Nope. Yahshua used two different words for a reason. He meant what he said; not what lawless translators wished he had said.
(CLV) Mt 5:17
"You should not infer that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I came not to demolish, but to fulfill.
G4137 πληρωσαι
FILL, fulFILL, fill full, complete
(CLV) Mt 5:18
For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.
G1096 γενηται
BECOME, come to be, come into being, occur
Does scripture provide a list that's outside of every jot and tittle; or does everyone get to choose what's right in his own eyes?
Instead of Romans 3, you should be looking at the difference between Romans 7 and 8. See if you can determine what happened between Romans 7:13 and Romans 8:2-9
I've looked at Paul's letter to the Romans in depth in my Paul on the Law series.
He covers at least 8 different categories of law in that letter.
The Law of Faith (Ch 3)
A Different Law (Ch 7)
The Law of My Mind (Ch 7)
The Law of Sin (Sin's Law) (Ch 7)
God's Law (Ch 7)
The Spirit's Law of Life (Ch 8)
The Law of Sin and Death (Ch 8)
One should exercise caution in determining which law he;s talking about at any given time.
If you'd like to look at my work you can start here: Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 1
Did you see my post on Romans 7 and 8. Read it. You need to. Then look up 2 Corinthians 3 from my first post to you. Did you even read my post?
What's the post#?
Scripture provides some examples. For instance we are told by Paul that circumcision counts for nothing in the eyes of God.
Really?
(CLV) Ga 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation!
Really?
(CLV) Ga 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation!
If circumcision is nothing, why do you expect it of Christians?
You are correct in that context plays a primary role particularly when the text seems unclear. One must ask oneself as you have stated why is the law so meaningless to many? I've been a believer for decades and was always taught that the law is essentially meaningless because it was only for the Jews prior to the age of grace that we are presently in. What applies to them, doesn't apply to us. I just accepted that explanation without really studying it for myself. To my chagrin, I found out that I had believed wrongly for a long time. My fault; no one else to blame.Paul gets really technical and I certainly wouldn't disagree with him. he is quite ready to unpack all of this to the Romans where letters like 1 Cor is doesn't get anywhere close to this depth (2 Cor doesn't even mention law)
I have to think Paul spoke to audiences different. That doesn't change the truth but I think we need to be more careful when we mix his letters like they are all sequels to each other. Each has a unique context applied to the first intended audience and Paul doesn't feel it important to go into detail about law wiith all his letters yet with others he was quite passionate about it.
the law's function is as you said a tutor (and as scripture tells us this, as Paul tells us this) however in practice the gospel often comes first as the law is meaningless to so many. It still stands as a bohemoth of meaning that points to Christ but often we understand the gospel ignorant of the role of the law.
So how do people know what is right and wrong? That answer is typically not "torah". An argument could be said that it is the torah written in our hearts, but then it still is not articulated this way.
Paul tells us his doctrinal thesis of the role of the law in the new covenant and he is the leading expert with a PhD. He's right, but it is hard to grasp even today and Peter affirms this saying "[Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." This is still a problem today. I think when we think of the role of law we too often jump to Romans to define it but I think it would be worthy of a study to define the role of law in the new covenant without using Romans. We could endlessly debate Romans here and it's meaning to the law, and this is what happens all the time at CF. I'm over it and I enjoy Romans as much as the next guy but I'm tired of it being used irresponsibly.
I don't expect anyone to follow YHWH. I just call them to his word. It's nothing but a new creation. If you think that a new creation is nothing; then we have nothing more to talk about.
Through Christ yes. the letter of the law not only is not applied in this case it cannot be applied even if you wanted.That's a really good question. You've given me a new perspective.
YHWH says that the Levitical Priesthood is forever; and that they will be making sacrifices in the kingdom to come.
He also says that all of his Moedim (feasts) are forever.
So what was fulfilled?
Why did you highlight new creation? What does it mean to you?
But it doesn't impose the letter of the law. Unbelievers are not convicted when mixing grain or thread together, or when eating pork or if they keep their foreskin or not. Our hearts have been imprinted with the law of God but it's not the letter of the torah. There is a distinction and we should't conflate the two.The law still exists - written in the heart of the believer. And the law also still exists for the unbeliever as well as it also convicts the unbeliever as to wrongdoing.
Through Christ yes. the letter of the law not only is not applied in this case it cannot be applied even if you wanted.
Circumcision starts in the heart. When your heart becomes circumcised you are reborn. When you are reborn; you are a new person. If that new person is of Abraham in faith; he will resemble Abraham in his faith. Abraham's outward circumcision sealed the covenant with YHWH, and was a sign of his inward circumcision.
Circumcision has no more value that Baptism. If there is no change within; the outward expression means nothing. It's a facade.
Unbelievers are not convicted when mixing grain or thread together, or when eating pork of if they keep their foreskin or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?