The Law

[DeaconDean]

The Law and the Christian Pt. 4
IV. The Usage of Paul

The use of “nomoV” in Paul is not always uniform, for he can sometimes employ the term when he does not have the O.T. Law in view. Nevertheless, he does not start with a general sense which is then predominantly used for the Mosaic Law. His starting point is the traditional use of “nomoV” for the specific O.T. Law. Hence, it is self-evident what “nomoV” means, and usually no more precise definition is given.

As in Rabbinic usage, the gist of the “nomoV” can be stated in the Decalogue, which is thus to some degree the Law in a specific sense. (cf. Rom. 13:8; 2:20; 7:7) In Paul, however, no basic distinction is made between the Decalogue and the rest of legal material in the O.T. When “nomoV” is used with a genitive, it can be used for reference for an individual Law, I.e.: “nomoV tou androV” (law of the husband, Rom. 7:2), primarily in the sense of the Law pertaining to the husband, in content, the Law which binds the wife to the husband, not, e.g.; the law issued by the husband.

In Paul, “nomoV” is supremely that which demands action from man, a specific will. Hence one “does” the Law (Rom. 2:25; cf. Gal. 5:3; 6:13). There are “erga nomou” (works of the Law) demanded by the Law, I.e.: works which are to be performed in accordance with it (Rom. 3:28; et. al.). Only along these lines is there any point to the question of Rom. 7:7: “o nomoV amartia” (the law sin), I. e.: is the will present in the Law sinful? The positive equivalent of Rom. 7:12 is to the same effect: “o vomoV agioV” (the Law (is) holy), the will of the Law, the Law in its demand is holy. With Paul’s writings, one should not make a distinction between the use of “nomoV” without the article and its use with the article. It is certainly not true that “nomoV” is “a” law as distinct from “o nomoV”, “the” law.

V. The Material Understanding of the Law in Paul.

a. As concerning the material understanding of the Law in Paul, the cross of Christ is decisive. In the statement that the crucified Jesus is the Christ, the whole of Paul’s thinking has its controlling center, including what he says about the Law. Only in this light is there a meaningful, indeed, an inwardly necessary, connection between his affirmation and negation of the Law. Otherwise one could only conclude that there are two trains of thought, the one conservative and affirmative, the other negative and radical. In Paul, the negation of the Law is a consequence of the cross, Gal. 2:21: “ei gar dia nomou dikaiosunh, ara CristoV dwrean apeqanen” (if for through law righteousness, then Christ without cause died) if Rom. 7:1ff.; 8:1ff. Freedom from the Law could be achieved in this way alone. This is grounded in the specific nature and operation of the Spirit.

b. The nature of the Law is summed up in the statement that the Law is the good will of God. Hence not to be subject to the Law is enmity against God. (Rom. 8:7)

“In contrast, Paul does not make any fundamental distinction between cultic (worship) and ethical commandments, or between the Decalogue and the rest of the Law. Nevertheless, he works out his position primarily with reference to the ethical commandments, especially those of the Decalogue which apply to all men.”[1]

Since the Law is a declaration of God’s will, it is oriented to what man does. When Paul quotes the statement in Lev. 18:5: “o poihsaV auta zhsetai en autoiV” (the doing of these things shall live in them, cf. Gal. 3:12ff.; Rom. 10:5) the emphasis rests on the “poiein”.


The Law has to do with “erga” (anything done, or to be done, a deed, work, action) in contrast to the “pistiV” (faith, belief, firm persuasion) which is associated with “akoh” (hearing, the act or sense of hearing), Gal. 3:2ff. In life under the Law, the act which conforms to the Law constitutes religious existence. To stand in the Law is to have a life which is based on doing it, Gal.3:20: “einai ex erhwn nomou,” (out of works of law). Rom. 2:23; ‘en nomw kaucasqai’ (in the Law boast). It is necessary to seek one’s boasting before God in the Law and by its fulfillment. This obligation to the Law is for Paul the true character of the Jew.[2] Nevertheless, Paul says of the Law that it cannot give life, Gal. 3:21. This is because no one keeps it, not because Paul regards the works of the Law as sin. When Gentiles do by nature the works of the Law, these are acknowledged by Paul to be good works, Rom. 2:14.

Those who stand outside faith in Christ are essentially distinguished by whether or not they possess the Law. This is why twofold proof is given in Rom. 2, first for those without the Law (vs. 12ff.), then for those with the Law. (vs.. 17ff., cf. Rom. 3:1; 9:4; Gal. 2:15) At what is for Paul the decisive point, however, Jews and Gentiles come together. Neither can be justified on the basis of observance of the Law or any other kind of goodness. For all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). Hence, both alike are referred to faith in Christ alone, and in this they are linked together in unity, Gal. 3:28, etc. For one God stands over both parts of humanity. (cf. Rom. 3:29)

c. If this is the nature of the Law, one may understand its effect, which is produced when it comes into contact with sinful man.

• The relation of the Law to sin is quite simply one of prohibition. That the Law forbids sin is a negative expression of the fact that the Law is the good will of God. Thus the Law says: “ouk epiqumhseiV” (you shall not lust) Rom. 7:7. The question of Rom. 6:15 cannot be properly understood unless one presupposes that the Law protects against sin. The question, then, is whether sin is not unavoidable if the Law be done away. On the whole, therefore, Paul kept to the strongly negative character of the Law, as also to the negative form of the Decalogue. The Law is God’s Word directed against sin. It is, of course, summed up positively in the statement: “agaphseiV ton plhsion sou wV seautou” (you shall love the neighbor of you as yourself, Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14), but this does not alter the fact that primarily the Law forbids sin as “tw plhsion kakon ergazesqai,” (to the neighbor evil does not work, Rom. 13:10).

• Forbidding sin, the Law also unmasks it. Sin is shown up in its sinfulness. The Law brings out plainly its character as rebellion against God. To be sure, sin is already there before man comes into contact with the Law (Rom. 5:13; 7:9). But it comes to life through the Law: “elqoushV de thV entolhV h amartia anez” -Rom. 7:8. The point of Rom. 7:7, then, is that through the Law sin does not merely come to my knowledge, but for the first time, it becomes a reality for me.

• If the Law forbids sin, and also intensifies it to the level of actual rebellion against God, this means that the condemnation of sin is pronounced herewith: “amartia de ouk ellogeitai uh ontoV nomou” Rom. 5:13. With the fact of transgression of the Law and rebellion against God, “katarima” rests on man, Rom. 8:1. Indeed the Law does not simply entail the factual condemnation of sin. In its capacity as scripture it also declares this condemnation and demands submission to the verdict. In Rom. 3:10, the Law speaks as indicated: ,“ina tan stoma jragh kai uto dikoV genhtai paV o kosmoV tw qew.” Rom. 2:12: “osoi en nomw hmarton, dia nomou kriqhsontai.” Hence the Law makes sin into a deadly force, 1 Cor. 15:56; Rom. 7:9f. For it works wrath (Rom. 4:19). Hereby the Law leads him who hears it aright to the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3:20. Paul is not really suggesting that this knowledge of sin gives man a subjective insight into the need of redemption. What he means is that a man cannot appeal to the Law before God, since the Law is the very thing which unmasks him as a sinner.

• All this means is that the true effect of the Law is to nail a man to his sin. As a person holds the prisoner, as a “paidagwgoV” (Gal. 3:24ff.) keeps the boy under his authority, so man is shut up by the Law under sin. This is the verdict of scripture, which means according to the will of God, Gal. 3:22ff. Rightly understood, then, the Law prevents any attempt on mans part to secure righteousness before God in any other way than faith in Jesus Christ and by the pardoning grace of God. For the Law nails man to his sin. According to Paul, this is the real connection between the Law and Christ. The Law is not in the first instance that which leads to Christ by giving insight into the need of redemption.

• To say this is to describe what Paul calls the weakness of the Law. This lies essentially in the fact that it can meet sin only with prohibition and condemnation. The Law is weak “dia thV sarkoV” (Rom. 8:3ff.). It is weak because of the fact of sin which it cannot overcome. Thus the weakness of the Law can also be expressed by saying that it has no power to give life. (Gal. 3:21ff.) On the contrary, through sin it brings death, Rom. 7:9f., 1 Cor. 15:56f.) This is also meant when the Law as the letter which kills is contrasted with the life-giving Spirit, 2 Cor. 3:6ff. Service of the Law which is written on the tablets of stone, though it is a glorious ministry because the Law is the revealed will of God, brings condemnation and death, since it comes to man only from without and does not move him from the center of his being. In other words, it allows him to live on as the sinner he is.

• Paul’s radical understanding of the Law can be apprehended only in light of his inner starting point, namely, the act of forgiveness and justification accomplished in the cross of Christ, and therewith the reconstitution by God of man’s relation to God apart from man’s achievement, and hence apart from the Law. Paul’s negation of the Law derives from his affirmation of what has taken place in Jesus Christ, not from rational criticism or missionary tactics. Because righteousness before God is attributed to man in the cross, not on the basis of what man has done, but on the basis of his assumption by grace into this death, this negation is necessary, Rom. 3:21ff. The aim of Paul, then, is that he may be found in Christ:”mh ecwn emhn dikaiosunhn thn ek nomou, alla thn dia .” The aim of Paul, then, is that he may be found in Christ (cf. Phil. 3:9; Rom. 8:1).

But outside the death of Christ and death with Christ, man is still “en kosmw” and hence delivered up to the Law, Col. 2:20. Thus the statement in Rom. 10:4: “teloV gar nomou CristoV eiV dikaiosunhn panti tw pisteuonti,” does not simply mean that the age of the Law has ended with the coming of Jesus. The Law and Christ do not succeed as one another in temporal history or even in religious history. The transition takes place in salvation history. Only for him who in faith appropriates the righteousness of God in Christ, is the Law abolished.


Our baptism into Christ by which we are sons of God and no longer servants and hence, no longer subject to the Law, Gal. 3. Baptism is again linked to the death with Christ in Rom. 6. All this means that the relation to God no longer rests on man himself. The Law is closed off as the way of salvation. Christ has taken its place. Man is thus forbidden even to try to become righteous by the Law now that God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ as the pardoning God who justifies the sinner rather than him who is righteous by his own achievement, Rom. 4:5. The man who still expects righteousness by observing the Law causes Christ to have died in vain (cf. Gal. 2:21ff.).

• The positive link between the Law and Christ is preserved, however, by understanding the cross as an affirmation of the Law. It is first an affirmation of its verdict. The death to the Law which takes place in crucifixion with Christ takes place: “CristoV hmaV exhgorasen ek thV kataras tou vomou bgenomenoV uper katara” (Christ us redeemed out of the curse of the Law, having become for us a curse). The Law’s sentence of condemnation on sin is thus fulfilled in the cross of Christ, Rom. 5:6ff. The cross is the full achievement of obedience to God (Phil. 2:5ff).

Continued...

[1] For Paul, the fulfillment of the Law through the Spirit in believers is the real intention of the Law. This view controls his understanding of the law in judging the position of the sinner before it. That is to say, it demands obedience to God and love for neighbor. But, Paul call the Jews to repentance in face of the concrete Law, not of ideas concerning it.

[2] IoudaioV is identical with upo nomon einai, 1 Cor. 9:20ff.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Law and the Christian Pt. 5
VI. Various Usages of “nomoV” in the Pauline Writings

6.1. The True Purpose of the Law

6.1a. Although the ostensive purpose of the Law was as a means of obtaining life (Lev. 18:5), Paul believed the Law had another purpose, a salvation-historical purpose. Paul knew that God knew the Hebrews could not be declared righteous by observance to the Law even though this was theoretically possible. God had another purpose for giving the Law and it was to bring to the Hebrews the knowledge of sin and their sinfulness. The Law would even serve to increase sin in the world. The Law would prepare for Christ, and once it fulfilled it purpose, it would become salvation-historically obsolete.

6.1b. Rom. 3:19-20; 5:12-13; 7:7-8; Gal. 3:19

Paul explains in Rom. 3:19 that the purpose of all scripture is for Jews to conclude that no one can be declared righteous from the works of the Law. Rather, what the Law accomplishes is to define sin, and to bring its violators to where they know themselves as sinners. “diagar vomou epignwsiV amartiaV” (for through law is full knowledge of sin“ -Rom. 3:20) With the Law, sin becomes defined as transgression and it becomes possible and therefore it is possible to have a knowledge of oneself as a sinner. Similarly, in Rom. 5:13, Paul says that where there is no law, there is no sin. Meaning that sin presupposes the Law; in the absence of the Law, there is no sin in the sense of transgression of the Law, although there may be disobedience.

The same idea is expressed in one of the most heated, and debated passages of Romans. In Rom. 7:7-8, Paul says:

“What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through law; for also I did not know lust except the law said You shall not lust. But sin taking occasion through the commandment worked every lust in me; for apart fro law, sin was dead.”

“alla thn amartian ouk egnwn, ei mh dia nomou” Paul here begins to show how sins personified, used the commandment to entrap him. In his viewpoint, sin remains inactive without the Law (cf. Rom. 7:8-9) And says ironically, that with the introduction of the Law, what was intended to bring life brought death. When presented with the Law for the first time, the Hebrews naively assume that they can obey it, However, as stated before, the Law serves to nail a man to his sin, the unexpected result is that man is held in bondage to his sin so that now the Law is passively complicit in producing violations of itself. And this was the Jewish experience with the Law. As soon as he became aware of God’s requirements in the Law, their tendency to sin, defined as transgression of the Law, sprang to life. (cf. Rom. 7:9) For Paul, sin was a power that rules over, and becomes actual in the presence of the Law. Sin requires an external object in order to become actualized and the Law serves this purpose. (cf. Rom. 7:7)

This also appears the inferred meaning in Gal. 3:19a:

“Why, then the law? The transgressions because of it was added”

“ti oun o nomoV; twn parabasewn carin prosteqh” He means that the Law was added because the Jews (and indeed all mankind) are sinners. Paul uses a divine passive in this passage, so that it is God who added the Law because of transgressions. Paul does not explain in which sense the Law was added because of transgressions, but he does write: “until the seed comes to whom it was promised”. (Gal. 3:19b) This implies that one reason why the Law was added was in order to prepare for the coming of Christ, the “seed”. (cf. Gal. 3:16) Why the existence of transgressions required that the Law be made manifest is not stated. But with little doubt we can say that for Paul, the Law functioned to bring sin to light, so that they would see the need to be declared righteous apart from their own efforts or “works of the Law“. (cf. Gal.3:22-23; Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13, 20; 7:7-8)[1] It is also probable that a view held by Paul is that the Law was added to define sin as sin and thereby functioned also to bring the sinner into condemnation and thusly prepare them to receive the righteousness of God.”

Many say that without the Law, as far as Gentiles are concerned, there would still be “conscious” (what Paul referred to as the “law written on the heart” [Rom. 2:15]), however, conscious does not function in the same manner as the Law because conscious can be defiled and even “seared”. (cf. 1 Cor. 8:7; 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15) Dictums of conscious are thusly liable to being rendered ineffectual, either in part, or wholly. Unlike the conscious, the Law is experienced as existing independently of the one who is subject to it, and not susceptible to perversion. The introduction of the Law has the effect of bringing into existence sin as being defined as violation of divinely -given commandment. It is also possible that Paul means that the Law was added in order to produce transgressions (cf. Rom. 5:2). This would also have the desired effect of preparing the Jew to receive the righteousness of God insofar as the more transgressions a Jew has, the less inclined they would be to deny their need of the righteousness of God.

