Who gave the Law? Moses or Yahweh?

[HARK!]

So the question then is, were certain laws from Moses and not from God?

The Talmud didn't come from either. Yahshua rebuked the traditions of men, over YHWH's law.

See: Lying Pens of Scribes.

 

[HatGuy]

False dichotomy.

YHWH gave the law to Moshe. Moshe gave the law that YHWH gave him.

Alrighty, then why does Jesus explicitly state in Matthew 5 that God did not intend for divorce but that Moses made allowance for it?

The question is - if God gave the original divorce laws directly, himself, through Moses, why? And if to accommodate them, would other laws, such as the calls to take women and children as plunder (Deut 26) be laws of accommodation to Israel?

 

[HatGuy]

The Talmud didn't come from either. Yahshua rebuked the traditions of men, over YHWH's law.

See: Lying Pens of Scribes.

Jesus did not critique only the Talmud but also specific OT laws, such as the divorce laws in Deut 20 (in Matthew 5).

 

[Jonaitis]

And Paul's very negative view of the Law (although Messianic Christians may disagree that it was completely negative) is interesting too.

Paul is not negative of the Law, rather, he is negative toward a righteousness based on the Law. We are not under the Law [for penalty], but are under grace. Just to get that out there.

I find it fascinating that not once (that I can find) did Jesus ever refer to the Law as God's Law, but only ever as the Law of Moses.

I also find it fascinating that the NT at several places says the Law was given by angels (Acts 7:38, 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) - this would imply it was not Yahweh directly who gave it. (The Hebrew word for "God", "Elohim", is a catch-all word for spirits, if I recall, but I can't reference that right now... if I'm right, it could explain some things, but the OT does use the name Yahweh in several instances relating to the Law outside of the ten commandments.)

It would seem redundant for the Lord to say the 'Law of God,' but I suppose that's just me.

It is not uncommon for God's ministers to often be ascribed for the work, though they were the mere instruments of the work. We use that sort of language today.

"I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)

Paul has no power to save but God alone through him.

"When they had appointed a day for [Paul], they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets." (Acts 28:23)

We know that no one is able to convince sinners to come to Christ, it is the inner work of the Holy Spirit to open the eyes and draw that person to believe (John 6:44).

In the Old Testament, we read things like the "prophet's word is such-and-such," but we know that the prophet speaks from God what he told. It isn't the book of Jeremiah, it is the book of God's inspired and dictated word through Jeremiah.

It is very common to see the names of ministers/servants who do a work that God obviously owned for himself.

 

[HARK!]

Alrighty, then why does Jesus explicitly state in Matthew 5 that God did not intend for divorce but that Moses made allowance for it?

The question is - if God gave the original divorce laws directly, himself, through Moses, why? And if to accommodate them, would other laws, such as the calls to take women and children as plunder (Deut 26) be laws of accommodation to Israel?

Why would Paul say that he was completely obedient to the law; then agree that salvation isn't dependent on circumcision for new converts, at the Council of Jerusalem; then no sooner did he leave Jerusalem, he himself circumcised Timothy (a new convert)?

Think about this. It's a serious question. Take it to heart.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Okay, so correct me if wrong but your take on this then is that the OT should be primarily understood allegorically (i.e. has hidden meanings which are the real point, not the literal meaning)?

If so, how comes you came to such a conclusion?

Have you read someone's biographical writings of their own life ? (someone alive)
Or letters from someone , describing their life, perhaps their life/experience in another country, or in their own country, while being opposed by political and by religious leaders ?

If there is anything difficult to understand, who is best able to explain : The author, or someone else who might not even know the author ?

I don't think allegorical means hidden. ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3.16).

Yes, yet it is often forgotten that understanding anything spiritual, any Scripture,
requires
revelation from the Father and/or/with Jesus , echad with the Father, echad with the Ekklesia.

 

[Josheb]

Hello everyone,

I find it fascinating that not once (that I can find) did Jesus ever refer to the Law as God's Law, but only ever as the Law of Moses.

