."

Despite his existing in the form of God he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but emptied himself by becoming a bond-servant, appearing in human likeness and being obedient even to the point of death (Phil. 2) so that in the end every knee will bow and confess him as Lord to the glory of his Father. Abide in Jesus' commandments and love just as he did with his Father.

This standard is no more attainable on this side of the grave than the Law of Moses.

This is why salvation is by grace through faith for works and not by works through faith for grace.

 

[Zao is life]

Dear Sir, did you fail to note the last phrase of what you quoted? Israel's purpose is not complete, a "fulfillment" awaits! What I stated is not just partially true, it's straight to the point. You're just not comfortable with the conclusion.

I already addressed Eph 2:13-16; the abolition is of the enmity--this is the plain, unequivocal statement of the text. The question becomes in what manner does the appended phrase relate, and I discussed that in post #179.

I agree a major function of the law was to set the Israelites apart; and... God's law should serve to set us apart as well. We are grafted in, we also should point people to God by virtue of our distinctiveness, our way of life, the evident wisdom of our communities. We are called to be holy, which means... yep, set apart or distinct.

What Paul meant by his statements regarding the Law, and what Jesus meant by His statements regarding the Law is not a matter of opinion - they meant what they said, that the Law with its commandments and ordinances, is abolished in the flesh of Christ, and we who believe in Jesus, our Savior who came to deliver us from the curse of the Law, have died to the Law, and now belong to another - to Him who was raised from the dead, so that by abiding in Him, we can walk in newness of life, fulfilling the Law by behaving and doing in this world what Christ's love of God and of neigbor and of the brethren, causes us to do.

 

[Zao is life]

You nailed it; that's exactly what I'm doing, because that's what Paul is doing.

View attachment 275605

Setting your mind on the letter of the Law (the Laws and commandments written on tables of stone and in scrolls) IS setting your mind on the things of the flesh - it's the flesh's desire to obey that which brings the person doing this under a curse because he cannot obey all those commandments, ordinances, and laws.

It also causes everyone who attempts to obey to have to choose which of the 613 laws are applicable and which are not.

All of which is totally (and completely) unnecessary - because Jesus told us that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it - and he fulfilled it, on our behalf. He also told us that all the law hangs on the commandments to love God and neighbor and He completed His teaching by telling us that we are to abide in Him and He in us because without Him, we can do nothing.

We do not abide in Christ in order to obey the Law of Moses, which was and is a curse to all who attempt to obey it, and brings forth death instead of Life. CHRIST is our life - not obedience to the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

It's all over the NT (and Old) and you know all the verses I could quote to you, so what can I do to communicate effectively? It's a real challenge....

As I see it, I have two main options: I can (1) quote the Scriptures you've already read and interpreted another way, providing my commentary/explanation/amplification, so that it, hopefully, begins to dawn on you that there is a simpler and more unified way to read/understand all these potentially contradictory verses, or I can (2) quote other notable Christians who read the Scriptures in the same manner I do, as evidence that there is an historical consensus.

I guess I'll take one more whack at showing how the reading I am trying to highlight represents the exegetical force of the text itself, and must actually be resisted in order not to be perceived. After all, I began my responses in this thread with several quotations of other believers, and that seemed to make no impression whatsoever.

You are evading. Here is my question again:

I see nowhere at all that Paul ever says that the law (of Moses) serves to bear fruit for God.

Please give me specific texts where Paul says, or even strongly implies that we should be following the Law of Moses this side of the Cross.

 

[expos4ever]

It is encouraging, at least, that you are following my reasoning well. I would tweak the two options you've listed as follows, which I hope will be elucidating. First, let me clarify that since the sinful nature remains at war with us, I would probably not say that we "follow the Law successfully." Rather,

1. We are enabled, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to walk in the way of God's law, which is to say characteristically produce the fruits of the Spirit, and His regenerating influence causes us to desire to do so. (I'm certain you can readily "hear" all the passages I'm recruiting to my cause via allusion with these intentional word choices.)
2. What the law aimed at (righteousness, aka, the character of Christ) was accomplished by Christ, so that with His character/presence/Spirit within us, we too might now walk according to His character.

None of this explains why we should understand that the Law is still in force. I have acknowledged that we could follow the Law if, indeed, it were still in force. But the evidence is otherwise clear: the Law has come to an end. Let's take each of your points above:

1. I am not denying that the Spirit would enable us to follow the Law but, obviously, the fact that we are enabled to do something does not mean we are supposed to it. There is a clear distinction here that your reply glosses over.