6.2. Rom. 5:20

Paul says:

“…that might abound the offense”

“But that the Law was added in order that transgressions may increase.” Not only does the Law supply a knowledge of sin, but it even increases sin by inciting those who to whom the Law was given to sin. In other words, the Law provided the Hebrews with opportunities to transgress that which formerly were not envisioned. And, as he later explains, the Law functions to generate sin because it provides the Hebrews something to rebel against.

6.3. The Salvation-Historical Role of the Law

Positively, the Law was given at a time in the working out of God’s purpose to declare to the Hebrews (and later the Gentiles) righteousness by faith and not by works. Paul explains this role in both Romans and Galatians.

6.3a. Gal. 3:15-22

Paul elaborates by speaking about the Covenant made with Abraham. The Law came four hundred and thirty years after the Covenant, but yet, does not nullify it (cf. Gal. 3:17). Paul uses the Greek word “diaqhkhn” or “dee-ath-ay-kay”. And means:

“a testamentary disposition, will, a covenant, Heb. 9:16-17; Gal.3:15; in the N.T., a covenant of God with men, Gal. 3:17; 4:24; Heb. 9:4; Mt. 26:28, et. Al.; the writings of the old covenant”[2]

The idea being conveyed here is one of a last will and testament. When a person makes a will, it is unbreakable and no one can change or nullify it. And in fact, Paul is comparing the Covenant God made with Abraham with a last will and testament in that they both cannot be nullified, are unchangeable, and is unbreakable and Paul also refers to the promise and promises given to Abraham. In Genesis, Abraham is promised land, and progeny, and that all nations would be blessed in him. Paul again refers to Abraham and probably uses as a comparison, the promise of land against salvation .The promise of the reception of land becomes the promise of the reception of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal. 3:14) and being declared righteous by faith (Gal.3:22) both of which Paul identifies as promises to Abraham. So that in the Gentile view, it is probable that the promise of land, has become the promise of salvation, because salvation comes as a result of being declared righteous and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (cf. Rom. 8:11)

At any rate, however you view it, Paul’s point is that the promise of eternal life was unconditional, and was so in the time of Abraham. It does not, therefore, become conditional when the Law is given some four hundred and thirty years later. As Paul puts it, the inheritance is not from Law “ek nomoV,” but from promise “ex apaggeliaV”. He presents Law and promise as two mutually exclusive means of receiving the inheritance. The Law only has a function in the realization of the promise.[3]

6.3b. Rom. 10:4

Here is another of the hotly debated verses in the Pauline studies.[4] “teloV gar nomou CristoV” (Christ is the end of the law). It should be noted that some scholars translate “teloV” as “goal” while others translate it as “end”. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines “teloV” as: “full performance, perfect discharge”.[5] And that the ultimate meaning is that in ninety-nine percent of all contexts where it is used, whatever is being addressed, has been already attained, discharged, fulfilled, come to an end. Gerhard Delling advocates “cessation” saying:

“For the believer, the Law is set aside as a way of salvation by the Christ event - CristoV means especially the crucifixion and resurrection, Rom. 7:4; 10:4”[6]

One of the dominate views in Christianity, especially among Lutheran circles is that Christ is the end of the Law in the sense that it has been abolished for the believer. In other words, the Mosaic Law is not binding upon the believer since Christ is the end of the law. This belief must be guarded closely as it can lead down the path towards antinominianism (lawlessness).

Another view similar in nature is the view that the Law has come to an end as a way of salvation. Righteousness in the O.T. era was via the Law, however, now because of the Christ event, a right standing before God is no longer based on the Law. This idea has merit, however, it does not take into account the Apostolic Councils ruling in Acts 15, and the fact that some of the Law still applies to Jewish believers.
And there are numerous others such as: Christ is the end of the Ceremonial Law.[7] The Exclusivity of the Law is set aside.[8] Christ is the Goal of the Law.[9] Christ is Both the End and Goal of the Law.[10] Then there is the view that this passage of Romans is one among 3 chapters of Romans that are addressed specifically to a Jewish audience possibly in Rome.[11]

According to Strongs Concordance, “teloV” is used some forty-one times in the New Testament. Of these, it is rendered as “end” in thirty-five of these. Robert Badenas’ claim that “teloV”must be translated teleologically in Rom 10:4 is debatable,[12]for-whatever one makes of the term outside the NT-in the Pauline corpus and the rest of the NT the semantic range of the word is used more commonly with a temporal rather than a teleological meaning. Curiously even Badenas' own summary of Pauline usage could be interpreted to support such a conclusion:[13] (1) twice the word means "fully" or "completely" (2 Cor 1:13; 1 Thess 2:16); (2) three times it denotes "the eschatological end" (1 Cor 1:8; 10:11; 15:24); (3) twice "final destiny" (2 Cor. 11:15; Phil 3:19); and (4) five times it is teleological (Rom 6:21-22; 10:4; 2 Cor 3:13; 1 Tim. 1:5). It should be observed that the first three categories above match the semantic range of "end" more than they do "goal." It cannot be denied that the range of “teloV”is dynamic, and thus it does not always refer to a temporal end. But Badenas' claim that the translation "goal" is lexically required in Rom 10:4 is at least debatable even from his own presentation of the evidence.

Therefore, based on the context of Romans 10, it is best to adopt the view that what Paul is trying to communicate is that in what the Law tried to do, establish a right standing before God, has come to an end. Based on context, it is also possible that Paul was referring to Jewish believers because in verse 3 he says:

“For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

The logical relationship between verse 3 and 4 is the primary support for this view. The assertion the “Christ is the end of the law” is not merely an abstract theological proposition which Paul inserted. Instead, support comes from the Greek word “gar”. In this instance, “gar” is used as conjunction connecting the previous train of thought with the next. The main argument here is that the Jews “have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” It should be understood that the Jews are ignorant of the divine activity of God by which He declares all those who trust in Him to be righteous. There are two participles in verse 3 that are casual: “agnoounteV” and “zhtounteV”. They explain why the Jews did not submit themselves to the “righteousness of God”. and also, it explains the “because”. Because they were ignorant of God’s righteousness, and because they went about trying to establish their own righteousness.

A parallel verse, Rom. 9:32, informs the reader that Israel failed to attain righteousness via the Law because they sought to attain it “as from works” instead from faith. Since “erga” in Paul, refers to “works” in the general sense, it cannot be restricted to only part of the Law, and since Paul does not mention other matters like circumcision, the dietary laws, etc., it is fair to say that Paul is saying that the Jews thought they could attain righteousness by doing what is prescribed by the Law.

In summary, it seems that the main problem with interpreting Rom. 10:4 is that scholars and laymen are trying to support their whole understanding of the Law and the gospel on the basis of this text. Whether Christ is the “goal” or the “end” the debates will never cease. But the particular problem Paul is encountering is a tendency to misuse the Law in an effort to establish ones righteousness. And that being the case, it is true that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness.

6.4. The Law and its Relation to the Believer as a Moral Standard in Paul

In Paul’s view, it is clear that no one can be declared righteous by obedience to the Law, but this raises the question of whether, even it cannot be, whether the Law remains a moral standard for Jewish believers and should it become such a standard for Gentile believers. This is a most controversial topic, and one that should not be taken lightly. In the Second-Temple Jewish thought, a condition remaining of the covenant was obedience to the Law. Evidence has already been produced earlier that according to Rabbinic teachings, obedience to the Law was believed. There is also evidence that Jews, Pharisaic and otherwise, saw the Law as an expression of the will of God, obeyed out of a love for God, even though obedience to the Law was also a condition of participation in eschatological salvation. The question is, whether or not Paul saw obedience to the Law as an expression of love for God. Unfortunately, due to the very nature of Paul’s letters, we cannot get a clear presentation of his views.

6.4a. Paul’s rejection of the Law

It is clear that Paul explicitly rejects at least certain parts of the Law, in particular, circumcision, the dietary laws, and the Jewish Festival calendar.

6.4.1a. Circumcision

In Gal. 5:2-4, Paul says:

“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

Paul says here that if a man allows himself to be circumcised, Christ will be of no use to him; ritual circumcision as described in the book of Genesis, and as described in Lev. 12:2-3; Ex. 12:44-48 is what Paul is referring to here. According to Paul, this is the first step towards obedience to the whole Law, performed for the purpose of being declared righteous thereby,[14] or just for the simple reason that the Law says one has to. For Paul, once this step is taken, one cannot appropriate by faith the righteousness that comes by faith which originates in God as a gift, which is how Christ becomes of use to him. The two are mutually exclusive options. And they cannot be combined as Paul’s adversaries, the Judaizers, advocated. As Paul says, you who are striving to be declared righteous by the law, end up alienating yourselves from Christ, you have fallen from grace. One could argue that Gentiles could submit themselves to circumcision as a way of showing love for God, but Paul emphatically rejects this notion citing that obedience to one commandment commits one to obedience to the other commandments as a condition of being declared righteous. Certainly, what Paul says applies foremost to Gentiles, who are not circumcised, were not given the laws regarding ritual circumcision, but also applies to the Jews as well for the Jews cannot be declared righteous from works of the Law any more than Gentiles can. Paul rebukes saying: “In Christ, circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing” (cf. Gal.5:6), which implies that there is no longer any need for circumcision, and if so, it should not be practiced among the Gentiles and, presumably also by the Jews. (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19)

6.4.1b. Dietary Laws and the Jewish Festival Calendar

Paul rejects the validity of the Jewish festival calendar, remarkably, because for him, all days, months, and years are alike. (cf. Rom. 14:5-6) Likewise, he views the Jewish dietary laws as no longer binding. And if it isn’t clear, it certainly is in Col. 2:16-17:

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are shadows of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

When Paul says these things are “shadows,” Paul means that their validity has ceased because they have been replaced salvation-historically by a greater reality (cf. Gal. 4:10-11; Heb. 8:5; 10, In Platonism, "shadow" is set in contrast to "form" “eikon” in order to distinguish the material world from the world of forms and (see Rep. 7.514A-517A; Crat. 439A). In Platonic thought the material world exists insofar as matter participates in the immaterial forms; the former are ontologically inferior to the latter and derivative in their being, so that they could be described as "shadows." In Jewish writings in Greek, a similar, but more generalized use of "shadow" occurs, but now set in contrast to the term "body" “soma” (Philo, De conf. ling. 190; De migr. Abr. 12; Josephus, War 2.28). The "body" is superior to the "shadow" insofar it is the true reality or the original, as opposed to being the less real, mere appearance or copy. Paul contrasts the "shadow," consisting of the dietary laws and Jewish festival calendar, with the "body of Christ," by which he means the true reality consisting of Christ (genitive of apposition or content). The shadows are said to be of "the things that are to come," which, as synonymous with "the body of Christ," refers to fulfillment of eschatological salvation through the work of Christ. In Paul's theology, the dietary laws and Jewish festival calendar have been rendered obsolete, being merely anticipations of the greater reality of Christ.[15]

6.5. Statements that Appear to Indicate Paul rejects the Law as a Moral Standard

It is also clear that if Paul holds to the validity of the Law as a moral standard, he must hold to a reduced type of Law.

6.5a. Rom. 6:14-15

In Rom. 6:14, Paul says:

“…for ye are not under law, but under grace”

“gar este upo nomon alla upo carin” Being under the law, and being under grace are mutually opposites. Cranfield argues that by not being under the Law Paul is referring to not being “under God’s disfavor or condemnation.”[16]

He explains further:

“The fact that ‘upo nomon’ is contrasted with ‘upo carin’ suggests the likelihood that Paul is here thinking not of the Law generally, but of the Law as condemning sinners.”

A parallel to Paul’s affirmation is found in Rom. 8:1: “There is therefore no condemnation for those in Jesus Christ”. Cranfield is certainly correct that, for Paul, to be “under grace” is not to be under the condemnation of the Law, but Paul is hinting at more than just this. The full meaning of Rom. 6:14 becomes clear when interpreted in light of the following verse. Here, Paul asks a rhetorical question: can believers sin because they are not under the law but under grace? Here, it is suggested that Paul is expecting his readers to understand the previous statement (vs. 14) to mean that believers are not under the Law any more as a moral standard; otherwise his opponents wouldn’t have any ground to criticize him as it would naturally lead down the path to antinomianism. Paul’s simple response is not to say that believers cannot sin because they are not under the law, but that sin is no longer possible, since believers are now “slaves to obedience.” (6:16)

6.5b. Rom. 7:1-6

In Rom 7:1-6, Paul says that believers have died to the Law, and now serve God in the new way of the Spirit. These two ways of serving God are mutually exclusive in Paul's understanding. He begins by saying that he is speaking to those who know the Law, by which he seems to mean that he speaks to those who know about the life under the Law as stipulated in the Torah “ginwskousi gar nomou lalw”.[17] This would include Jews obviously, but also gentiles who "know the Law" in the sense of being acquainted with the basic tenets of Judaism. Paul intends to use this knowledge as a means to explicate the situation of the believer, both Jew and gentile. He says that a Jew (or anyone who desires to be obedient to God) has a lifetime obligation to obey the Law: "The Law has authority over a man as long as he is alive" (7:1b). He then compares the situation of the man under the Law to that of a married woman in relation to her legal obligations to her husband. He says that a woman is released from her status as married upon the death of her husband. She can now remarry without being liable to the accusation of being an adulteress (7:2-3).[18]

The principle that Paul seeks to establish with this illustration is that death brings release from legal obligation. Paul then applies this principle to believers: "So that, my brothers, you died to the Law" “wste adeljoi mou, kai umeiV eqanatwqhte tw nomw”(7:4). (In the illustration in 7:2-3, it is the woman's husband who dies not the woman herself; Paul expects his readers to make the necessary interpretive adjustments to make the analogy work.) The dative "to the Law" “tw nomw” is a dative of respect, designed to clarify Paul's use of figurative language: believers "die" with respect to the Law. His point is that the believing Jews no longer have an obligation to obey the Law; similarly, gentile believers have no obligation to put themselves under the Law. The adverbial phrase "through the body of Christ" “dia tou swmatoV tou Cristou” specifies that it was through Christ's body as crucified that believers have died to the Law. (In Rom 6, Paul uses the metaphor of "dying to sin" (6:2) and "dying with Christ (6:3-10) to describe the believer's situation, but there is no indication from the context that dying to the Law should be interpreted in light of these other "dyings.")

The purpose for which a believer dies to the Law is provided in Rom 7:4b: "In order that you may belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead" “eiV to genesqai umaV eterw, tw ek nekrwn egerqenti”. The one who was raised from the dead is, of course, Christ; thus Paul sets being under the Law in opposition to belonging to Christ. Moreover, Paul explains that the reason that a believer has died to the Law is in order to bear fruit to God “ina karpojorhswmen tw qew”. (The purpose clause is probably dependent on "you died.") The phrase "to God" “tw qew” is a dative of advantage: to bear fruit for the benefit or advantage of God. Before their conversion, according to Paul, believers were "in the flesh"; in such a state, the Law only served to produce disobedience by inciting "the passions of sins in the members of our bodies" (7:5). The phrase "passions of sins" is probably a genitive of quality, meaning sinful passions; the use of the plural "sins" implies that concrete acts of disobedience are in view, not sin as a principle of disobedience.