I also find it fascinating that the NT at several places says the Law was given by angels (Acts 7:38, 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) - this would imply it was not Yahweh directly who gave it. (The Hebrew word for "God", "Elohim", is a catch-all word for spirits, if I recall, but I can't reference that right now... if I'm right, it could explain some things, but the OT does use the name Yahweh in several instances relating to the Law outside of the ten commandments.)

1. Some say this is because only the ten commandments were God's Law and the rest (ceremonial and state laws) was the Law of Moses.

2. Some say it is because Moses misinterpreted or misrepresented God's real Law, unable to shake some of his cultural limitations (and so Jesus sets the record straight).

3. Some say it is because "Law", as in "Torah", does not refer to a moral code but to a spiritual word of sorts; a way of life empowered by the study of God's Law. In this sense there are double or hidden meanings to be found in the OT and the Law was never meant to be taken literally.

Of course, how Jesus changes or contradicts the "Law" is interesting. Some say he does not contradict it. At the very least, one can say he changes it or re-interprets it in His own way (and sometimes, even agreeing with the teachings of his Rabbi contemporaries).

And Paul's very negative view of the Law (although Messianic Christians may disagree that it was completely negative) is interesting too.

I'm very interested in hearing opinions on this.

Properly speaking, all laws are God's laws. There is only one Law Giver.


People make laws and they call them laws but they are not like the Laws of God if they depart from God's Laws. The laws of God are part of the design and function of creation. When a person breaks God's Laws s/he then suffers both temporal and eternal consequences. I might not suffer any human consequences at the hands of another human if I break a human law that has not basis in God's statutes.

According to my search, there are four places the phrase "law of God" is mentioned in the NT, all by Paul. Paul's view of the law is not negative; he states quite plainly the law is holy, righteous, good when it is used lawfully, and is fulfilled in love. Jesus does not "re-interpret" the law; he teaches its original or restored meaning. To say God gave the law to Moses and Moses gave the law to others is not to say the law was from one or the other. Similarly, to say God gave the law by way of ministering spirits to Moses (or any other human) and then to others is also not to created disparity in origin.

 

[HARK!]

alw

I see only one falw in that post.

 

[Hank77]

Why would Paul say that he was completely obedient to the law; then agree that salvation isn't dependent on circumcision for new converts, at the Council of Jerusalem; then no sooner did he leave Jerusalem, he himself circumcised Timothy (a new convert)?

Think about this. It's a serious question. Take it to heart.

Paul circumcised Timothy, who was Jewish on his mother's side and had been raised Jewish by his mother and grandmother because they were going to travel together to preach where there were many unbelieving Jews. Paul was using the same principle he did with himself. In 2 Corinthians he says "To the Jews, I became a Jew in order to win the Jews.

Titus, who was a Gentile, Paul refused to circumcise because it would have gone against his preaching that one had to be circumcised in order to be accepted.

 

[HatGuy]

Why would Paul say that he was completely obedient to the law; then agree that salvation isn't dependent on circumcision for new converts, at the Council of Jerusalem; then no sooner did he leave Jerusalem, he himself circumcised Timothy (a new convert)?

Think about this. It's a serious question. Take it to heart.

It's a good question. However, I'll venture to say it was possibly a mistake. Lystra and Iconium were part of the central Anatolia region that was known as Galatia. And it's the letter Paul wrote to the Galatians that is the famous letter about how righteousness is not achieved by the Law. He might have actually started or exasperated the issue there when he circumcised Timothy. Later, with Titus, he doesn't seem to want to circumcise him. (Gal 2:3 seems to contradict the thinking in Acts 16).

 

[HatGuy]

Paul is not negative of the Law, rather, he is negative toward a righteousness based on the Law. We are not under the Law [for penalty], but are under grace. Just to get that out there.

It would seem redundant for the Lord to say the 'Law of God,' but I suppose that's just me.

It is not uncommon for God's ministers to often be ascribed for the work, though they were the mere instruments of the work. We use that sort of language today.

"I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)

Paul has no power to save but God alone through him.