2. All you are showing here is that we are empowered to "walk according to Christ's character". How does that establish that this means we should follow the Law of Moses? And especially since Jesus actually challenges the Law of Moses at several points in His ministry (e.g. sabbath, food laws, contact with unclean persons, etc.).

To summarize my reply: It may well be the case that, with the Spirit, we could follow the Law, but it simply does not follow logically that means we are supposed to be following the Law.

 

[expos4ever]

Look, re-read the passages you know so well and note how "action-oriented" they all are. The "goal" of the Torah was not accomplished so that it could henceforth be ignored. The tutor does not train us so that we can subsequently ignore his training once we're adults.

The "tutor" argument certainly does not help your case. In Galatians, Paul characterizes the Law as a "tutor" that has, yes, been given his walking papers:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

This is about as clear a statement as possible that we are no longer subject to the Law. No doubt, you will bend this into some sort of heavily qualified variant of bieng no longer under the Law - for example, we no longer need to seek justification via the Law, but we still need to follow it.

This strategy of introducing qualifications, unstated by the author, is a standard strategy, but a highly questionable one.

When Paul says we are no longer under a tutor, the best approach is to take him directly at his word and not imagine, without evidence, that he was speaking in a highly restricted sense.

 

[visionary]

In the New Testament, Yeshua treats the Old Testament as authoritative and says it "cannot be broken" John 10:34–36

 

[literaryjoe]

Point of clarification: The Greek does not have the phrase "set on," or "governed by." In the Greek this is immediate; it is "the mind of flesh," versus "the mind of Spirit." The inclusion of "set on" implies some volitional intent that isn't being asserted and the inclusion of "governed by" implies so control that also isn't being asserted in the text. Paul has repeatedly asserted a very simple a dichotomy, a true dichotomy, not a false one: we are either slaves of flesh or slaves of righteousness. We are either dead in sin or dead in Christ; dead in sin or alive in Christ. To be alive in Christ is to be dead to sin.

This is why salvation is by grace through faith for works and not by works through faith for grace.

I fully agree that we are now slaves to Messiah/to righteousness, and that no work of ours has soteriological merit. However, you may want to return to the Greek and re-explore the meaning of phronousin/φρονοῦσιν (G5426) and to phronema/τὸ φρόνημα (G5427), as they do indicate volition, intent, or focus: a mindset. See, for example, BDAG: "φρόνημα, the faculty of fixing one's mind on something"

This is not to suggest that your reflections were necessarily wrong, but they don't properly derive from the Greek text here.

Also, the Greek manuscripts do not say "the mind of flesh" and "the mind of Spirit," rather hoi gar kata sarka ontes (those [who are] according to the flesh), ta tes sarkos phrounousin (are intent upon the things of the flesh), and hoi de kata pneuma ta tou pneumatos (those according to the Spirit [are intent upon] the things of the Spirit).

 

[literaryjoe]

What Paul meant by his statements regarding the Law, and what Jesus meant by His statements regarding the Law is not a matter of opinion - they meant what they said, that the Law with its commandments and ordinances, is abolished in the flesh of Christ, and we who believe in Jesus, our Savior who came to deliver us from the curse of the Law, have died to the Law, and now belong to another - to Him who was raised from the dead, so that by abiding in Him, we can walk in newness of life, fulfilling the Law by behaving and doing in this world what Christ's love of God and of neigbor and of the brethren, causes us to do.

The irony in this post is strong. Yes, I agree they meant what they said, and that what they said is a matter of fact, not opinion:

Jesus: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17 ESV)

Jesus: "'You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.' And he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!'" (Mark 7:8-9 ESV)

Paul: "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility" (Ephesians 2:14 ESV)

You need to pay more careful attention to what the biblical authors themselves are actually saying. Note that Paul does not say the law is abolished in the flesh of Christ, he said the enmity/hostility was. This is important, as I explained in my post.

 

[literaryjoe]

Setting your mind on the letter of the Law (the Laws and commandments written on tables of stone and in scrolls) IS setting your mind on the things of the flesh - it's the flesh's desire to obey that which brings the person doing this under a curse because he cannot obey all those commandments, ordinances, and laws.

It also causes everyone who attempts to obey to have to choose which of the 613 laws are applicable and which are not.

All of which is totally (and completely) unnecessary - because Jesus told us that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it - and he fulfilled it, on our behalf. He also told us that all the law hangs on the commandments to love God and neighbor and He completed His teaching by telling us that we are to abide in Him and He in us because without Him, we can do nothing.

We do not abide in Christ in order to obey the Law of Moses, which was and is a curse to all who attempt to obey it, and brings forth death instead of Life. CHRIST is our life - not obedience to the Law of Moses.