Being in the flesh and the implications of this led to bearing fruit unto death, insofar as death is the penalty of sin. The believer's situation, however, is to be released from the Law, having died to what held him “nuni de kathrghqhmen apo tou nomou, apoqanontoV en w kateicomeqa” (7:6). To be released from the Law is a synonym for having died to the Law that once held the believer (7:4). The Law holds a person, in the sense of keeping him captive, insofar as it functions to make sin known and thereby bring condemnation; in addition, the Law even increases sin. Again, Paul asserts that Jews no longer have an obligation to obey the Law and gentiles are not required to submit themselves to the Law in order to "serve God" (7:6).

Rather, the believer has been released from the Law "with the result that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the letter" “wste douleuein hmaV en kainothti pneumatoV, kai ou palaiothti grammatoV” (7:6). The genitives "new way of the Spirit" and "old way of the letter" are probably genitives of apposition or content, signifying that the "new way" consists of the Spirit and the "old way" consists of the letter, by which Paul means the Law. The believer is not released from serving God, but only from serving God in a particular way: "the old way of the letter." To serve God in the old way of the letter is to serve God by submitting oneself to the Law (see Rom 2:29; 2 Cor 3:6), which Paul considers to be doomed to failure: for Paul to be under the Law is inseparable from being in the flesh. The new way of serving God is by means of the Spirit. It is clear that, for Paul, Law and Spirit are incompatible ways of serving God.

6.5c. Gal. 2:17-19

Paul's Judaizing opponents apparently accused Paul of making Christ "the servant of sin," insofar as Paul taught that gentiles who become Christians do not have to obey the Law.[19] (For example, Paul vociferously rejected the demand that the Galatian believers be circumcised.) This accusation stands behind Paul's rhetorical question: "But if, seeking to be declared righteous in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, then also [does this mean that] Christ is a servant of sin?"


“ei de zhtounteV dikaiwqhnai en Cristw, eureqhuen kai autoi amartwloi, apa CristoV amartiaV diakrnoV” (2:17). His Judaizing opponents would have defined as sin any violation of the Law. This then explains Paul's statement, "We ourselves are found to be sinners." That is to say, Paul proclaimed to his gentile audiences that being declared righteous came apart from the works of the Law ("to be declared righteous in Christ"), so that, in seeking to be declared righteous apart from obedience to the Law, gentiles would be found to be sinners, for they would be Law-breakers, insofar as they had not submit to the Law in its totality, including becoming circumcised. Thus, Paul's gospel allows believers to be "sinners," as defined by the Law, and his opponents cleverly expressed this fact as [Paul's] Christ being a servant or promoter of sin. (The first person plural seems to refer to Paul, his supporters and his gentile converts.) As expected, Paul rejects the charge that he has made Christ into a servant of sin, but his reason for rejecting the accusation may have come as a shock to his Jewish opponents: "For if what I have destroyed these things I build up again, then I establish myself as a transgressor" “ei gar a katelusa tauta palin oikodomw parabathn emauton sunisthmi” (2:18).

Paul's argument is that he (and other Jews who support him and his gentiles converts) cannot be accused of being sinners insofar as they violate the Law because the Law no longer has validity and therefore cannot be violated. This is what he has destroyed. In other words, Paul's counters the charges against him by affirming that the Law is now obsolete. (It must be noted that Paul [and Peter] had violated Jewish dietary laws by eating with gentiles in Antioch.) His opponents' charge could only be true on the assumption that a believer is under the Law as a moral standard; thus only if he rebuilds what he has destroyed, i.e., the Law, could he then be proven to be a Law-breaker. Instead, Paul says that he has "died to the Law, in order that he might live for God" (2:19).

(By his use of the first person "I," Paul doubtless means to be speaking paradigmatically also; the same is true of his use of "I" in Gal 2:18) To die to the Law is to no longer be under the Law as a moral standard; this is the condition of "living for God," which is the new way of serving God (see Rom 7:1-6). Paul also says that this dying to the Law occurs "through the Law" “dia nomw”, by which he means because of the Law. In other words, he attributes a salvation-historical role to the Law as leading to Christ and its own obsolescence (see 3:19-25).[20]

6.5d. Gal 3:23-25; 4:1-7

Paul describes the Law as having a temporary function in God's plan of salvation; the Law was added 430 years after the promise to Abraham (see 3:17). During this period of time the Law functioned metaphorically as a “paidagwgoV” (guardian or disciplinarian) to bring "us" to Christ, in order that "we" may be declared righteous by faith, and adds that now that faith has come, "we" are no longer under the “paidagwgoV”, the Law (3:24-25). The Law did not have the purpose of being the means of obtaining salvation. Paul likens being under the Law to being in custody, until the possibility of being declared righteous by faith becomes possible (3:23). The role of a “paidagwgoV” was typically filled by a slave who was assigned to accompany a child to and from school and ensure that he was safe from harm and well-mannered (see Plato, Lysis, 208 C-D); they had a reputation for harshness.[21]

Thus, to compare the Law to a “paidagwgoV” would carry with it certain negative connotations. In his use of the metaphor of the “paidagwgoV”, Paul seems to make two points. First, for him to be under the Law is to exist under the authority and guardianship of the Law; possibly he has the external restrictiveness of the Law in view. Even though elsewhere in his writings Paul explains that the Law has the negative result of inciting sin, in Gal 3:19 the Law has a more positive role of imposing discipline on those under it, just as a “paidagwgoV” imposes discipline on his young charge. Paul explains that the ultimate purpose of being under the discipline of the Law is "in order that we might be declared righteous by faith" (3:24). This implies that the Law as “paidagwgoV” serves to lead a Jew to the realization of his inherent inability to obtain righteousness by doing the Law. Second, Paul uses the metaphor of the “paidagwgoV” to communicate that the state of existence characterized as being under the Law was intended to be temporary and preparatory for faith in Christ.[22] By the phrase "until the coming faith was revealed" “eiV thn uellousan pistin apokalujqhnai” means until faith in Christ became possible historically (see the parallel construction in Rom 8:18). Paul's analogy implies that, with the possibility of faith in Christ, the “paidagwgoV” function performed by the Law is complete, and its validity has ceased: the person who is no longer a minor is longer under the authority of his“paidagwgoV”.[23]

In Gal 4:1-7, Paul explains that to be under the Law is to be like a minor, who with respect to his freedom is no better than a slave, even though he is an heir.[24] Paul's point is that anyone who submits to the Law is living without freedom and so is slave-like. He describes the Jewish experience of being under the Law as being enslaved to "the elements of the cosmos" “upo ta stoiceia tou kosmou” (4:3). What he means by the phrase "the elements of the cosmos" in 4:3 is the Law viewed as a salvation-historically elemental and preliminary teaching. (The term ta stoiceia tou kosmou occurs in Gal 4:9; Col 2:8, 20; 2 Pet 3:10-12.)[25]

To be "under the elements of the cosmos" (4:3) is synonymous with being "under the Law" (4:5).[26] In Paul's interpretation, the Law was intended to lead to Christ and be superseded once "the fullness of time" had come (4:4). Paul says that for Jew to be under the Law was to be in a state of bondage, a lack of freedom, which is undesirable. This state was necessary but still intended to be temporary. This is why he chose the metaphor of a minor under the authority of "guardians and managers until the date set by the father" in order to describe the Jewish experience under the Law (4:2). In his view, the Galatians do not recognize that salvation-historically the Law has been superseded: "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (4:6). To have the Spirit of Christ in one's heart makes the Law unnecessary and obsolete.

6.5e. Gal. 4:21-31

Using an allegorical interpretation of the figures of Hagar and Sarah (see Gal 4:24a: "These things have an allegorical meaning" “atina estin allhgoromrna”, Paul contrasts two covenants; the implication is that one is superior to and has superseded the other. His aim is to convince the Galatian believers not to submit to the Law as a condition of being declared righteous. To this end, he compares the Mosaic covenant to the slave woman Hagar, whose son was born "according to the flesh" “kata sarka”, by which he means in ordinary fashion, and another covenant (implicitly, the "new covenant" [see 2 Cor 3:6]) to Sarah, the free woman, whose son is born "through promise" “dia thV epaggeliaV”. Hagar is also identified with Mount Sinai corresponding to Jerusalem, representing (unbelieving) Jews, who, by implication, are in slavery to the Law, since their "mother" was a slave. (It was on Mount Sinai that Moses received the Law.) To this Jerusalem is contrasted "the Jerusalem above" representing believers, those who are free from the Law, symbolized by Sarah.
Paul uses the eschatological notion of the heavenly Jerusalem to be revealed at the end in a novel way to express the difference between (unbelieving) Jews and believers; the implicit superiority of "the Jerusalem above" is exploited by Paul to express the superiority of the (new) covenant represented by Sarah (On the idea of a heavenly and/or new Jerusalem, see 1 En 90:28-29; 2 Bar 4:1-7; 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52; 10:26-27; 13.36; see also T. Dan 5:12; Sib. Or. 5.420-33; 5Q15 [5QNew Jerusalem]; Heb 12:22; 13:14; Rev 3:12; 21:2; 21:9-22:5). Paul writes, "And she is our mother" (4:25), by which he means that Sarah (symbolizing the Jerusalem above) represents the new covenant of which believers are metaphorically "sons," just as Isaac was literally the son of Sarah. It is clear from this allegorical contrast between the two women and their sons that Paul believes that the status of believers to be one of freedom from the Law, since Sarah is the free woman and Isaac is the son of a free woman. Paul then cites Isa 54:1, an eschatological passage, but interprets the barren woman of the prophecy as referring to Sarah (as opposed to Israel in exile, the intended meaning) and then allegorically to believers, who are sons of promise.

His point is that Sarah, once barren, is now the "mother" of many children, representing believers, including gentiles. The implication is that Sarah eschatologically has become the mother of believers "now that faith has come" (Gal 3:23). In Gal 4:28-31, Paul then focuses on the two sons born of the two women, Hagar and Sarah. He is referring to the fact that Issac was born miraculously as the result of God's promise to Abraham that he would have a heir through Sarah, whereas Ishmael was not born miraculously.

Paul no doubt is comparing believers who are indwelt by the Spirit to Jews who are defined as such by means of their physical birth and literal circumcision ("flesh"). In other words, Ishmael represents Judaism, which is now rejected, just as Ishmael was sent away (Gen 21:10). It is clear that, for Paul, to be under the Law is incompatible with being indwelt by the Spirit.[27]

6.5f. Gal. 5:1, 13, 18

Paul says that the situation of the believer is that of freedom (from the Law) meaning that the Law is not the moral standard according to which a believers lives. He writes, "It is for freedom that Christ has set you free" “th eleuqeria oun h CristoV hmaV hleuqerwse” (5:1)[28] and "For you were called to freedom" “UmeiV gar ep eleqeria eklhte” (5:13). Paul also says to the Galatians that if they are led by the Spirit, they are not under the Law “ouk este upo nomon”, so that he is contrasting Spirit and Law as two mutually exclusive modes of being. Not to be under the Law is not be obliged to obey the Law, not even part of the Law.

6.5g. 1 Cor. 9:20-21; 10:23-24

Paul explains that, although he is not under the Law, he lives as if he were under the Law in order to win Jews to Christ. By not being under the Law, Paul no doubt means that he is no longer obligated to obey the Law, that the Law no longer serves as a moral standard. In addition, the Corinthians are probably quoting back to Paul a dictum that they heard from Paul or at least derived from Paul's teaching: "All things are lawful for me." Paul does not dispute the truth of this principle, only the Corinthians' misapplication of it, as a license for sin.

6.6. Statements Suggesting the Abiding Validity of at least Parts of the Law.

There are numerous statements in Paul's writings that seem to affirm that the Law or at least a reduced Law serves as an eternal moral standard to which all human beings, including believers, are subject. It is suggestive that Paul cites the Law in order to deal with the question of whether the apostles should be supported financially, implying that it has authority in the Corinthian church (1 Cor 9:9 = Deut 25:4; see also 1 Cor 14:34 = "as the nomoV says").[29] The interpreter must be able to make sense of this collection of passages in light of Paul's apparent rejection of the Law as a moral standard for Jewish and gentile believers.

6.6a. Rom. 2:14-15

As already indicated, Paul says that gentiles have the Law written on their hearts by which they will be judged. Although they do not have the Mosaic Law, Paul says that gentiles still "do by nature the things of the Law" (phusei ta tou nomou poiosin), by which Paul means that gentile moral theory and practice naturally inevitably conforms, in part, at least, to the Mosaic Law. (This innate Law is probably identical to the law of reciprocity.) At any rate, the implication is that the law written on the heart is a universal moral standard for human beings. Paul must be thinking, however, about a reduced Law, since it is obvious that not all the commandments are written on the hearts of Gentiles.

6.6b. Rom. 3:31

Paul anticipates an objection against his position in Rom 3:31, namely that his stress on being declared righteous from faith and not from works implies that he has destroyed the Law: “Have we therefore destroyed the Law through faith. The two verbs “we destroy” “katargoumen” and “we establish” “histanomen” are intended as opposites. When he refers to the Law, Paul probably means the Law understood as the expression of the will of God for human beings, as the context suggests (see 3:20 “works of the Law”). Paul’s response to the accusation that his view on being declared righteous destroys the Law is to say that he denies the validity of the Law as a moral standard (see 8:2-4). Rather, his view upholds the Law as a moral standard. Paul, however, does not elaborate on this statement at this time.

6.6c. Rom. 7:12, 14

In the context of the statement of his inability to keep the Law Paul says that the Law is "holy" “hagioV” and the commandment is "holy, righteous and good" “hagia, dikaia, agatha” (7:12) and that the Law is spiritual “pneumatikos” (7:14), by which he may mean compatible with the Spirit. To refer to the Jewish Law by such felicitous terms as these may be taken to imply that Law is a universal moral standard. In general, Paul's lament about not being to keep the Law in Rom 7 implies that he sees the Law as applicable to all human beings, including believers (see 7:7).

6.6d. Rom 8:2-4

Paul says that the causal principle (lit. "law") of the Spirit of life (i.e., consisting of the Spirit that leads to life, a genitive of direction or purpose) has liberated one from the causal principle of sin and death (i.e., characterized by sin and leading to death). The Law could not produce life, because it was "weakened" by the flesh, meaning that the sinful nature prevented one from keeping the Law. Instead, Paul explains that God sent his own son in the likeness of sinful humanity "for sin" “peri hamartiaV“, by which he means because of sin or in order to be the solution for human sin. God condemned sin in the flesh, that is, Christ's human nature, in the sense that God provided his son as a substitutional sacrifice for sinners. The purpose of this redemption act is "in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, those who live not according to the flesh but the Spirit." This could be taken to mean that the one who lives according to the Spirit does what the Law requires, that is, becomes righteous by obeying the Law—the righteousness consisting of (obedience to) the Law's stipulations. This could be taken to imply that the Law remains binding on the believer as a moral standard.