"When they had appointed a day for [Paul], they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets." (Acts 28:23)

We know that no one is able to convince sinners to come to Christ, it is the inner work of the Holy Spirit to open the eyes and draw that person to believe (John 6:44).

In the Old Testament, we read things like the "prophet's word is such-and-such," but we know that the prophet speaks from God what he told. It isn't the book of Jeremiah, it is the book of God's inspired and dictated word through Jeremiah.

It is very common to see the names of ministers/servants who do a work that God obviously owned for himself.

Good points - although there are questions, which I'll put forward later if that's okay

 

[HARK!]

Paul circumcised Timothy, who was Jewish on his mother's side and had been raised Jewish by his mother and grandmother because they were going to travel together to preach where there were many unbelieving Jews. Paul was using the same principle he did with himself. In 2 Corinthians he says "To the Jews, I became a Jew in order to win the Jews.

If Timothy had been raised Jewish; he would have already been circumcised. He had no credibility with the local Jews because he was known to be Greek. BTW, regardless of what the Talmud says, the Torah makes it clear that one's heritage is of his father.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ok, so what

Is the Father able to reveal the truth to His people ?

is the role of the OT in your life / theology?

p.s. no theology.

re Scripture:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3.16).

Okay, so correct me if wrong but your take on this then is that the OT should be primarily understood allegorically (i.e. has hidden meanings which are the real point, not the literal meaning)?

Did the educated Scribes and Pharisees "know" the truth and receive the Messiah Jesus ? "from the original text" ?
Did the Apostles and faithful disciples ?

No, not from the text (original nor otherwise).

Rather, as written:
"The Father Reveals ..... to little children"
"Blessed art thou Simon barjona, for FLESH AND BLOOD has not revealed this to you,
but MY FATHER in heaven did."

 

[HatGuy]

p.s. no theology.

re Scripture:








Rather, as written:
"The Father Reveals ..... to little children"
"Blessed art thou Simon barjona, for FLESH AND BLOOD has not revealed this to you,
but MY FATHER in heaven did."

That is a theology

 

[HARK!]

It's a good question. However, I'll venture to say it was possibly a mistake. Lystra and Iconium were part of the central Anatolia region that was known as Galatia. And it's the letter Paul wrote to the Galatians that is the famous letter about how righteousness is not achieved by the Law. He might have actually started or exasperated the issue there when he circumcised Timothy. Later, with Titus, he doesn't seem to want to circumcise him. (Gal 2:3 seems to contradict the thinking in Acts 16).

Galatians doesn't contradict the Council of Jerusalem. The Council of Jerusalem settles the incident in Galatia.

I did a study on Galatians 2 Here: Paul on the Law: Galatians 2

Continued from: Paul on the Law: Galatians 1

Galatians 2 (CLV)
1 Thereupon, after the lapse of fourteen years, I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also along with me." 2 Now I went up in accord with a revelation, and submitted to them the evangel which I am heralding among the nations, yet privately to those of repute, lest somehow I should be racing or ran for naught." 3 But not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, is compelled to be circumcised." 4 Yet, it was because of the false brethren who were smuggled in, who came in by the way to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they shall be enslaving us- "

Titus was not forced to be circumcised. by the Ecclesia. He was new to the faith. This topic was covered in the Romans Series.

Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 4

1 What, then, shall we declare that Abraham, our forefather, according to flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by acts, he has something to boast in, but not toward God." 3 For what is the scripture saying? Now "Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness." 4 Now to the worker, the wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as a debt." 5 Yet to him who is not working, yet is believing on Him Who is justifying the irreverent, his faith is reckoned for righteousness."

Abraham was justified by faith, before he was obedient to YHWH's law.

(CLV) Gn 15:6
Now Abram believed in Elohim, and He reckoned it to him for righteousness

Does that mean that in belief of YHWH's word, that he ignored YHWH's word?

Of course not!

(CLV) Gn 26:5
inasmuch as your father Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My instructions, My statutes and My laws.

(CLV) Ja 2:21
Abraham, our father, was he not justified by works when offering up his son Isaac on the altar?

(CLV) Ja 2:22
You are observing that faith worked together with his works, and by works was faith perfected.