The law of Moses was a curse? So God was an evil father who gave a stone to his children when they needed bread? No, Israel is God's "treasured possession" and He gave them a good gift that re-taught them how to be human (reflect the divine image). The law contains a curse (condemnation) for any who attempt to use it for justification. But to those who relate to it via the New Covenant (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Peter, Paul, you, me) it is "holy, righteous, and good" to quote Paul, or a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths. The curse (the condemnation) not the law, has been nailed to the cross.

 

[expos4ever]

Contemplate the corollaries: if the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to His law, then what is the inescapable conclusion? The mind set on the Spirit ... ?The mind set on the Spirit ... ?

...you then list a number of contrasts between the mind set on the flesh and the mind set on the Spirit.

I do not see how even one of these contrasts requires us to believe that we are to follow the Law of Moses. The closest is this contrast that you draw:

The mind set on the flesh does not submit to God's Law vs
The mind set on the Spirit does submit to God's Law.

If you can show me a specific Biblical text that teaches that God gave us the Spirit in order that we might "submit" or follow the Law of Moses, you will have provided at least some support for your claim. So, please, do try to provide such a text - I am open-minded about this.

At a more general level, it certainly appears to me that you are basically using circular logic - you assume that the Law remains in force and then interpret texts about how the Spirit empowers us to "obey God" to the effect that such obedience includes the Law of Moses. And yet, we can perfectly legitimately interpret them without reference to the Law of Moses - God can instil in us, via the Spirit, a strong moral sense - no need for the Law.

 

[Josheb]

I fully agree that we are now slaves to Messiah/to righteousness, and that no work of ours has soteriological merit. However, you may want to return to the Greek and re-explore the meaning of phronousin/φρονοῦσιν (G5426) and to phronema/τὸ φρόνημα (G5427), as they do indicate volition, intent, or focus: a mindset. See, for example, BDAG: "φρόνημα, the faculty of fixing one's mind on something"

This is not to suggest that your reflections were necessarily wrong, but they don't properly derive from the Greek text here.

I appreciate that post but I would remind everyone that we don't read scripture or Strong's through the 21st century mindset. We do so through the mindset of God/Jesus as articulated in the canon and from that perspective the "faculty of fixing one's mind on something" is best understood as "having one's mind set on something," with the "having," greatly due to the influence of God's Spirit and not the still-sinful will. We must always remember God is not dependent upon the human will, nor as He made Himself dependent upon the human will. That god is not sovereign; that god is not a God. That god is not God.

Remember: as I believe I noted previously (might have been a different discussion ) Romans 8 is simply one small portion of a much longer narrative that begins at least as far back as chapter 2 and gains impetus in chapter 5. There is no understanding the magnificent solutions of chapter 8 without understanding the problems and struggles of chapters 6 and 7. It is in those chapters we understand the cognitive, affective, volitional, and behavioral aspects of humanity are the problem to be solved. The processes of redemption, regeneration, renewal, sanctification, etc. aren't merely one-time events but ongoing processes applicable to the redeemed. Romans was written by a believer to believers (mostly) about believers. Romans 8:8 wasn't written about non-believers.

So when Paul writes much earlier to the Colossians, for example, "Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth," (Col 3:2) he is not instructing his readers to do so in their own might. Nothing Paul ever wrote should be construed in that context of solely-human-might.

Also, the Greek manuscripts do not say "the mind of flesh" and "the mind of Spirit," rather hoi gar kata sarka ontes (those [who are] according to the flesh), ta tes sarkos phrounousin (are intent upon the things of the flesh), and hoi de kata pneuma ta tou pneumatos (those according to the Spirit [are intent upon] the things of the Spirit).

You're citing Romans 8:5. That's not Romans 8:6. not only should kata not be rendered as "intent," but Romans 8:6 reads, "ta gar phronēma tēn sarkos thanatos," which transliterated reads "for the mind of the flesh [is] death." For Greek it is particularly blunt language. There is no mention of intent. I do not believe Paul chose that wording (or was inspired to that wording) by accident.

This is important because verse 5 doesn't occur outside of verse 6. Just because narratively the sequence is 5 then 6 does not mean ontologically that is the case. Logically, we necessarily understand there can be no "those according to the Spirit" without redemption, regeneration, indwelling, etc. The non-believers has no spiritual option. S/he is completely void of the Spirit and has only flesh, and that flesh is sinfully dead and enslaved flesh set in darkness and its mind thinks futilely, its heart is darkened, and that creature has been given over to his/her lusts (ch. 1).