6.6e. Rom. 13:8-9; Gal. 5:13-14; 5:6b

In two different passages, Paul says that a believer is obligated to love “agapan” and that love “agape” fulfills the Law. It would follow from this equation of love and fulfilling the Law that a believer has an obligation to obey the Law: love and Law are convertible.[30] In other words there is one commandment expressive of all other commandments to which a believer is subject.[31]

In Rom 13:8-9, Paul instructs his readers not to owe anything to anyone, except the ongoing obligation to love one another “ei hm to agapan allhlouV”. (By "one another" “allhlouV” Paul no doubt means all human beings, rather than fellow believers.) Paul then affirms, "For he who loves the other has fulfilled the Law" “o gar agapwn tou eteron nomon peplhrwke”. (There has been some dispute concerning whether "other" is used substantively ("the other") and thus as the object of the verb "to love" or whether it is used as an adjective modifying "law." If the latter, then Paul is not referring to the Jewish Law, but another law [perhaps "the law of Christ" in Gal 6:2]. It seems more probable that the former option is the correct one, for Paul quotes from the Jewish Law in the very next verse; the implication is that these specific commandments are part of the Law that is fulfilled by the one who loves "the other.") The definite article before "other" has generalizing effect. Paul then quotes from four of the ten commandments—"Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not covet" (13:9)—and then affirms that these and "and any other commandment" are summed up by one commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18). To love one's neighbor is defined in part as not doing evil towards one's neighbor “agaph tw plhsion kakon ouk ergazetai” (13:10a). Summing up his position, Paul says, "Love is the fulfillment of the Law" “plhrwma oun nomou h agaph” (13:10b). Insofar as, for Paul, love is convertible with fulfilling the Law and love is an obligation of believers, it could be argued that that believers are obliged to keep the Law. Now Paul may be thinking of a reduced Law, since he only quoted from the so-called moral law; nevertheless he would still be committed to the view that the believer is obliged to keep this reduced Law as a moral standard. (Paul exhorts his churches to love in Rom 12.9; Eph 5.2, 25; Phil 2.1-2; see also Col 1:4, 8; 1 Thess 1:3.)

Paul makes essentially the same point in Gal 5:13-14, and so could be interpreted to be saying that the believer is under the obligation to obey the one commandment that includes all other commandments. Paul warns the Galatians believers that they should not use their freedom from the Law as an opportunity to indulge their "flesh" “sarx“. Rather, they should use their freedom to "become one another's servants in love" “dia thV agaphV douleuete allhloiV” (5:13). The phrase "become one another's servants in love" is the functional equivalent of the obligation "to love one another" in Rom 13:8. The adverbial phrase "in love" specifies the means by which one becomes a servant of another: through love or putting the other's interest first. As in Rom 13:8-9, Paul explains, "The whole Law is fulfilled in one word: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Lev 19:18). By his statement that the whole law “ho pas nomoV” Paul must assume a reductionistic view of the Law, for otherwise, if all the commandments are expressions of this one commandment then it would follow that they should be obeyed. So implicit in Paul's statement that the whole Law is fulfilled in the one commandment is the abrogation of any commandment that is not expressive of love. It should also be noted that "to do the whole Law" “olon ton nomou poihsai” (5:3) cannot be equivalent in meaning to "the whole Law is fulfilled" “paV nomoV en eni logw plhroutai” (5:14) Otherwise Paul would be found in blatant contradiction in the same chapter!

6.6f. 1 Cor. 7:19

Paul says that neither circumcision not uncircumcision matters; what does matter is "keeping the commandments of God" “thrhsiV entolwn qeou”. In most other contexts, Paul uses the term "commandment" “entole” to refer to the individual prescriptions and proscriptions found in the Law (see Rom 7:8-13; 13:9; Eph 2:15; 6:2); probably his use of the term in 1 Cor 7:19 has the same meaning. From a Jewish perspective, however, Paul's statement is nonsensical, because circumcision is one of the commandments. Thus, one could interpret Paul's statement to mean that what is required of believers is obedience to a reduced Law, which does not include the commandment of circumcision, but does include other commandments from the Law.

6.6g. Eph. 6:1-3

Paul instructs children to obey their parents and then quotes the Torah to support his view (Deut 5:16); this could be taken to imply that Paul believes that at least this commandment is binding and that the promises attached to its fulfillment is still valid.

Continued...

[1] According to Hubner, Paul means in Gal. 3:19 that the Law was added in order to increase sin, so that the phrase is interpreted as a final and not a causal clause. (H. Hubner, Law in Paul’s Thought, [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984], p.24-36) The Law was not added because there were transgressions, but in order to produce transgressions. In fact, Hubner argues that Paul believes it was the angels who gave the Law in order that Jews would transgress its commandments. According to Hubner, Paul later adopted a less radical view of the Law, so that the Law is now no longer understood as provoking sin, but merely as the means of knowing and recognizing sin (69-83). Under criticism by the Jerusalem church, he came to the more balanced view that the Law was on the side of God and was for that reason “holy”, “just”, and “good” (cf. Rom. 7:12) and had an important role to play in salvation history, It is probable better to say that Paul does not change his view of the Law but rather stresses the negative aspects of the Law in Galatians precisely because the Gentile believers in the Galatian churches were very close to submitting themselves to the Law as a condition of eschatological salvation. Besides, Paul does say similar things in Rom. 4:15; 5:20; 11:32 to what he says in Gal. 3:19, and Hubner’s attempts to deny this similarity is unconvincing.

[2] The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, “diaqhkhn”, p. 91-92

[3] C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification, Leister, UK: Apollos, 1996, p. 89-96

[4] For the history of interpretation see R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law; Rom. 10:4 in Pauline Perspective (JSNTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985) 7-37; J. A. Nestingen, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 as an Historical-Exegetical-Theological Problem )Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1984)

[5] Ibid, p. 405

[6] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromily, Translator, Erdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, Reprinted 2006, Vol. VIII, “teloV in the New Testament”, 2, d, “teloV”, p. 56

[7] C. Haufe, “Die Stellung des Paulus zum Gesetz, TLZ, 91, (1966), p.171-78

[8] M. A. Getty, “An Apocalyptic Perspective on Rom. 10:4,” HBT 4-5, 1982-83, 97, 100; “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Rom. 9-11,” CBQ 50, 1988, 466-67; F. Refoule, “Romains X, 4. Encore Une Fois,” RevBib 91, 1984, 339; J.D.G. Dunn, (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1988, 2:598; F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach,” SNTSMS 56, Cambridge University Press, 1986, 165; van Dulmen, DieTheologie des Gesetzes, 127

[9] D. P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?, Grand Rapids: Erdmans Publishing, 1980, 84-85; C.T. Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, SBLDS 55, Chico: Scholars, 1981, 103-104; L. Gaston, “For all the Believers : The Inclusion of the Gentiles as the Ultimate goal of the Torah in Romans,” Paul and Torah, Vancouver University of British Columbia Press, 1987, 130; just to name a few.

[10] M.A. Seifrid, Paul’s Approach to the Old Testament in Romans 10:6-8,” Trinity Journals, 6, 1985, 7-8; E. J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Revelation of Law, Wisdom and Ethics, WUNT, 2, 16; Tubingen: Mohr 1985, 91, F.J. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans, London, Lutterworth, 1961, 266; A. J. Bandstra, The Law and Elements of the World,: An Exegetical Study in the Aspects of Paul’s Teaching, Erdmans, Grand Rapids, Mi., 1964, 105-106; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, TNTC, Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 1963, 203

[11] “As you continue reading, it is instantly obvious that chapters 9, 10, and 11, have nothing to do with chapters 1-8 or 12-16. Chapters 9-11 are completely unique in their theme, which is the Jewish people” John Hagee, Jerusalem Countdown, p. 145-152; Donald G. Barnhouse introduces the notion of a “parenthesis.” Citing that various passages may be a parenthesis where some content is added that was known earlier, to further emphasize the current context, I/e/: Eph. 1:19-2:1. Donald G. Barnhouse, Romans, Vol. III,

[12] See his word study in Christ the End 38-80. Against Badenas, see Dunn, Romans 2.589.

[13] Badenas, Christ the End, 78-79. We omit the use of“teloV”in Rom 13:7 since it refers to the paying oftaxes.

[14] H. Hubner, Law in Paul’s Thought, p. 36-40

[15] E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1971, 114-117, P. Porkorny, Colossians, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 1991, 142-145

[16] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC n.s.; 2 Vols.; Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1975, 1979, 1, 320

[17] B. Young’s interpretation of Rom 7:1-7 is very unconvincing (Paul the Jewish Theologian [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997] chap. 6).

[18] F. Stanley Jones, "Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus (GTA 34; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 118-22.

[19] Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, 30-70.

[20] Betz, Galatians, 122.

[21] Bertram, TDNT 5.596-625.

[22] On this topic, see R. N. Longenecker, "The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3.19-4.7," JETS 25 (1982); L. Belleville, "’Under the Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3.21-4.11," JSNT 26 (1986) 53-78; D. J. Lull, "’The Law Was Our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25," JBL 105 (1986) 481-98; N. H. Young, "Paidagôgos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor," NovT 29 (1987) 150-76; A. T. Hanson, "The Origin of Paul’s Use of Paidagôgos for the Law," JSNT 34 (1988) 71-76.

[23] See Betz, Galatians, 175-80; E. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921) 198-201.

[24] See G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956); A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1964) 57-67; George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSMS 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 66-71; F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 293-304.

[25] According to Bandstra, Paul means the same thing by the terms "elements of the cosmos" in 4:3 and "elements" in 4:8 (The Law and the Elements of the World, 57-67). He identifies them as "those elements that are operative within the whole sphere of human activity which is temporary and passing away, beggarly and incompetent in bringing salvation, weak and both open to an defenseless before sin" (55). These operative elements are Law and flesh, the fundamental forces operative in the world.

[26] See Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 215-16; 510-18; R. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1990) 164-66; R. Y. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 181, 188-92; A. Das, Paul and the Jews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) 151-65.

[27] Contrary to F. Stanley Jones, who interprets freedom to mean freedom from corruptibility, corresponding to the Jerusalem that is above ("Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus, 82-96).

[28] See F. Stanley Jones, "Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus, 96-102.

[29] On this topic, see Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, 93-114; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 62-73; Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith, 198-218.

[30] See S. Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988) 201-205; J. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988)125-42; B. Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham’s God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 83-88; C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification (Leister, UK: Apollos, 1996) 103-4.

[31] It is important to note that Paul’s summarizing of the Law as one commandment (Lev 19:18) is not original to him. R. Hillel, a Pharisee, like Paul, was supposed to have taught that the Torah can be summed up in the injunction: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor" (Sabb 31a in BT). Paul, however, took this summarizing approach to understanding the Law to an extreme to which that no Pharisee could assent.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What the heck! Deacon Dean
Darn near wore my mouse wheel out scrolling your posts LOL

 

[DeaconDean]

The Law and the Christian Pt. 6
VII. The Period After the Conflict

7.1. Hebrews

Formally, “nomoV” is used in Hebrews as elsewhere in the N.T. It is usually referring to the Old Testament Law. Only in 7:16 does the question arise whether it should not be rendered more generally as “norm” or “order”. But since this is the only instance in the epistle, it is better to take it here, too, in the sense of the O.T. Law. Moreover, as in Paul, there is no basic distinction between “o nomoV” and “nomoV”. Thus 7:16 does not refer to a generally valid rule, but to a more specific Law of the O.T.

7.1a. The fact that in context the orientation of “nomoV” is to the Law which orders the priestly ministry is based on the main interest of the epistle. In Hebrews, the Law is viewed from a standpoint essentially different from that of either Jesus or Paul. For them, the Law is the will of God which requires and regulates human action. It aims at works and gives life to the man who does it. In Hebrews, however, the Law is seen from the standpoint that it gives the O.T. priesthood is basis, dignity, and force. It has a share in the nature and efficacy of this priestly ministry, and similarly, the nature and efficacy of the ministry depend on the fact that it rests on the Law. (“nomoV” is centrally used in the normal sense at 10:28: He who transgresses the Law must dir; how much more so he who tramples the Son of God under foot. Cf. also 2:2. These passages make it plain, however, that there is no longer any obligation to the concrete Law. Materially cf. Brandt, 34f.) This also means, that the true theme of Hebrews is not the relation of Law and Gospel, but the relation of the priestly ministry and the priesthood of Christ. The comparison is extended to the Law only in so far as the power of the priestly ministry of the O.T. is the basis of the Law.

7.1b. Though the O.T. priesthood finds its strength and authority in the Law, it cannot bring “teldiwsiV” (perfection, 7:11). Hence the same can be said even of the Law by which the priesthood lives: “ouden gar eteleiwsen o nomoV” (For the Law perfected nothing, 7:19). The reason for this weakness and futility of the Law (asqeneV kai anwjeleV - weakness and unprofitibleness - 7:18) which do not allow it to attain its goal, is expounded in 7:18f., and this is summed up in 7:28: “o nomoV gar anqrwouV kaqisthsin arciereiV econtaV asqeneian, o logoV de thV orkwmosiaV thV meta ton nomon uion eiV ton aiwna teteleiwmenon.” (For the law makes men high priests who have infirmity, but the word of the swearing of an oath, after the law, appoints the Son forever, having been perfected.) The weakness of the Law, and therewith of the priesthood, lies in the weakness of the men with whom the Law has to do.

This weakness may be seen in the moral nature of the priests (cf. 7:24ff.) and especially in the fact that they must bring offerings for themselves, I.e.: in their own implication in sin cf. 7:27; 5:3. Connected herewith is the further fact that the O.T. sacrifice purifies only externally, not internally; it sets aside neither the sense of guilt nor sin itself (9:9f.). Seeing then, that the Law and its priesthood have to do with sinful men, they cannot attain their goal; they cannot secure for men access to the holy-of-holies, to God.

To put it epigrammatically, the Law is weak for Paul because man does not do it, whereas it is weak in Hebrews because man does it. The two propositions start from different points, but fundamentally they contain the same verdict. How closely they are related may be seen in Hebrews in the use of Jer. 31:31ff., where the weakness of the old covenant is exposed by Israel’s transgression of it, and also in the fact that the priesthood of Jesus sanctifies better because it rests on a sacrifice of obedience which is well-pleasing to God, 10:5ff.

7.1c. At this point, we find in Hebrews, too, the same distinctive train of thought as in Paul. In the light of the fulfillment, the verdict is reached that the Law not only could not reach its goal but that it was not meant to do so, that its true purpose is to point to Christ by nailing man to his sin in order that he may find access to God by the only way named in scripture, namely, through the high-priestly ministry of Jesus. In the sacrifice offered according to the Law there was in fact an “anamnhsiV amartiwn kat eniauton” (a remembrance of sins year by year- cf. 10:3) for the Law does not have the “eikwn twn pragmatwn” (image of those things), but only the “okia twn mellontwn agaqwn” (for the law had a shadow of the coming good things). Only with the new covenant whose mediator is Christ did there take place the blotting out: “twn epi th prwth diaqhkh parabasewn” under the first covenant transgressors-and the receiving of the promise, cf. 9:15. Thus eternal high-priesthood of Christ, which there was already before the Law, which from the very first was above the Law, which was intimated by the figure of Melchisedec and assigned with an oath to Christ in Psa. 110:4 (cf. 7:17, 21), means not only the “metaqesiV nomou”change of law, but also the fulfillment, the “eikwn twn pragmatwn” instead of merely the provisional “okia twn melloutwn agaqwn” (cf. 10:1)

7.1d. For all the differences, the affinity to the Pauline understanding of the Law is striking, especially in the way in which the old and the new covenants are interrelated, and the abrogation and fulfillment of the old by the new are integrated. This does not enable us to determine whether there are any direct Pauline influences. In comparison, it should at least be noted that in Hebrews, there is no question, or, better, there is no longer any question of trying to find in the Law good acts which will justify man. This fact links the situation in Hebrews regarding the question of the Law rather strongly with John and James than with Paul.

