Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not according to this text, which shows that God intended the kosher food laws to be distinctive to Jews:When God called certain animals an abomination,
though, that is not just concerning the Jews.
Yeah,Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine
Romans 3:31 is indeed a challenge, and I am not, at this moment, prepared to answer it. But there are quite a few texts where Paul outright declares the end of the Law of Moses, not least Ephesians 2:15 (assuming Paul wrote Ephesians). So we both have work to do to defend our respective positions.Paul also continued to live in accordance with the law (Acts 21:24) and said that our faith does not abolish the law, but rather it upholds it (Romans 3:31).
You are adding something to the text that is simply not there - nowhere in that passage from Leviticus 20 is such a qualification given. Are you seriously suggesting that by "peoples", God is referring to disobedient humanity and not to the Gentiles? I would be stunned if any creditable scholar understand "set apart from the peoples" to be anything other than a way of saying "set apart from the Gentiles". Clearly Peter sees it this way - in his dream presented in Acts, the dividing line between those who consider some foods as unclean and others who do not is the Jew vs Gentile divide, and not any "obedient" vs "disobedient" set of categories.Yeah,
people who don't want to be holy,
people who don't want to be set apart for God, by God,
people who don't want to be God's people,
No one is denying that Gentiles should not be "lawless". But they never were, and are still not, under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses.A better question: how can anyone versed in Scripture think that Gentiles are free to be lawless? Gentiles have not been redeemed for God's law, but rather from lawlessness (Titus 2:14).
No. Just because something is good and righteous does not mean it cannot come to an end. And more specifically, just because God is holy and righteous does not mean the Law of Moses - which God indeed instituted - cannot come to an end.
If I undergo surgery is the doctor doing something righteous to fix me up? Of course. Does that mean the surgery will have to last forever or we could not call the surgery a good and righteous thing? Of course not.
The Law of Moses is part of an evolving redemption narrative. It played its role, and now it is set aside. Paul is crystal clear about this in several places:
But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
In all candor, how could Paul not be more clear - the Law is no longer needed, just as a graduating student no longer needs the tutor.
Not if we respect Biblical precedent about such "end of the world" language gets used.
There is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul so forcefully argues (e.g. Eph 2:15): In Hebrew culture, “end of the world” language was commonly used metaphorically to invest commonplace events with theological significance.
This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:
10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light
What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of use of “end of the world” imagery to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.
So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor?
It is Jesus’ death on the Cross where He proclaims “It is accomplished”. Note how this dovetails perfectly with the 5:18 declaration that the Law would remain until all is accomplished. Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.
No one is denying that Gentiles should not be "lawless". But they never were, and are still not, under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses.
This is "philosophical" speculation on your part. That's fine, but the point, for those of us who vest authority in scripture and not in philosophical musings, is that Scripture clearly declares the Law of Moses has come to an end. Do you deny that this is what Paul says here:Holiness, righteousness, and goodness do not exist externally to God so that God is subservient to some standard of conduct outside of Him. In other words, God did not command something because it is good and something is not good because God commanded it, but rather Good is good and goodness is based off of who He is, so what is good can not change unless God changes, and the same goes for righteousness and holiness.
Not according to this text, which shows that God intended the kosher food laws to be distinctive to Jews:
You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make [o]yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine
I am fairly confident I can find similar other texts which strongly imply, if not outright declare, that the Law of Moses was given to separate the Jew from the rest of the world.
Romans 3:31 is indeed a challenge, and I am not, at this moment, prepared to answer it. But there are quite a few texts where Paul outright declares the end of the Law of Moses, not least Ephesians 2:15 (assuming Paul wrote Ephesians). So we both have work to do to defend our respective positions.
As for Paul continuing to follow the Law, here is his explanation:
To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
Paul knew the Law no longer applied to him (a Jew), but he followed so as not to offend Jews he was trying to convert.
This is "philosophical" speculation on your part.
That's fine, but the point, for those of us who vest authority in scripture and not in philosophical musings, is that Scripture clearly declares the Law of Moses has come to an end. Do you deny that this is what Paul says here:
But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Please set aside the sweeping philosophy for the moment and explain to the readers how these very words do not constitute a clear declaration of the "retirement" of the Law of Moses. If you do not address the details of this text, I will keep asking you to do so.
Besides, there is a severe problem of basic logic with your implied position - you basically make it impossible for God to a "good" thing that comes to an end. But that clearly cannot be, since we know God must surely be free to do good things that, once the goal has been achieved, no longer need to keep on going.
He said so.So how can God intend the Gentile to follow the Law?
Again, you're equivocating. I'm speaking about whether an action will always be an action that is good, not whether the effect is temporary. For example, it is always righteous to help the poor, but the poor we will always have with us, so it is an action that is always righteous, but with a result that always temporary. If what is righteous can change or come to an end, then there could be a situation in the future where it is no longer righteous to help the poor.
Why is it that many Christians only cry 'legalism' when their favorite
sin comes up?
Lolololololol... This made my dayMurder vs Shrimp. Is this really your question?
Agreed, but there is no command for non-Jews outside of Israel to keep Sabbath. And that's part of Israel's being set apart anyway.
And then we have Acts 15, which doesn't tell us to avoid the meat of animals that to Jews are unclean. Just blood (which according to the Jewish standard, fish blood does not count) and the meat of strangled animals.
No. Just because something is good and righteous does not mean it cannot come to an end. And more specifically, just because God is holy and righteous does not mean the Law of Moses - which God indeed instituted - cannot come to an end.
I doubt it. Please provide a scripture reference.He said so.
Likewise, if someone comes to the usa /canada from Britain,
how long does it take
to learn which side of the road to drive on ?
Please see post 20.Before you move on, this one is a problem. All things end
eventually, but what did Jesus himself say about Torah?
(That is the law of Moses.)
Matthew 5:18
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.
I still see heaven and earth, and all has not been fulfilled.
There is still a millennial reign to come.
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?