It is only the redeemed and regenerate that can be "according to the Spirit," and that is not a function of human-only will. It is a function of slavery. Slavery to righteousness. That slave is in ongoing struggle between his own flesh and his own Spirit-spirited spirit. Hence chapter 7. We ust remember that Romans was among the last of Paul's writings and it had occurred after decades of service, growth, maturity, and work by the Spirit within him, and yet that guy wrote profoundly of his struggle in present-tense language.

His proscription: The law of the Spirit of life in Christ, not the will of the regenerate.

 

[Josheb]

I do not see how even one of these contrasts requires us to believe that we are to follow the Law of Moses.

You see how this is the case every time the Spirit inspired the regenerate writer to direct his readers back to a law of the Law. For example, the law about not muzzling the ox is used at least three times in the NT. Not once does it have anything to do with actual oxen or grain threshing but it is used and applied to the regenerate repeatedly. It is the principle within that letter that is applied to the ekklesia.

If you can show me a specific Biblical text that teaches that God gave us the Spirit in order that we might "submit" or follow the Law of Moses, you will have provided at least some support for your claim. So, please, do try to provide such a text - I am open-minded about this.

Perhaps the problem is with the idea and use of the word, "submit." I don't read anyone on the side of the Law's remaining suggesting we should "submit" to the law, especially not as the Jews of Jesus' audience or the Judaizers of the first century did. We know this should not be the case because Paul explicitly states that's not the case.

Colossians 2:20-23
"If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."​

Now that context is slightly outside the context of Romans 5-8 or Galatians 3 but the point still remains this very same Paul who told his readers not to submit to "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" also directed his readers not to muzzle the ox. Either Paul is being hypocritical and self-contradictory (in which case we can and should discard the whole Pauline epistolary), or there is a way to reconcile the seemingly disparate without have to discard the Law in all ways and then create a conflict with passages like the aforementioned 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

At a more general level, it certainly appears to me that you are basically using circular logic - you assume that the Law remains in force and then interpret texts about how the Spirit empowers us to "obey God" to the effect that such obedience includes the Law of Moses. And yet, we can perfectly legitimately interpret them without reference to the Law of Moses - God can instil in us, via the Spirit, a strong moral sense - no need for the Law.

I can't speak for joe but I, for one, didn't "assume" any such thing. I looked at Jesus' teachings and those of the epistolary and objectively recognized the undeniable and irrefutable fact they constantly appealed to the Laws of Moses and did so unabashedly quoting those laws and applying them just as unabashedly and without reservation to the ekklesia....... except in very specified cases (such as the diet, the calendar, and as a means of justification and righteousness). As a means of teaching, reproof, correction, training, and equipping the law is informing and good and holy, and righteous, and spiritual.

In no way does it possess any soteriological merit, but once saved it is a profitable source.

 

[literaryjoe]

You are evading. Here is my question again:

I see nowhere at all that Paul ever says that the law (of Moses) serves to bear fruit for God.

Please give me specific texts where Paul says, or even strongly implies that we should be following the Law of Moses this side of the Cross.

Please note, Sir, that I was not in the least bit evading, or I would not have so carefully replied. If I neglected to respond to a specific detail of your post, please forgive me, I'm responding to quite a lot of content and attempting to explain along the way. While I can be forgetful, I will certainly not be evasive; on that you can depend.

As to that specific question:

First, it is imperative to recall that when the NT authors were writing, what they considered "Scripture" is what we consider the "Old Testament." So to ask the question, where does Paul specifically say or even strongly imply that we should be following the Law of Moses is anachronistic in the extreme. The default situation is: what God commanded endures. If it is not specifically overturned, it remains in force. So you have the burden of proof here, not I. Second, there is no need to look only to Paul; we must assume that Jesus, Paul, and the other apostolic writers will be unified in their understanding/teaching. And, likewise, that the NT authors will be in concert with the OT authors.

That having been said, I am happy to provide texts that both strongly imply and directly instruct that God's law continues to instruct the redeemed in this era, just as it did in previous eras. This is not exclusive to the "Law of Moses", but it certainly includes it, which is why Paul will reference it as an authority. It is, however, depressing to know ahead of time that you will construe these references differently. So what is the point of acceding to your request to show you? I will show you; will you actually encounter them per the comprehensive reading I have been articulating, and actually consider whether it works?

I do not plan to be exhaustive, instead I will select exemplars.

Anticipatory (the Apostles' presumptions):

Numbers 15:14-16 "And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you."

Isaiah 56:1-8 "Thus says the LORD: "Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil." Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from his people";... "And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant-- these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, "I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered."