7.2: James

First, the question of the relation between faith and works is passed and answered without any reference to the Law, 2:14ff. The theme is specifically the relation of faith and works, not as in Paul and his opponents, that of faith and the Law.

Secondly, where there is reference to “nomoV,” a qualifying word or phrase is often added: “nomoV teleioV thV eleuheriaV (1:25), nomoV eleuqerias, (2:12) nomoV basilikoV (2:8)”. In each case, (certainly the first two) this is obviously intended to differentiate what is meant from what would be denoted by a simple “nomoV”. These two points together suggest a time when the primitive community was still discussing the question of the Law, but had already decided against legalism. The real danger is no longer seen in the keeping or abolishing of the Law, but in a false understanding of faith such as might arise out of Paul’s answer to the question. This is quite independent of the question whether or not the author was a Jew. Three passages in which there is reference to the Law must be interpreted in light of this total situation. They are: 1:25; 2:8; 4:11ff.

7.2a. In 1:25, the “nomoV teleioV thV eleuheriaV” is essentially identical with, or at least closely related to, the “logoV emjutoV dunamenoV swsai taV yucaV”of vs. 21, and the “dokien qrhskon einai” and the “qrhskeia” of vs. 26. Hence the word of God which underlies the position of the Christian is here called “nomoV,” and it is thus characterized in terms of that side of it which is oriented not merely to inactive acceptance but to the regulation of life, especially as vs. 27 shows, in acts of love. The addition “teleioV thV eleuheriaV” is thus designed to protect the term against the misunderstanding that the commandment of the O.T. Law is meant. In so far as the evangelical message claims a mans life for action, it can be called “nomoV,” but in contrast to the old Law it is a perfect law of liberty. The more precise meaning of the terms, however, does not appear from the content. But further light will be thrown by the other two passages.

7.2b. In 2:8ff., “nomoV” is obviously in the first instance not just another term for the word of truth, but “commandment” in the strict sense. The only question is whether it is used for the whole O.T. Law with all its commandments, or for the summary of this Law in the Law of love. Taken alone, vs. 10 might be taken to mean that here the whole of the O.T. Law with all its commandments are obligatory. But the general attitude of the epistle and the content of the verse are against this interpretation. 2:8 says that if you really fulfill the law of love you do well. The following verse adds that if nevertheless there is “proswpolhmyia” among you (as depicted in 2:1ff.), this is sin, and it is sin against the Law, for only - this is the point of vs. 10 - when the Law is kept in its entirety does one escape its condemnation. The Law of vs. 9, is thus the law of love which in verse 8 is called the royal law, and “basilikoV” describes the nature of the Law as contrasted with any understanding of law rather than denoting this specific law alongside others which are equated with it in principle. If those addressed should appeal to the law of love on behalf of their conduct, this law includes the rich too, and hence the letter says: Very well, but it must be taken with full seriousness. “proswpolhmyia” however, denies an essential part of the law of love, and consequently such action is condemned by the commandment. If the passage is taken this way, a uniform picture is presented except, perhaps, for the use of “nomoV” in vs. 11. But in vs. 11, an example is given to strengthen vs. 10; hence vs. 11 does not belong to the real train of thought. It is just because “nomoV” is used in vs. 11 in the different sense which is closer to common usage that there is the further addition “thV eleuqeriaV” in vs. 12. The “nomoV eleuqeriaV” of vs. 12 is thus identical with the “nomoV basilikoV” of vs. 8. I.e., with the law of love which is the law in the true sense. By this speech and action must be judged.

Hence and inner connection can be made between the view of the Law expressed here and that of 1:25. In so far as the Word is oriented to mans acts, it is the law of love, and for this very reason it is the perfect law, not just the sum of individual commandments.

7.2c. What it means that this law of freedom is perhaps made clear in 4:11ff. Comparison of this passage with Rom. 2:1f., or Mt. 7:1ff., breaks down precisely at this point which is peculiar to James, for here, the condemnation of others does not involve condemnation of self, but of the Law and only then and therewith of self. Comparison with Rom. 14:4, is most likely. In this case, “nomoV” is the will of God valid only for the individual. Another cannot know this off-hand, for this will of God will not let itself be enclosed in specific, unequivocal forms and actions. To judge another because his act deviates from what is right for me is to presume to judge concerning the command which is valid for him. But herein one is no longer a doer of the Law. Thus understood, the passage is an indication of the seriousness of the principle that from the Christian standpoint the Law is a law of liberty which binds the individual, not to the specific commandments, but to the obedience of love which is specifically laid on him. This freedom, then, through the obligation of obedience to God. Therefore, through it is freedom from the individual commandments of the Law, it is more hindrance to ethical guidance and direction than in Paul, and the epistle seeks to give these. But it nowhere forces the freedom of obedience into a scheme after the manner of law.

Thus James’ understanding of the Law is in full agreement with the Christian understanding in terms of the obedience of faith, though chronologically it comes after the actual debate as to the validity of the O.T. Law.

7.3. John’s Gospel

“nomoV” is rather common in Jn. (fourteen times) than in Mt. (eight times); nevertheless, the actual question of the Law is far less central in this gospel. The meaning of the word is the usual one. “nomoV” is the Torah, especially the Pentateuch, e.g.: 1:45: “egrajen MwushV en tw nouw kai oi projhtai” (wrote Moses in the Law and the prophets). But it is also used more generally for the whole of the O.T.; 10:34: the “gegrammenon en tw nomw umvn”is a verse from the Psalms, cf. 12:34; 15:25. As such, “nomoV” can also be law in the narrower sense of a specific commandment, cf. in the discussion of Jesus’ breaking of the Sabbath in 7:19, 23. As such, “nomoV” is also a legal ordinance, e.g.: 7:51: “mh o nomoV hmvn krinei ton anqrwpon ean mh akoush prvton par autou kai gnv ti poiei”; or 18:31 on the lips of Pilate: “kata ton nomon umvn krinate auton,” or on the lips of Jesus before Pilate in 19:7. Normally, it is used with the article. The exception is 19:7a, where the indefinite form is required by the context.

The chief material point is that John has no particular interest in the Law as a possibility for regulating human or even Christian action. Even in cases where it is expressly recounted that Jesus set aside the Law, e.g.: chapter 5 (with 7:19ff.) and chapter 9, the true theme which interests him is not the validity of the Law. These cases and questions simply provide the occasion and starting point for the development of the true theme.

The Law interests John in the first instance as revelation, and in this sense it is set in confrontation with Jesus.

7.3a. Thus we read in 1:17: “o nomoV dia MwmsewV edoqh, h cariV kai h alhqeia dia Ihsou Cristou egeneto” This must be construed in light of vs. 18. Only in Jesus is God truly revealed. Only here, in the incarnate Word, is there real declaration of God, in the gift of grace and truth (vs. 14, 17). In keeping with this, a whole series of expressions with which Jesus designates Himself, or with which He is designated, is set over against similar statements about the Torah. Jesus is the light (cf. 8:12; 9:5; 12:35) in contrast with the Torah as light. Jesus gives the water of life (chapter 4) in confrontation with the Torah, without which Israel can no more live than a fish without water. Jesus is the Bread of Life (chapter 6), or, the way, the truth, and the life (cf. 14:6); in both cases there are parallel statements about the Torah. Finally, the description of Jesus as the incarnate Word stands over against statements about the pre-existence of the “logos” and its mediatoral role in creation.

But even apart from the fact that these implicit confrontations are in no sense with the Torah alone, it should also be noted that the parallels are not simply due to a mechanical, point by point transfer of features in teaching about the Torah to Christology. Both in John and Jewish theology the expressions are controlled by the central statements. Namely, that the revelation of God is present in the Torah, and that it is present in Jesus. To the degree that in non-rabbinic circles similar basic thesis’ are abandoned and lead to similar expressions, the statements about Jesus are a counter-thesis to these too. As concerns the Torah, it is contrasted as a word of revelation, with the Son who is perfect revelation.

7.3b. This does not mean, however, that the revelation between the two is simply that of an “either or.” Between the Law as the Word of scripture and the revelation of God in Jesus there is a positive connection. In the Law, in scripture, Jesus is attested and promised as the Christ (cf. 1:45; also 5:39ff.). Though the word “nomoV” is not used here, it is materially opposite, as is shown by 7:19ff., which fit’s the context of chapter 5. The scriptures bear witness to Jesus. John often speaks of the Law in this sense. What the Law says it ordains is fulfilled in the life and work of Jesus, 8:17; 10:34; 12:34; 15:25.

There is, of course, a strong emphasis here on the critical result of this revelation. If a man rejects Jesus as the Christ, his appeal to the Law is shown to be revolt against scripture, cf. especially 5:39ff. True belief in Moses and hence the Law, true hearing of this revelation, will necessarily lead to acknowledgment of Jesus. Rejection of Jesus, then is also rejection of the revelation of the Law. In this light the emphatic “o nomoV o umeteroV” of 8:17 and “o nomoV umvn” of 10:34 are to be taken in the sense that it is precisely the Law to which you appeal in opposition to me, it is precisely the statement of the Law, which refers to me, hence if you do not hear me, you do not hear scripture either. The meaning is not: “Your law with which I have nothing to do.”[1]

7.3c. The very same relation between Jesus and the Law may be seen also in passages in which the Law is envisaged as the regulation of human action. In the first place, there is again the antithesis. Jesus is bound only to the will of the Father, not to the commandment of the Law (cf. 5:19). Similarly, the disciples are bound to the commandment which is given in the Son, which for them, takes the place of the Law, and which finds expression in the Law of love: “entolhn kaihn didwmi umin agapate allhlouV...agaphn echte en allhloiV” (13:34ff.) Vs. 35 in particular shows how the relation of discipleship to Jesus takes place of, e.g.: obligation to the Torah, and this relation finds appropriate expression in the Law of love. By it, they are also released from the relationship of servants 15:15. Only in Christ can they do a faithful work, 15:5.

But again there stands besides this the close positive connection. Christ is imparted to him who really does the Law. Nathanael is called to Jesus as: “alhqwV IsrahlithV en w doloV ouk estin ” 1:47ff.; 7:17, might also be cited here: “ean tiV qelh to qelhma autou (sc. Of God) poiein, gnwsetai peri thV didachV, potsron ek tou qeou estin h egw ap emautou lalw”


This again has the negative implication that with the rejection of Jesus there is also rejection of the will of the Law. In 7:19, the purpose to kill Jesus discloses the “ou poiein ton nomon”. Hatred of Jesus evades the commandment of the Law, cf. 7:50. If the Jews seek to serve God by persecuting Jesus, this is because they know neither the Father nor Jesus, 16:3.

In so far as Jesus as the Son and Christ replaces in every aspect all other mediators, including the Torah, the Torah is both destroyed and fulfilled. This may be seen from the fact that true hearing of the Law leads to faith in Jesus, and rejection of Jesus is at the same time revolt against the Law.

In John, however, the Law is never used as the rule of Christian conduct for the community. The epistles confirm this, and so, too, does Revelation. It is no accident that “nomoV” does not occur at all in these writings. Nowhere in John is there any attempt to prove that when the law of love is kept the true intention of the Law is fulfilled. All this puts the gospel in the generation and period after the real battle as to the validity of the Law. In this respect, then, it places it in the same class as James and Hebrews.


Continued...

[1] 18:31 on the lips of Pilate.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Law and the Christian Pt. 7
VII. Closing Arguments and Conclusions.

So the question on everybody‘s lips is: Has the Law been abrogated? “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”[1] In light of all the arguments going on, and in light of the “Modernistic” movement going on in the church today, far to many Christians are jumping in to an area that is deeper than any subject they have ever studied before. Indeed, the recent spate of articles and monographs on the Pauline view of the law, and the wide diversity of opinion reflected therein, only increase the difficulty for the modern interpreter.[2]

Nevertheless, the complexity of and controversy over the issue should not prevent one from trying to puzzle out Paul’s theology of law. To leave it as an unresolved question mark is to resign oneself to uncertainty on an issue that is central for understanding Pauline theology. Paul can speak both of the abolition and also of the fulfillment of the law. Certain texts in Paul suggest that since the coming of Christ the law is now abolished (Gal. 3.15-4.7; Rom. 6.14; 7.1-6; 10.4; 2 Cor. 3.4-18; cf. also Gal. 2.18; Rom. 14.14, 20). On the other hand, Paul also speaks positively about fulfilling the law (Gal. 5.14; 1 Cor. 7.19; Rom. 2.25ff; 3.31; 8.4; 13.8-10). So lets begin by looking at various opinions.

Paul’s Teaching as Contradictory

It is not surprising that many different theories have been suggested on the abolition and fulfillment of the law in Paul. Recently, the theory that his teaching was simply contradictory has been brilliantly defended by H. Räisänen.[3] This is not the place for a detailed response to Räisänen, but J. D. G. Dunn is correct in saying that any hypothesis which contends that Paul was contradictory must only be accepted as a “last resort.”[4] Whether or not one sees contradictionsin Paul on this issue that cannot be harmonized, or paradoxeswhich although they appear to be contradictory are ultimately harmonious, is often a matter of perspective. Not only is Räisänen’s starting point unlikely, but the texts where he sees insoluble tensions can be explained in a more satisfying way. We shall limit ourselves to two examples which relate to the issue of the abolition and fulfillment of the law. In 1 Cor. 7.19 Paul says: “h peritomh ouden estin kai h akrobustia ouden estin, alla thrhsiV entolvn qeou” (“circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God”).