(CLV) Ja 2:23
And fulfilled was the scripture which is saying, Now "Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."

Notice that Abraham came to faith BEFORE he was obedient to YHWH's law.

Obedience to YHWH's law is the fruit of faith.

These false brothers are Pharisees.

(CLV) Ac 15:5
Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.

They were practicing the Works of Law, their Tradition of Men, The Talmud; yet they were misunderstanding the Torah; and what YHWH proclaimed, concerning circumcision and Abraham.

Yahshau rebuked the Pharisees for this practice of placing mans; law over YHWH;s Law.

5 to whom, not even for an hour do we simulate by subjection, that the truth of the evangel should be continuing with you." 6 Now from those reputed to be somewhat-what kind they once were is of no consequence to me (God is not taking up the human aspect)-for to me those of repute submitted nothing. 7 But, on the contrary, preceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision,

Those who new in faith in Yahshua; having not the benefit of being raised in observance to the Law of YHWH, much like Abraham.

Abraham came to faith first; then came the outward sign.

8 according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations),

Those new to the faith in Yahshua; having the benefit of being raised in the Law of YHWH; but having the handicap of being indoctrinated, by Pharisaic Law.


9 and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision-" 10 only that we may be remembering the poor, which same thing I endeavor also to do." 11 Now when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, for he was self-censured." 12 For, before the coming of some from James, he ate together with those of the nations. Yet when they came, he shrank back, and severed himself, fearing those of the Circumcision." 13 And the rest of the Jews also play the hypocrite with him, so that Barnabas also was led away with their hypocrisy." 14 But when I perceived that they are not correct in their attitude toward the truth of the evangel, I said to Cephas in front of all, "If you, being inherently a Jew, are living as the nations, and not as the Jews, how are you compelling the nations to be judaizing? 15 We, who by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the nations, 16 having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified."


What law is this? Let's look at what Paul said in Romans:

(CLV) Ro 2:13
For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified.


Now I don't believe that Paul had mental issues. Obviously "Works of Law" is something different than the Torah.

Paul kept the Torah:

(CLV) Ac 24:14
"Yet I am avowing this to you, that, according to the way which they are terming a sect, thus am I offering divine service to the hereditary God, believing all that is written, according to the law and in the prophets,

I don't see "Works of Law" mentioned in the Torah. I don't see it mentioned of it by Yahshua. Where is Paul getting this?

It is mentioned 1 time in Romans and 6 times in Galatians.

It is also mentioned in the Qumran Scrolls.

Q394 (4QMMTa) 4QHalakhic Letter
Dead Sea Scrolls Project: 4QMMT

Definition of halacha
: the body of Jewish law supplementing the scriptural law and forming especially the legal part of the Talmud
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halacha


17 Now if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ, consequently, a dispenser of sin? May it not be coming to that!" 18 For if I am building again these things which I demolish, I am commending myself as a transgressor." 19 For I, through law, died to law, that I should be living to God." 20 With Christ have I been crucified, yet I am living; no longer I, but living in me is Christ.

Messiah was YHWH's word made flesh. When Messiah's flesh died on the torture stake; he was no longer under the temptation of the flesh. YHWH raises Messiah to live in him as one.

(CLV) Mt 16:24
Then Jesus said to His disciples: "If anyone is wanting to come after Me, let him renounce himself and pick up his cross and follow Me.

Messiah calls us to die to the flesh, that we may live as one with YHWH through him.

A dead man can't transgress the law.

Now that which I am now living in flesh, I am living in faith that is of the Son of God, Who loves me, and gives Himself up for me." 21 I am not repudiating the grace of God, for if righteousness is through law, consequently Christ died gratuitously."

(CLV) Ja 2:21
Abraham, our father, was he not justified by works when offering up his son Isaac on the altar?

(CLV) Ja 2:22
You are observing that faith worked together with his works, and by works was faith perfected.

(CLV) Ja 2:23
And fulfilled was the scripture which is saying, Now "Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."


Paul on the Law: Galatians 3

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That is a theology...

To some. Not to me.