Isaiah 66:17-23 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig’s flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD. “For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory, and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations. And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD. And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD. “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD."

New Testament:
Matthew 1:1 "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ..." In other words, "Don't miss this; what you are about to read is inextricably connected to what has gone before..."

Matthew 1:18: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way...she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." Significance? the Holy Spirit produces fruit/new life/something which continues to act

Matt 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 24:20 "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath." (why would that matter in the future unless the Sabbath persisted?)

Matthew 15:3-9 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (note that "all that I have commanded you" would include Matt 5:17-20)

Luke 4:16 "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read."

Acts 13:14 but they went on from Perga and came to Antioch in Pisidia. And on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.

Acts 13:44 The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.

Acts 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

Acts 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.

Acts 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Acts 18:18 "After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow." (Paul was practicing the vow of the Nazarene, of his own accord, not for anyone else)

Acts 20:16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

Acts 21:20 "And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,"

Acts 21:24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law." the accusation was false, Paul himself lived in "observance of the [Mosaic] law."

Acts 21:25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." (I'll include this here so you don't accuse me of "evading". Suffice it to say this doesn't mean what you think it means. Note that if this is all that the Gentiles were to be held accountable for under the law, there are some biggies missing: like theft or murder. I'm not going to defend that further for the moment, as it's not what I'm addressing in this effort)

Romans 3:19 "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." That which applies to Jews to define sin and hold them accountable also applies to "the whole world." All are held accountable to "the law", including the Law of Moses. If it applies to condemn outside of Christ, then it applies to instruct in Christ.

Romans 3:20-31 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. [and just in case you try to read what I, Paul, have just said differently than I mean, let me clarify...] Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." for all, Jew and Gentile.

1 Corinthians 7:19 "For neither circumcision [Jewishness] counts for anything nor uncircumcision [Gentileness], but keeping the commandments of God [for both of them]."

Galatians 5:3-4 "I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (see 1 Cor 7:19 for comparison)

Galatians 5:13-14 "For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

This is essential to pick up on as it entirely debunks what you've been suggesting, and proves what you asked me to prove. When Paul says, "don't use you freedom as an opportunity for the flesh," what does he in the next breath hold up as the standard for the action he is exhorting as the opposite of giving into the flesh? The law. Which is fulfilled/kept/acted in accord with by "love", actually by a quote from Leviticus: "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18)

I could go on and on, there's so much more, but I'm tired of this.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul does believe the law has come to an end (though it never had a beginning, except in man's vain imagination) for justification, but he never suggests that it has come to an end as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path.

You are, I suggest, introducing an unsupported qualification that the law only comes to an end in one sense, while remaining in effect in another sense. If Paul really believes the law lives on to guide our behaviour why does he say this?

He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross

 

[expos4ever]

The idea is incomprehensible to Paul, and we must realize this. And any time there is a statement made by Paul which could be understood in the manner you have been reading it, he always hasten to follow that statement with a clarification, to ensure that he is not so grievously misunderstood. "Shall we continue to sin that grace may abound? God forbid", or "What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!", or "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means!"

We all know that Paul thinks the Law is good, but this does not mean he believes it is still in effect. Something good can have its time and place and I suggest that Paul's broader argument illustrates that he believes the Law has completed its task.

Have you noticed that there is no enmity between Jew and Gentile contained in the Law of Moses?

There certainly is reason for such enmity:

I am the Lord your God, who has separated you from the peoples. You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make [o]yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything [p]that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26 Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine

This text aside, it is simple history that the practices of the Law of Moses introduced division between Jew and Gentile. The Law prescribed an entire range of dietary and behavioural practices that would mark the Jew out from the Gentile. This "us" vs "them" distinction almost certainly has been transmitted down to our very day - people tend to resent the Jews for their claim that they are God's chosen people.

And the Law of Moses is clear (see the Leviticus text): they are indeed exactly that.

 

[1213]

Not that simple. Did you carefully read my last post? The Spirit now tells us what we should not do. ...

Yes, if we are born anew, the law is written in our heart.

For finding fault with them, he said, "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 lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Hebrews 8:8-12 (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

The difference between new and old covenant is not the law, but that the law where is the law written.

 

[expos4ever]

The passage should be read like this: "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both groups into one and destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall, by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances."

As a native english speaker, this wording declares that thing abolished is the law. That is simply how this reads. Here is the how Young's Literal translation renders it:

for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,

There is no legitimate way to read this and come away with the idea that this "law of command in ordnances" has not been "done away with".

In any event, it is, frankly, extremely obvious that the thing that divided Jew from Gentile was the Law of Moses.