Räisänen argues that the statement is in tension with Paul’s parallel statements in Gal. 5.6 and 6.15.5 Indeed, the assertion smacks of Paul’s “conservative” and `almost “legalistic” stance in 1 Corinthians. Räisänen concludes that 1 Cor. 7.19 is “very much Jewish” and “very little specifically Christian.” Räisänen is entirely right to point out the difference between 1 Cor. 7.19 and Gal. 5.6 and 6.15,[5] and he is also right to suggest that the different emphasis is due to the particular situation to which Paul is responding. However, his contention that this statement is closer to being Jewish than Christian is completely misleading.[6]

Instead, C. K. Barrett is correct when he says that this is one of the most radical statements that Paul makes about the law, for he now speaks of obeying God’s commandments without including circumcision among them![7]

The Developmental View

Several other scholars have also seen contradictions or tensions in Paul’s statements on the law, but they can be distinguished from the previous position because the contradictions are not discernible in the same letter. Rather, the contradictions or tensions are detected between various letters, and thus a theory of development for the Pauline understanding of law is suggested. Those who espouse such a position invariably see the mature Pauline statement in Romans.[8] Appealing to the development of Paul’s thought on the law is not an acceptable solution for at least three reasons.[9]

1. A suitable period for significant evolution in Paul’s thinking about the law is lacking, this is even the case if one subscribes to an early date for Galatians,[10] but it is especially the case if Galatians was written later.[11] One should not forget that Paul had been involved in missionary work a number of years before any of his letters were written, and thus he had probably already hammered out the essence of his theology. 2. Räisänen is correct in pointing out that the developmental view does not really solve the problem, for problematical statements on the law are found within the same letters.[12] 3. Finally, while there are noticeable differences between, say, Galatians and Romans, these should not be ascribed to a development in Paul. The varied nature of the response is explicable on the basis of the specific occasion which Paul was addressing. Paul’s statements on the law in Galatians are more negative than in Romans because of the Judaizing opposition which was such a severe threat to the Galatian churches.[13]

A Critique of Legalism

Others claim that Paul’s negative statements on the law refer to his critique of legalism, while the law as it expresses the will of God is still binding and authoritative.[14] This interpretation has received its major impetus from the magisterial commentary on Romans by C.E.B. Cranfield.[15] Despite the reservations of some scholars, it is probable that Paul does wage a polemic against legalism in Galatians and Romans.[16] Nevertheless, to limit Paul’s critique of the law to legalism is not a comprehensive answer, even though legalism was a major problem that Paul faced.[17] A brief analysis of Gal. 3.15ff. Indicates that Paul believed, in some sense, in the abolition of the Mosaic law. This does not imply that the Mosaic law was inherently legalistic, even though the Judaizers were distorting it and using it in a legalism way. Paul’s point is that God intended the Mosaic covenant to be in force for only a certain period of salvation history.

The chronological argument that Paul uses in Gal. 3.15ff: where he demonstrates the priority of the Abrahamic covenant over the Mosaic covenant, proves that he is not exclusively referring to legalism. He is also referring to the Sinai covenant. It was not legalism which was handed down on Mount Sinai, but the Mosaic law. Paul is employing a salvation-historical argument in Galatians 3 which indicates the priority of the Abrahamic covenant over the Mosaic covenant. Now that Messiah has arrived the Mosaic covenant is no longer in force (3.19). The temporal argument is underlined in 3.23-25. We were guarded under the law until faith came “pro tou de elqein thn pistin upo nomon ejrouroumeqa” (“before faith came, we were held in custody under the law,” v. 23)

The faith Paul has in view must be specific faith in Jesus as Messiah. Abraham, after all, had faith in God during the OT era (Gal. 3.6fi, and so, presumably, did many others. What Paul is referring to here is the faith which was revealed later in salvation history “eiV thn mellousan pistin apokalujqhnai” (“to the faith which is about to be revealed,” v. 23), i.e. faith in Jesus as the Christ. The parallel between w. 24 and 25 demonstrates that Paul had this particular faith in Christ in mind, for he clearly uses the word faith “thn pistewV” in v. 25 as a synonym for “Criston” (Christ)in vs. 24. Verse 24 says that the law functioned as our “paidagwgoV...eiV Criston” (pedagogue until Christ). The preposition “eiV” should be translated temporally (“until”) since the parallel statement in v. 25 employs the temporal idea of no longer “ouketi” being under the child attendant. What Paul says here about the “paidagwgoV” clearly applies to the Mosaic law. Now that Christ has come believers are no longer under the law. Obviously, the Judaizers were still living under the Mosaic law. Thus, Paul’s point is not that it is impossible to live under the Mosaic law, for that is precisely what the Judaizers were doing. His point is a salvation-historical one. Now that the new era has arrived in Christ one shouldnot live under the Mosaic law.

The Abolition of Torah

Some scholars who stress the abolition of Torah in Paul contend that the positive statements on fulfilling Torah in Paul do not indicate that external commandments are still binding for the Christians.[18] They emphasize instead that the believer naturally fulfills God’s will by the power of the Spirit, and that “law” is for Paul counterproductive to authentic Christian experience. Probably the best defense of this view is found in an article by S. Westerholm, who presents the following arguments:[19]

1. When Paul says Christians are not under law (Rom. 6.14; 1 Cor. 9.20, etc.), he means that Christians are not under any obligation or constraint to do or observe what the law commands. 2. That Paul thought the law did not have to be obeyed is clear from his attitude toward food laws (Rom. 14.14, 20; cf. Leviticus 11; Deut. 14.3-21), and his stance toward observing festival days and the Sabbath (Rom. 14.5; Gal. 4.10). 3. Even though the phrase “everything is lawful“ in 1 Cor. 6.12 and 10.23 is not a full description of Pauline ethics, Paul’s qualifying explanation shows that he avoids speaking of any obligation upon the Christian to do what the law demands. 4. The Christian cannot concretely discover God’s will in the law, but must discover it by giving himself to God (Rom. 12.1-2; Phil. 1.9f.), by testing what is excellent, and by the renewal of the mind. 5. Paul does speak of fulfilling the law, but the point here is not that one is bound to fulfill the concrete demands of the law; rather, such obedience is the natural result of life in the Spirit. Furthermore, Paul usually distinguishes between “doing” the law and “fulfilling” it; the latter more indirect way of expressing obedience is preferable for Paul.

Although Westerholm rightly stresses the role of the Spirit, and the importance of the believer’s testing and proving the will of God, he wrongly downplays the place of external commandments in Pauline ethics. l. Both W. Schrage and T.J. Deidun have demonstrated conclusively that concrete external commandments are still binding for Paul,[20] for the Pauline parenesis shows that he is not content with simply saying that God wants a person to be committed fully to him. Instead, Paul demands that this obedience be expressed concretely.
The Spirit and the Word work in harmony for Paul (Gal. 3.2; Rom.10.16-17).39 In 1 Cor. 6.18-19 Paul commands the Corinthians to flee “porneia” but in the same context he speaks of the presence of the Spirit.

Thus, Westerholm’s generalizing conclusions on Pauline ethics are unconvincing. But are his particular statements on the relationship of the Mosaic law to ethics more accurate? Although this issue is more difficult, his arguments are not conclusive here either. l. What Paul means when he says Christians are not under law (1 Cor. 9.21; Rom. 6.14; Gal. 3.23; cf. 3.25; 4.3-5) will be explained shortly, but he does not mean that all OT commands are unbinding and matters of adiaphora. The commandments cited from the Decalogue in Rom 13.9 illustrate that these commandments are still externally binding for the Christian. To be sure, they cannot be fulfilled apart from love, but love cannot be manifested apart from the commandments either (cf. Gal. 5.14), i.e. no one can claim to be practicing love and be involved in adultery at the same time. In 1 Cor. 14.34 Paul supports his restriction on the women at Corinth by appealing to the OT.[21]

Westerholm rightly cites texts which show that Paul was indifferent about some OT laws (cf. Rom.14.14, 20; Gal. 4.9-10), and concludes that the OT law is not authoritative for Paul. Nevertheless, all his citations prove is that some of the OT law was not binding for Paul. The phrase “panta moi exestin” (“all things are lawful for me”) in 1 Cor. 6.12 and 10.23 seems to indicate that Paul’s stance toward the law was lax, but the precise phrase is probably a citation of the opponents’ argument.41 What is more pertinent, moreover, is the context of that statement. Paul is not baldly agreeing that “all things are lawful”; rather, he is speaking of adiaphora.[22] Paul certainly does not think that “all things are lawful” because in this very context he forbids “porneia” (“sexual immorality”). 4. Westerholm’s distinction between “doing” and “fulfilling” the law is tenuous. If Paul is speaking of Christian obedience in Rom. 2.25-29,43 then he uses the verbs “prassein”(“to do”),“julassein” (“to guard”), and “telein” (“to keep”) to describe that obedience. 5. Lastly, while the claim that believers naturally fulfill the claims of the law by the Spirit has an element of truth, it is not sufficiently nuanced. For if Paul thought that believers would naturally obey the entire law by the Spirit, then why did he give any commands at all? Paul must have believed that concrete parenesis, and yes even binding and obligatory statements (1 Cor. 7.l0ff ) were necessary for Christians. And that they were even necessary for Christians who were progressing well in the faith is indicated by 1 Thess. 4.1-8. Thus one should not conclude that parenesis is only intended for weaker Christians.

Liberation From the Law

But if the Sinai covenant has been abolished, as was argued above contra Cranfield, then how can the above criticisms of Westerholm stand? Here it is crucial to make a very important distinction. When Paul says that Christians are no longer under law (Gal. 3.23-25; 4.4S, 21;1 Cor. 9.20; Rom.6.14-15), that they are released from the law through the death of Christ (Rom. 7.1-6), that the law was an interim period in salvation history (Gal. 3.15ff ), that the Mosaic “diakonia” is impermanent and has come to an end (2 Cor. 3.7ff; cf. Rom.10.4) he means that the Mosaic law in terms of the Mosaic covenant has ceased.[23] The Mosaic covenant was intended by God to be in force for a certain period of salvation history (Gal. 3.15ff; 2 Cor. 3.7ff ), but it was always subsidiary to the covenant with Abraham, for the promise to bless all people would only become a reality through the promise to Abraham and the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3.8, 16; cf. Gen. 12.3; 18.18-19; 22.18; 26.4; 28.14).

What does it mean, though, to say that the Mosaic covenantis abolished, and yet the ethical commands from the same law are binding? The insights of the “new perspective” on Paul[24] should be included at this point. It has already been noted that Paul contended that Gentile Christians did not have to obey the entire OT law, but what is remarkable is that the laws which Paul specifically excludes, as Sanders and Dunn have pointed out, focus on circumcision (Gal. 2.3ff.; 5.2ff.; 6.15; 1 Cor. 7.19; Rom. 2.25-29; 4.9-12; Phil. 3.3), food laws (Gal. 2.llff.; Romans 14-15; 1 Corinthians 8-10), and the observance of certain days (Gal. 4.10; Rom. 14.5f.; cf. Col. 2.16f.).[25] Now it is precisely these practices that separated Jews from Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world. It is well known that these particular practices were the object of scorn and curiosity in the Greco-Roman world, and that they distinguished the Jews from the Gentiles.[26] For Paul the Mosaic covenant was of such a character that it separated Jews and Gentiles. The promise to bless all nations which was contained in the OT was to be fulfilled in and through the Abrahamic covenant, not through the Mosaic covenant. Of course, for Paul this did not mean that the Mosaic covenant was evil; instead, the Mosaic covenant had only a temporary role in salvation history.

To sum up: Paul spoke against particular ritual practices in the Mosaic covenant which separated the Jews from the Gentiles because it was these practices which uniquely characterized that covenant, and uniquely characterized the Jews.[27] Now that Christ the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3.16) had arrived and had taken upon himself the curse of the law (Gal. 3.13) the Mosaic covenant was no longer in force for those who had believed in Christ. The new era had dawned, and the blessings of the new age were now available to all nations.

But if the above explanation is correct, then why does Paul speak of the condemnation of the law,
of sin being provoked by the law, of sin increasing because of the law, and of the believer dying to the law through the death of Christ (Gal. 2.15ff; 3.10-13,19, 22; Rom. 5.20; 7.1-25; 1 Cor. 15.56; 2 Cor. 3.7ff? These texts seem to imply that the dissolution of the law is necessary because through the law sin is provided with a bridgehead and even increases in its power. This would also suggest that the problem with the Mosaic law was not only cultural and ethnic, i.e. that it created a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but the law also had an intrinsic problem, namely that because of sin it ended up producing more unrighteousness.

Therefore, one could infer, as Westerholm seems to, that the law as a whole must be abolished in order to counter sin. Furthermore, Paul’s statement about the law producing transgressions in Gal. 3.19 must refer to more than just transgressions in the ritual sphere, but it must also include transgressions in the moral sphere as well (cf. Rom. 5.20; 7.7ff ). And this would suggest that it is improper to limit the dissolution of the Mosaic covenant to the particular ritual practices which distinguish Jews from Gentiles.

It would seem to prove that the whole law is abolished now that Christ has come (see Gal. 3.1525; 4.1-7), not just the ritual aspect of the Mosaic law. The above objections can be satisfactorily answered. Doubtless Paul sees a close relationship between the law and sin, but he never sees a problem with the law per se (Rom 7.12, 14; Gal. 3.21). The problem is with the flesh or with sin which use the law to produce sin (Rom. 7.8,11,14,17-18, 24). Thus, when Paul speaks of release from the law (Rom. 7.6) he is not implying that all external law is counterproductive for Christians. The point is that the person in the flesh cannot obey the law of God (Rom. 7.14-25; 8.5-8). The problem is not with the law, but with sin and the flesh. So the necessity of freedom from the law which Paul speaks of must be carefully explained. Believers need freedom from the law in this sense because they cannot obey it, because they are in slavery to sin. However, in the new age the power of the Spirit makes obedience to the law possible (Rom. 8.4). Thus, when Paul relates sin and the law to each other, he has the moral demands of the law in mind, and he does argue that the person who is in the flesh cannot obey the law and therefore is condemned (Gal. 3.10-13), but his solution is not to do away with all external commands. He asserts that Christians by the power of the Spirit can now fulfill what the law demands.[28]

Thus, Paul had at least two things in mind when he spoke of the dissolution of the Mosaic covenant. The nature of that covenant was such that it divided Jews from Gentiles, and thus the covenant was intrinsically nationalistic. With the arrival of Christ the time of particularism was over and now the universal blessing promised to Abraham was available for all nations. But Paul conjoins with this another thought, namely, the idea that those under the law are under a curse (Gal. 3.1x13), that to be under the law is to be under sin (Gal. 3.21-25; Rom. 6.1415; 7.1-6), and that the commandments of the law even provoke one to sin (Rom. 7.7ff.), and that the power of sin is found in the law (1 Cor. 15.56). Paul is still using a salvation-historical argument here, for in his mind obedience to the law was simply impossible for those who did not have the Spirit, who were dominated by the flesh (Rom. 8.5-8). But Paul strains to make it clear in Rom. 7.7ff. that he sees no intrinsic problem with the content of the law. The commandment is still from God; the problem is the lack of power to dowhat God has commanded.

Thus, Paul can speak of being liberated from the law in two senses. 1. It can signify liberation
from the Mosaic covenant which contains rites that are particularly Jewish and therefore leads to a separation between Jews and Gentiles. 2. It can also signify liberation from the power of sin which uses the law as a bridgehead. But now that the age of the Spirit has arrived and Christ has broken the power of sin by his death, the age of slavery to sin has ended. Paul does not carefully distinguish these two notions of liberation from the Mosaic law because they were inextricably intertwined in the era before the descent of the Spirit, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, and the death and resurrection of Christ. Before the new age arrived the Mosaic covenant erected barriers between Jews and Gentiles by requiring Gentiles to be circumcised, to observe certain days, and to keep the food laws. What I am suggesting, of course, is that there is a distinction in Paul’s mind between the ritual and moral law. The dissolution of the Mosaic covenant also implies the abolition of practices, such as circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws, which separated Jews from Gentiles. On the other hand, Paul still thinks that the universal moral norms contained in the Mosaic laws are authoritative for the church. Believer by faith in the power of the Sprit can obey the moral norms of the OT law. Thus, when Paul says believers are not under the law, he s not saying that they are liberated from all moral norms. Such a distinction between the moral and ritual law is still held by some scholars,[29] but it is rejected by most.