Perhaps you have a specific definition of theology ?

 

[lsume]

Hello everyone,

I find it fascinating that not once (that I can find) did Jesus ever refer to the Law as God's Law, but only ever as the Law of Moses.

I also find it fascinating that the NT at several places says the Law was given by angels (Acts 7:38, 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) - this would imply it was not Yahweh directly who gave it. (The Hebrew word for "God", "Elohim", is a catch-all word for spirits, if I recall, but I can't reference that right now... if I'm right, it could explain some things, but the OT does use the name Yahweh in several instances relating to the Law outside of the ten commandments.)

1. Some say this is because only the ten commandments were God's Law and the rest (ceremonial and state laws) was the Law of Moses.

2. Some say it is because Moses misinterpreted or misrepresented God's real Law, unable to shake some of his cultural limitations (and so Jesus sets the record straight).

3. Some say it is because "Law", as in "Torah", does not refer to a moral code but to a spiritual word of sorts; a way of life empowered by the study of God's Law. In this sense there are double or hidden meanings to be found in the OT and the Law was never meant to be taken literally.

Of course, how Jesus changes or contradicts the "Law" is interesting. Some say he does not contradict it. At the very least, one can say he changes it or re-interprets it in His own way (and sometimes, even agreeing with the teachings of his Rabbi contemporaries).

And Paul's very negative view of the Law (although Messianic Christians may disagree that it was completely negative) is interesting too.

I'm very interested in hearing opinions on this.

Rom.10

1. 
   [4] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

1. 
   Matt.5 Verses 17 to 18
   1. 
      [17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
      [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
   Thank God The Father for our Lord and Savior Jesus The Christ.
   

 

[HARK!]

Rom.10

1. 
   [4] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Another commonly misinterpreted verse from Paul.

In just a few verses before this in Paul's letter to the Romans, Paul defined The Law of Righteousness. It might sound like a good thing. It's not. Paul presents at least 8 types of law in his letter to the Romans.

I did a study on Romans 9 here:Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 9

This is where Paul defines The Law of righteousness.


Continued from: Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 8

Romans 9 (CLV)

1 The truth am I telling in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifying together with me in holy spirit, 2 2 That my sorrow is great, and unintermittent pain is in my heart -" 3 for I myself wished to be anathema from Christ - for my brethren, my relatives according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, whose is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the legislation and the divine service and the promises;" 5 whose are the fathers, and out of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all, God be blessed for the eons. Amen!" 6 Now it is not such as that the word of God has lapsed, for not all those out of Israel, these are Israel;" 7 neither that Abraham's seed are all children, but "In Isaac shall your seed be called." 8 That is, that the children of the flesh, not these are the children of God, but the children of the promise is He reckoning for the seed." 9 For the word of the promise is this: At "this seasonI shall come "and there will be for Sarah a son." 10 Yet, not only so, but Rebecca also is having her bed of one, Isaac, our father." 11 For, not as yet being born, nor putting into practice anything good or bad, that the purpose of God may be remaining as a choice, not out of acts, but of Him Who is calling, 12 it was declared to her that "The greater shall be slaving for the inferior, 13 According as it is written, "Jacob I love, yet Esau I hate." 14 What, then, shall we be declaring? Not that there is injustice with God? May it not be coming to that!" 15 For to Moses He is saying, "I shall be merciful to whomever I may be merciful, and I shall be pitying whomever I may be pitying." 16 Consequently, then, it is not of him who is willing, nor of him who is racing, but of God, the Merciful." 17 For the scripture is saying to Pharaoh that "For this selfsame thing I rouse you up, so that I should be displaying in you My power, and so that My name should be published in the entire earth." 18 Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening." 19 You will be protesting to me, then, "Why, then, is He still blaming? for who has withstood His intention? 20 O man! who are you, to be sure, who are answering again to God? That which is molded will not protest to the molder, "Why do you make me thus? 21 Or has not the potter the right over the clay, out of the same kneading to make one vessel, indeed, for honor, yet one for dishonor? 22 Now if God, wanting to display His indignation and to make His powerful doings known, carries, with much patience, the vessels of indignation, adapted for destruction, 23 it is that He should also be making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He makes ready before for glory -" 24 us, whom He calls also, not only out of the Jews, but out of the nations also." 25 As He is saying in Hosea also: I shall be calling those who are not My people "My people,And she who is not beloved "Beloved, 26 And it shall be, in the place where it was declared to them, 'Not My people are you,'There "they shall be called 'sons of the living God.'" 27 Now Isaiah is crying over Israel, If the number of the sons of Israel should be as the sand of the sea, the residue shall be saved, 28 for "a conclusive and concise accounting the Lord will be doing on the earth." 29 And according as Isaiah declared before, "Except the Lord of hosts conserved us a seed, As Sodom would we become, And to Gomorrah would we be likened."