Continued...

[1] Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism (1711) 3.66.

[2] For a survey of recent research see D J. Moo, “Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years,” SJT 40 (1987): 287-307. O. Kuss (“Nomos bei Paulus,” MThZ 17 [1966]: 177-210) has a helpful summary of older literature on Paul and the law.

[3] H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr,1983; reprint, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). He sees inconsistencies in many other areas of the Pauline theology of the law as well. A J. M. Wedderburn (“Article Review: Paul and the Law,” SJT 38 [1985]: 613-22) thinks Räisänen’s case is convincing.

[4] J .D. G. Dunn, “Works of Law and the Curse of the Law,” NTS 31 (1985): 523-24; cf. here the comments of P. Stuhlmacher, “Paul’s Understanding of the Law in the Letter to the Romans,” SEA 80 (1985): 102-103.

[5] Räisänen Paul and the Law, 68.

[6] Ibid

[7] C. K Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 169; cf. G .D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 312-14.

[8] In Galatians, according to H. Hübner (Law in Paul’s Thought [ET: Edinburgh; T. & T. Clark, 1984], 148-49), Paul rejects the law totally, but in Romans he rejects only the misuse and abuse of the law. J. W. Drane perceives Paul’s view on the law in Galatians to be close to libertinism, while he veers dangerously close to legalism in 1 Corinthians. In 2 Corinthians, however, Paul is on the road to a balanced statement between these two extremes, and this balanced statement finds its definitive expression in Romans (Paul Libertine or Legalist? A Study of the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles [London: SPCK, 1975]). Cf. F. Hahn who maintains that for Paul the law only relates to Jews in Galatia, but in Romans Paul now sees the law relating to all, both Jews and Gentiles (“Das Gesetzesverständnis im Römer- und Galaterbrief,” [8]NW 67 [1976]: 59-60). Wilckens (“Entwicklung”) also sees Paul as coming to amore balanced position on the law from Galatians to Romans.

[9] For a critique of the notion of development in Pauline theology an older article by J. Lowe is still helpful (“An Examination of Attempts to Detect Developments in St. Paul’s Theology,” JTS 42 [1941]: 129-42). See also Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 7-10.

[10] So Drane, Paul, pp.140-43.

[11] So Hübner (Law in Paul’s Thought, 63) who, despite this, says there was at least a significant period of time between Galatians and Romans. See J. Hall, “Paul, the Lawyer on the Law,” Journal of Law and Religion 3 (1985): 370-76, for a critique of Hübner.

[12] Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 9.

[13] The identity of the adversaries in Galatia continues to be debated. For a recent treatment see B. H. Brinsmead, Galatians-Dialogical Response to Opponents (Chico: Scholars, 1982). That the opponents were Judaizers still seems most probable. So e.g. F. F. Bruce, “Galatian Problems 3: The ‘Other’ Gospel,” BJRL 53 (1970-71): 253-71.

[14] C. E. B. Cranfield, “St Paul and the Law,” SJT 17 (1964): 55, 60-66; idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975-1979), 853, 857-61; C. F. D. Moule, “Obligation in the Ethic of Paul,” Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer, C .F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 391-93; C. H. Cosgrove, “The Mosaic Law Teaches Faith: A Study in Galatians 3,” WTJ 41 (1978-79): 146-64; D. P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 65-120, 199-204.

[15] Ibid

[16] R. H. Gundry (“Grace, Works and Staying Saved in Paul,” Bib 66 [1985]: 1-38) convincingly argues that legalism was a problem which Paul opposed.

[17] Cf. Räisänen (Paul and the Law, 42-50) and D. J. Moo (“’Law’, ‘Works of the Law’, and ‘Legalism in Paul,’” WTJ 45 [1983]: 85-88) for a critique of Cranfield’s thesis.

[18] S. R. Westerholm, “Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics,” NTS 30 (1984): 229-48; idem, “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1, 3-11),” ST 36 (1982): 79-95; idem, “Fulfilling the Whole Law,” 229-37; F. F. Bruce, “Paul and the Law of Moses,” BJRL 57 (1975): 259-79; Belleville, “Under Law,” 53-78, esp. 70-71.

[19] Westerholm, “Letter and Spirit,” see esp.): 242ff.

[20] Schrage, Einzelgebote; Deidun, New Covenant, esp. 188-217.

[21] The text is often suspected of being an interpolation (see the recent discussion by Fee, First Corinthians, 699ff), but contra Fee et al. the evidence for an interpolation is not impressive. Such a theory should only be embraced as a last resort. The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly favors the inclusion of the verses. Fee claims (p. 700) that no one would insert the text after v. 40 because all agree that the placement of the text is Logical here. But such a statement assumes what cannot, in fact, be proven. Some copyists may not have thought the text was logically placed, and they may not have understood it as well as Fee thinks they would have.

[22] Schrage, Einzelgebote, 57-58; Fee, First Corinthians, 252.

[23] Cf. Moo, “Works of the Law,” 88-89.

[24] To borrow J. D. G. Dunn’s term (“The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 [1983]: 95-122).

[25] Dunn, “New Perspective,” 107-10, 114-15; idem, “Works of Law,” 524ff.; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 100-03. Nevertheless, Dunn’s attempt to limit “works of law” to these identity markers is not successful. For a more convincing explanation see Moo, “Works of Law,” 90-99; cf. H. Räisänen’s (“Galatians 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism,” NTS 31 [1985]: 543-53) criticism of Dunn.

[26] M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. I, 1976, Vol. II, 1980) see sections 195, 258, 281, 301.

[27] On this point see K. Kertelge, “Gesetz und Freiheit im Galaterbrief,” NTS 30 (1984): 391; N. T. Wright, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” TynB 29 (1978): 61-78; M. Barth, Ephesians (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 290-91; C. Haufe, “Die Stellung des Paulus zunm Gesetz,” TLZ 91 (1966), 173.

[28] For the view that significant ethical righteousness is now possible in Christ see B. J. Byrne, “Living out the Righteousness of God: The Contribution of Rom. 6.1-8.13 to an Understanding of Paul’s Ethical Presuppositions,” CBQ 43 (1981): 557-81; A. van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus (SBM, 5; Stuttgart; Kathohsches Bibelwerk, 1968), 140-52, 158-68, 185-204.

[29] G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 510; Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” 49-52, 66; Gundry, “Grace,” 7; C. F. D. Moule, “Obligation,” 397; D .P. Fuller, “Paul and the Works of the Law,” WTJ 38 (1975): 38-39; Haufe, “Paulus zum Gesetz,” 171-78; J. Hempel, “On the Problem of the Law in the Old and New Testaments,” ATR 34 (1952): 229-31. For the view that such a distinction was implicit in the teaching of Jesus see K. Berger, Die Gesetzauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament (Teil I: Markus und Parallelen) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1972)pp.171ff.; R. H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus Teachings (Philadelphia: Westminster,1978), 102-104; D. Wenham, “Jesus and the Law: An Exegesis of Matthew 5.17-20,” Themelios 4 (1979): 5.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Law and the Christian Pt. 8
A Defense of the Moral Ritual Distinction in Paul

That Paul made a distinction between the moral and ritual law seems to be indicated by Rom. 13.8-10. Paul clearly did not require circumcision (2.25-29; 4.9-12), the observance of certain days (14.5f.), or the observance of food laws (14.1-23) in Romans. But he does call believers to fulfill the law through love (13.8-10; cf. Gal. 5.14). Love, furthermore, cannot be separated from the specific commandments which Paul cites from the Decalogue in 13.9, namely, the prohibitions against adultery, murder, stealing, and coveting.[1] It is easy to see that these commandments are in a different category from circumcision, food laws, and the observance of days. The commandments cited here refer to matters which would be acknowledged universally as moral norms. It is not the case that Paul thinks these demands are normative only because they are loving; rather, there is a mutual and dialectical relationship between love and the demands cited here. No one can claim to be loving end yet at the same time be guilty of murder, adultery, stealing, and coveting. But these external commands are necessary so that one can measure, at least to some extent, what love is. Love without specific and concrete moral explication easily becomes a plastic notion which is molded in the way each person desires. Adherence to these commands is not a sufficient indication that one is living in love, but no one can claim to be living in love and at the same time transgress these commandments. Thus, love of necessity involves the observance of these commandments, but these commandments are not a comprehensive description of what love is.[2] One can do very noble things, after all, and love may be lacking (1 Cor. 13.1-3).[3]

Rom. 8:4 speaks of fulfilling the “dikaiwma” (ordinance) of the law, and here Paul stresses that this is possible by the power of the Spirit. Käsemann argues, on the other hand, that Paul is not speaking of the fulfillment of the Torah in the new age, although Paul’s citation from tradition has wrongly given many interpreters this impression. Instead, according to Käsemann, Christology is the focus of the passage, and it is the objective work of the Spirit and the cross which is predominant in this text.[4] The most straightforward reading of the text, however, suggests otherwise. The cross-work of Christ and the gift of the Spirit enable the believer to fulfill the “legal claim” of the laws Käsemann rightly sees that Paul is referring to the objective work on the cross here, but this objective work of Christ is linked directly to concrete obedience to the requirement of the law. Paul’s point in this passage is that those in the Spirit manifest the work of the Spirit in their lives. As 8.13 says, “they put to death the practices of the body by the Spirit.”

Thus, when Paul speaks of fulfilling the “dikaiwma” of the law in Rom. 8.4, he is referring to the fulfillment of the moral norms contained in the Mosaic law It was the inability to fulfill these moral norms which produced frustration and despair (so Rom.7.14-25). The singular “dikaiwma” in 8:4 shows that Paul is thinking of the moral norms of the law as a unity, and the context indicates that the moral norms of the law are fulfilled by the power of the Spirit, not by human effort.[5] Paul’s use of “dikaiwma” elsewhere in Romans confirms our interpretation.[6] In Rom.1.32 Paul says Gentiles know the , i.e. they know what God requires, but they delight in evil anyway. The “dikaiwma tou qeou” (“the ordinance of God”) which the Gentiles have knowledge of cannot refer to the ritual law of the OT, for Gentiles were not universally aware of the ritual requirements contained in the OT law. The preceding verses indicate that the ordinance of God which Paul refers to here concerns moral norms which the Gentiles disobeyed.

In addition, Paul says in Rom. 2.26 that the Gentiles keep “ta dikaiwmata tou nomou” “the ordinances of God”. The use of the plural of dikaiwma (“ordinance”) does not suggest the fulfillment of a different law from that described in Rom. 8.4, for as we have already pointed out the singular in 8.4 is used to show that the moral norms of the law could be fulfilled as a unity by the power of the Spirit. The singular is not used in 8.4 in order to deny the plurality of God’s commandments. The plural of dikaiwma is used in 2.26 to itemize various commandments of the law which are fulfilled by Gentiles.

What is especially pertinent is that the fulfillment of the law Paul has in mind can only refer to a fulfillment of the moral norms located in the OT law, for he specifically ascribes this keeping of the law to the uncircumcisedGentile (Rom. 2.26-27). Obviously, then, the obedience to the law described here does not include the ritual law. Paul has limited obedience of the law here to the moral norms which are contained in that law.

This interpretation is strengthened by the context of Romans 2. Paul charges the Jews with specific violations of the law in 2.21-22, namely, stealing, adultery, and robbing temples. All of these sins relate to a violation of the moral law. Jews who possess the covenant sign of circumcision (2.25) and who possess the Torah (2.17-20), but who do not practice “prasshV” the law (2.25) are contrasted with Gentiles who keep the law, even though they are not circumcised (2.26-27).

But if the Jews are circumcised, then what does Paul mean when he speaks of the necessity of their practicing the rest of the law in 2.25? Clearly, he means that Jews who are circumcised but fail to observe the moral norms of the law are condemned (2.25-29). Gentiles, on the other hand, who do not possess the ritual law, but who obey the moral law are justified.

It is not possible to examine all the issues which arise in such an interpretation of Rom. 2.25-29 here, although this has been examined briefly in another article.[7] Nevertheless, a few comments are necessary here. There is no evidence that Paul is speaking hypothetically of Gentile obedience here, nor is it probable that he is referring to Gentiles who are justified apart from Christ.[8] Instead, Paul is speaking of Gentile Christians in this passage. The Gentile who is truly circumcised and who is truly a Jew (2.28-29) has been transformed by the Spirit of God. Thus the “gramma-pneuma” antithesis in 2.29 indicates a contrast between the old and new aeon.[9]

Despite the above, few scholars today believe that there is a moral-ritual distinction in Paul’s view of the law. Three male objections are usually raised to such a distinction. 1. There is no evidence for such a distinction in Paul, and Paul would have made such a distinction explicit. Indeed, Paul’s failure to cite the moral norms of the law in an authoritative manner proves that none of the law was binding for him.[10] 2. There is no evidence in Judaism for such divisions in the law.[11] 3. Such a distinction would inevitably produce a complex casuistry of trying to distinguish between moral and ritual law.[12]

This first objection, that Paul does not use the law to establish binding moral norms, is developed in depth in an article by A. Lindemann.[13] Lindemann focuses upon 1 Corinthians, contending that Paul does not base his ethic upon Torah commands. For example, in 5.1-13 peal rebukes the Corinthians for their response to the incestuous relationship, but he fails to ground his advice on the OT law. So too in 6.1-11 and 6.12-20 Paul opposes litigation and “porneia”, and yet he fails to use the Torah to support his case, and even renounces the Jewish model of litigation in 6.1-11. Paul’s exaltation of singleness and his stance against divorce counter Gen. 2.18 and Deut. 24.1ff respectively.

Furthermore, Jewish tradition viewed marriage as an obligation. The permission to eat food offered to idols in chapters. 8-10 violates the OT law with respect to eating unclean foods. Paul does not base his view on women’s adornment in 11.2-16 on the OT, but his argument is based on what is fitting, which is a Stoic viewpoint, not one from the OT law. 14.33b-36 can probably be dismissed as a later interpolation.

Lindemann builds an effective case against the conception that Torah is normative for Paul. Nevertheless, his analysis is not ultimately compelling. Many of Lindemann’s arguments are arguments from silence-for example, since Paul does not base his view on the OT law, it cannot have been a moral norm for him. Such an interpretation would only be successful if it could be demonstrated that Paul never uses the OT law as a moral norm.

In addition, the specific arguments Lindemann presents from 1 Corinthians do not prove his thesis. That Paul does not cite an OT law against incest in 1 Corinthians 5 is hardly surprising since he assumes that the Corinthians will agree with him on this point, and even Gentiles hold the same opinion (5.1). Paul’s failure to abide by the Jewish model in litigation and the Jewish expectation regarding marriage is irrelevant unless one wants to argue that Paul equated Jewish tradition with the OT law. Gen. 2.18 does not demandmarriage of all, and Paul is aware that not all are destined or gifted for singleness (1 Cor. 7.6-7). Moreover, Paul does not contradict Deut. 24.1ff in his words on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7, for the former passage does not demand divorce; instead, it permits it and regulates it when it occurs.[14] The failure to adhere to the food laws in 1 Corinthians 8-10 is not surprising, for these are clearly part of the ritual law.