Paul demonstrates that just as Abraham didn't recieve YHWH's favor through bloodline; but through faith; so it is today, for all who are called to hear and, in faith, submit to his commands.

The Covenant is extended to all now; as it has be been since Abraham.

30 What, then, shall we be declaring? That the nations who are not pursuing righteousness overtook righteousness, yet a righteousness which is out of faith."

What is righteousness?

Definition of righteous

1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law
Definition of RIGHTEOUS

The Law of Faith
God's Law (Torah)
The Spirit's Law of Life


31 Yet Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, into a law of righteousness does not outstrip." 32 Wherefore? Seeing that it is not out of faith, but as out of law works, they stumble on the stumbling stone, 33 according as it is written: Lo! I am laying in Zion a Stumbling Stone and a Snare Rock, And the one believing on Him shall not be disgraced."

Paul has added another law, to this letter, in this chapter:

The Law of Righteousness


Letting one's pride withdraw the honor due to YHWH. It's not unlike elevating one's self above the Father.

The Law of Righteousness
The Law of Sin and Death

It should be pointed out here that the stumbling stone isn't the keeping of the Torah. The righteous keep the law (Torah); but they do it through faith in YHWH. The stumbling block is believing that it is through your power, not YHWH's; that your salvation comes from your own works (The Law of Righteousness) . Yahshua gave all the glory to YHWH. It was YHWH working through him that performed the miracles. Yahshua set the example for us.





Hallelu YAH! Hallelu Yahshua!




Legal Terms:

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)
The Law of Righteousness (Ch 9)


Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 10

 

[GospelS]

Hello everyone,

I find it fascinating that not once (that I can find) did Jesus ever refer to the Law as God's Law, but only ever as the Law of Moses.

I also find it fascinating that the NT at several places says the Law was given by angels (Acts 7:38, 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) - this would imply it was not Yahweh directly who gave it. (The Hebrew word for "God", "Elohim", is a catch-all word for spirits, if I recall, but I can't reference that right now... if I'm right, it could explain some things, but the OT does use the name Yahweh in several instances relating to the Law outside of the ten commandments.)

1. Some say this is because only the ten commandments were God's Law and the rest (ceremonial and state laws) was the Law of Moses.

2. Some say it is because Moses misinterpreted or misrepresented God's real Law, unable to shake some of his cultural limitations (and so Jesus sets the record straight).

3. Some say it is because "Law", as in "Torah", does not refer to a moral code but to a spiritual word of sorts; a way of life empowered by the study of God's Law. In this sense there are double or hidden meanings to be found in the OT and the Law was never meant to be taken literally.

Of course, how Jesus changes or contradicts the "Law" is interesting. Some say he does not contradict it. At the very least, one can say he changes it or re-interprets it in His own way (and sometimes, even agreeing with the teachings of his Rabbi contemporaries).

And Paul's very negative view of the Law (although Messianic Christians may disagree that it was completely negative) is interesting too.

I'm very interested in hearing opinions on this.

God instructed Israel to be careful not to divert from what He gave them through Moses. So Jesus needed to mention Moses since his audience were Israelite’s, as Jesus Himself was abiding to, emphasizing and identifying Himself through that law, and presenting His faithfulness to God’s word which in a way is reassuring to his listeners.

"Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to ALL the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to ALL that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success". Joshua 1:7-8.