That Paul does not cite the OT when he forbids “porneia” (“sexual immorality”) in 1 Cor. 6.12-20 is instructive, but it would only support Lindemann’s thesis if Paul never cites Torah as authoritative. Even in 1 Corinthians this is not the case. For example, Paul forbids idolatry in 1Cor. 10.1-13 with a clear reference to the OT.

Lindemann thinks that Paul’s rejection of idolatry is presupposed and his real ground for his rejection of idolatry comes in 10.21, namely from participation with Christ.[15] But why does Paul presuppose idolatry is wrong? He thinks idolatry is wrong because it is forbidden in no uncertain terms in the OT law. And it is illegitimate to say that since Paul argues from a relationship with Christ in 10.21 that any argument from the OT is therefore irrelevant. Paul uses both arguments to support his case. In addition, Paul explicitly cites the OT law to buttress his admonition in 1 Cor. 14.34, showing he did use the OT law in ethical decisions. It should also be said that Lindemann’s analysis rightly shows that the moral norms of the O.T. law were not the most crucial element of Paul’s ethical view. What was more important was the affections, i.e. the motives of the heart which manifested themselves in concrete actions (Gal. 5.14; Rom. 13.8-10). Paul’s focus upon the inward motive explains why he highlights and gives pre-eminence to love.

Conclusion

The only “law” that existed prior to the giving of the Decalogue at Mt, Sinai, was the commandment by God to Abraham to circumcise the male sons. The giving of the Decalogue at Mt. Sinai, marks a moment in time. For it was here that God gave His revealed will for the Hebrews. The Apostle Paul was the biggest advocates of N.T, times that the Gentiles were not under the Law. Even the first Apostolic Council agreed to the extent that only a few of the items included in the “Law” even applied to Gentiles.

Lets get this straight, the “Law” does serve a purpose, even today. It is God’s revealed will. And Paul states that it was put into place to identify what was and wasn’t sin. And for a time, it was used as a way to establish man’s standing before God by his relationship to the Law. And even Paul made the boast that one could achieve blamelessness as concerned the Law. (cf. Phil. 3:6)

The demands of the Law were strict. There was no allowances for half-hearted tries. There was no “Red-ribbon” for giving it your best shot and failing. That is why Jesus was needed. All the demands of the Law, all that it demanded of man, we could not fulfill. The harder they tried, the more they fell because they became aware that the Law increased sin.

That is why when Paul said: “teloV gar nomou CristoV” (Christ is the end of the law) as far as the Law and establishing a right standing before God, the Law has come to an end. No longer can man plea to God “Look how well I’ve kept the commandments and the Law.” The Law has been disposed from it place as mediator between God and man, and Christ has rightfully taken its place.

Borrowing from Paul’s great defense against “legalism” we need to remember three things from the book of Galatians:

First, Paul answers that the law was added to identify sin as transgression against God. In doing so, the law did more than just identify sin, it condemned those who did these acts. And while the world was under the power of sin, the Jews were imprisoned and guarded by the law (3:22). The law was meant to guard Israel until the arrival of Christ.

Second, Paul is desperately trying to sway the minds of the Gentiles in the Galatian church. When the law was in effect, not only were the Jews guarded, but the Gentiles were excluded from the promises of God. The Jews had so hoarded the promise of God by living it in a legalistic manner, that Gentiles were looked at with contempt and considered slaves like Ishmael. To return to the law willingly would place the Gentiles in the position that the Jews were once in, to be condemned by the law, and to find themselves excluded by the very nature of the law. Being in Christ means freedom from the condemnation the law naturally brings. Paul yearned for the Galatians to remain in the freedom of Christ and removed from the restraint of the law that had formerly enslaved them as Gentiles.

Lastly, according to Paul then, the law was neither positive nor negative; it was merely a necessity. More importantly it was a necessity for only a limited time, a time that had come and gone. Since that time had been superseded with the arrival of Christ, to continue to live under the law would go back to the time before Christ. No longer would the Gentiles be free, but the law that had condemned the Jews for centuries would now condemn the Gentiles.


[1] Contra Furnish, Theology, 199-200; A. Lindemann, “Die biblischen Toragebote und die paulinische Ethik,” in Studien zum Text and our Ethik des Neuen Testaments (ed. W. Schrage; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986), 242-43, and 263, n. 108. H. Ridderbos (Paul, p. 282) goes to the other extreme when he says, “The law does not find its criterion in love, but just the reverse, the requirement of love is so imperative because in it lies the summary of the law.”

[2] Cranfield perceptively says (“St. Paul and the Law,” 67) that we “need the particular commandments into which the law breaks down the general obligation of love, to save us from the sentimentality and self-deception to which we all are prone.” (Cf. Schrage, Einzelgebote, 267-71). Deidun (New Covenant, 171) rightly says that love cannot be limited `to the fulfillment of calculated ethical demands.” He goes on to say, `But if love goes beyond calculable obligation, it does not go around.”

[3] The criterion of love is not a comprehensive explanation of Pauline ethics. Paul’s prohibitions on the basis of “nature”“jusiV” demonstrate this (Rom. 1.26-27; 1 Cor. 11.14). Natural law is not an infallible criterion for Paul, but it is a criterion he uses upon occasion. It is hardly evident how his prohibitions in Rom. 1.26-27 and 1 Cor. 11.14 are a violation of the law of love.

[4] Romans, 215-19; cf. also L. E. Keck, “The Law and ‘The Law of Sin and Death’ (Rom 8.1-4): Reflections on the Spirit and Ethics in Paul,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events Presented to Lou H. Silberman (ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel; New York: Ktav, 1980), 51-53.

[5] Note also the passive of “plhrwqh” (“is fulfilled”) in 8.4. For a filler discussion of the passage see Deidun, New Covenant, 72-75; Thompson, “Interpretation of Rom 8.4,” 33-40; Cranfield, Romans, 383-85.

[6] The use ofdikaiwmain Rom. 5.16, 18 is unusual and is commonly attributed to rhetorical considerations. So Keck, “The Law,” 52; Cranfield, Romans, 287 n. 2; Käsemann, Romans, 154.

[7] T. R Schreiner, `Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E. P. Sanders,” WTJ 47 (1985): 268-78.

[8] K. R Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace–To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 (1986): 72-93.

[9] On the letter-spirit contrast in Paul see B. Schneider, “Letter and Spirit,” CBQ 15 (1953): 163-207; E. Käsemann, “Letter and Spirit,” New Testament Questions of Today (ET: London: SCM, 1969), 260-85; P. Richardson, “Spirit and Letter: A Foundation for Hermeneutics,” EvQ 45 (1973): SOS-18; Westerholm, “Letter and Spirit,” 229-48; Provence, “Who is Sufficient,” 62

[10] Bruce, “Paul and the Law,” 266; van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes, 130ff. Moo, “Works of Law,” 84-85; D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 696.

[11] E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 1:360-65; M. Hengel, The Son of God (E: Philadelphia: Fortress,1976), 67-68, n. 123; M. S. Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1957), 85; Longenecker, Apostle of Liberty, 144-45; Guthrie, Theology, 696; Käsemann, Romans, 215; R. J. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 109.

[12] Cf. Sanders who says (Paul, the Law, 101) that distinguishing between moral and ceremonial law in the case of idolatry would be extremely difficult.

[13] Lindemann, “Toragebote,” 242-65.

[14] So P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 304-305; W. A. Heth and G J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce: The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 106-10.

[15] Lindemann, “Die Toragebote,” 256.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I know the "just shall live by faith" can be used 2 ways."We will not die".

Certainly the english bibles seem to use it as a way to live,a priciple.In light of verse 12.

11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

And in the previous verse...we see abide.To live by this way.

NASB
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."



emmeno 1696
Definition: 1) to remain in, continue
2) to persevere in anything, a state of mind etc.
3) to hold fast, to be true to, abide by, keep

Paul could not PERFORM the good thing but the evil he hated THAT he did. This was when he was IN THE FLESH (after a spiritual truth) As far as performance, its spoken of even in regards to Abraham, God performs His word and that which He performs is also that which is within you. Christ being formed in you. The word of God effectively working in you willing you to do his good pleasure. Working that which is pleasing to Him by His Spirit (in whom we are perfected). Its by the Spirit dwelling in you that you are defined as NO MORE IN THE FLESH BUT IN THE SPIRIT (if so be) the Spirit of God be in you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Egads!!!! Could you possibly sum all that up for us Deacon?

 

[DeaconDean]

Lastly, according to Paul then, the law was neither positive nor negative; it was merely a necessity. More importantly it was a necessity for only a limited time, a time that had come and gone. Since that time had been superseded with the arrival of Christ, to continue to live under the law would go back to the time before Christ. No longer would the Gentiles be free, but the law that had condemned the Jews for centuries would now condemn the Gentiles.

That about sums up the whole matter.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Frogster]

u wanna run that by me again?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That about sums up the whole matter.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I kinda thought my post here did

http://www.christianforums.com/t7463574-2/#post54613209

I like this under yer username LOL

Resident Trouble Maker

 

[DeaconDean]

Just go back and read the whole thing, that is all I ask before anybody starts telling me how wrong I am.

There is nearly three years worth of pure research in this article I wrote.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Whoa! This is interesting.

2 Mountains enter, 1 Mountain leaves [I got that from Mad Max and "Thunderdome" ]

Gala 4:25 For the Hagar is mount Sinai in the Arabia, together-elemental yet to the now Jerusalem slaving with the offspring of Her.

Hebrew 12:22 But ye have come-toward to mount Zion and/even to a City of God living Jerusalem heavenly, and to myriads of messengers,

Revelation 14:1 And I saw and Behold! The Lambkin standing on the mount Zion and with it hundred forty four thousands having the name of it, and the name of the father of it, having been written on of the foreheads of them.

Reve 8:8 And the second Messenger trumpets and as-like a Mountain, great to fire burning, was cast into the Sea and became the third of the Sea blood
[Matthew 21:21/Hebrew 12:18]

SPIRITS of just men MADE PERFECT on Sion, whereas the law made nothing perfect even as it pertained to conscience (reminder of sins) verses the forgiveness of sins in Christ (Wherein we hold to the faith and good conscience) by the resurrection of Christ (where are your accusers?)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Whoa! This is interesting.

2 Mountains enter, 1 Mountain leaves [I got that from Mad Max and "Thunderdome" ]

Gala 4:25 For the Hagar is mount Sinai in the Arabia, together-elemental yet to the now Jerusalem slaving with the offspring of Her.

Hebrew 12:22 But ye have come-toward to mount Zion and/even to a City of God living Jerusalem heavenly, and to myriads of messengers,

Whoa again!

That appears to harmonize perfectly with this verse in that Covanantle parable in Luke 16!

Luke 16:26 And upon all of these between us[grace/life] and ye[law/death] a great chasm[Faith?] hath been established so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye no may be able, neither thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276> (5725)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7436472-2/#post54015375
Luke 16:26 and the great "chasm/gulf".

 

[Fireinfolding]

Whoa again!

That appears to harmonize perfectly with this verse in that Covanantle parable in Luke 16!

Luke 16:26 And upon all of these between us[grace/life] and ye[law/death] a great chasm[Faith?] hath been established so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye no may be able, neither thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276> (5725)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7436472-2/#post54015375
Luke 16:26 and the great "chasm/gulf".

Well he has determined boundaries, we are start in death, we PASS from death unto life which is evidenced by the love we have for one another.

All this by Christ, afterall even HE (this faith come) in The FATHERS appointed TIME (even for us). Cant cross over (being IN DEATH) without Him (Who is THE LIFE) right? There was even boundry for Moses (UNTIL JOHN) was the Jordan (from where before Moses died/God burried him). Where the disciples of John were He said, "BEHOLD the Lamb of God" and those that heard John (were ready) and went onto follow the Lord (going onto perfection as I would regard it)... WHOM shall HE teach knowledge, he that is WEANED from the breast) which is the milk (even Paul fed them as babes in Christ) I see it as a picture of Christ being formed in them, then weaning off the breast (sorta seeing the same principle in John) HE begins teaching them. as His meat is TO DO the will of God whereas babes are not able for meat in two ways, the Spirit makes ABLE whereas they were still YET carnal (not able)

You can catch paterns in the growth of them in these things, which is pretty kool Though its him who translates one from one place to another as He does from darkness/death/hate to light/life/love both seemingly depicting the two covenants (not only that, but their condition) as the carnal mind is also death, walking in darkness and is great hated of God naturally, whereas Christ is the true light, the life and the love of God shed abroad in our hearts. Sorta like moving (even in ourselves between two men) the Old one and the New one too.

 

[Lulav]

The old cov was abolished.The cov contained the laws.


Hebrews 10:
then he added, ‘See, I have come to do your will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.

More on the 10.WRITTEN IN STONE.


7 Now if the ministry of death, chiselled in letters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside,


11for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!

The First Covenant was cut with animals blood, it was administered by the Levitical Priesthood. The same covenant called 'New' was instituted with the blood of a sinless man, Jesus. It is administered through the Spirit by a Righteous, clean and Holy sinless Priest, Jesus.

 

[mwood30]

The First Covenant was cut with animals blood, it was administered by the Levitical Priesthood. The same covenant called 'New' was instituted with the blood of a sinless man, Jesus. It is administered through the Spirit by a Righteous, clean and Holy sinless Priest, Jesus.

Jesus said, "Treat others the same way you want to be treated, for this is the Law." That sounds like an entirely different covenant to me; not the reinstitution of the same old one.

 

[Lulav]

Perhaps we need a sub-board for "Lawology"

http://www.scripture4all.org/

In contrast to what, the Lawless forums?

Despite what people like to teach, there is no middle ground.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus Whoa! This is interesting.

2 Mountains enter, 1 Mountain leaves [I got that from Mad Max and "Thunderdome"

]

Gala 4:25 For the Hagar is mount Sinai in the Arabia, together-elemental yet to the now Jerusalem slaving with the offspring of Her.

Hebrew 12:22 But ye have come-toward to mount Zion and/even to a City of God living Jerusalem heavenly, and to myriads of messengers,

Revelation 14:1 And I saw and Behold! The Lambkin standing on the mount Zion and with it hundred forty four thousands having the name of it, and the name of the father of it, having been written on of the foreheads of them.

Reve 8:8 And the second Messenger trumpets and as-like a Mountain, great to fire burning, was cast into the Sea and became the third of the Sea blood
[Matthew 21:21/Hebrew 12:18]

SPIRITS of just men MADE PERFECT on Sion, whereas the law made nothing perfect even as it pertained to conscience (reminder of sins) verses the forgiveness of sins in Christ (Wherein we hold to the faith and good conscience) by the resurrection of Christ (where are your accusers?)

Coincidentally, I just got to the verse in Hebrews today concerning that

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426625/#post54612368
Hebrew 7:19

 

[Lulav]

The law was actually made for the lawless

So since it was given to the Jews, called the Oracles of G-d, then only they were lawless? The heathens/gentiles worshipping every demonic manifestation of false deities were lawful??? Doesn't make sense does it?

About about this, Adam was made without sin. G-d gave him one commandment. Did he give this commandment because Adam was lawless? Or did he give it because he is G-d and has the right to require certain behavior from his creation?