|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: AZ, u.s.a.
Posts: 1,202
|
For a bit of light reading...
Not sure how useful you might find it, but a while back I'd worked up a little bit on just why it is wrong for Christians to think that Jesus "abolished" the Torah. It's...um...kinda long. [It's also partly directed towards a poster on another site, so forgive the somewhat disjointed feel]
Quote:
[L]et’s revisit [the] explanation for why Christians are excused from Torah [or, in [the Christian] view, most of Torah, anyway]:
Quote:
[Jesus] said he did not come to abolish the law but to fufill [sic] it. This is quite different from saying he came to add to it. If Jesus fulfilled the law, and the law is fully satisfied, then those who come to God the Father through Christ Jesus have also satisfied the law. Hence, the law is not binding at least when it comes to the cleansing rituals. There is no need for animal sacrifice for remission of sin or some of the other cleansing rituals. These were abolished through Christ Jesus. Nor are the custom laws binding, much of what you mentioned is nothing more than custom laws and they are no longer binding on Gentiles or Jews.
Paul makes it very clear those who are uncircumcised may continue to do so and still inherit the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ. Why? Because they are not "under" the law nor do they have to be.
|
My first question would be, do you even know what this means? I guess, like most Christians, you do not, as is evidenced as follows…
Quote:
|
If Jesus fulfilled the law, and the law is fully satisfied, then those who come to God the Father through Christ Jesus have also satisfied the law. Hence, the law is not binding at least when it comes to the cleansing rituals. There is no need for animal sacrifice for remission of sin or some of the other cleansing rituals. These were abolished through Christ Jesus. Nor are the custom laws binding, much of what you mentioned is nothing more than custom laws and they are no longer binding on Gentiles or Jews.
|
It’s quite possible that it never dawned on you that if “the law is fully satisfied,� then it would cover more than just the “need for animal sacrifice for remission of sin or some of the other cleansing rituals…[and] the custom laws�…it would cover the full law. Maybe you didn’t notice yourself contradicting Jesus, saying he ‘abolished the law of animal sacrifice for the remission of sins;’ truly, this was one Law that was never abolished and NEVER will be, for without the ‘animal sacrifice’ that was the Lamb of God, Jesus’ blood could “cleanse� nothing.
Ahh, but here comes question one again! Can you tell me what it means to “fulfill� or “abolish the Law?� I can! But let’s look at the Scripture, first; be careful to read the whole thing…
Now let’s take verses 17-20. Verse 17 introduces us to some strange language; “abolish the Law and the Prophets� and “[not abolish but] fulfill.� The term “Law and the Prophets� is a Jewish term for Scripture; ‘the Law’ being the Books of Moses (ie Pentateuch) and ‘the Prophets’ being, well, ‘The Prophets’ [ie Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra, etc]. Getting on, the two more interesting terms; “abolish� and “fulfill the Law� are, in fact, rabbinical idioms that mean “misinterpret� and “interpret correctly,� respectively! The 1st C Rav would criticize his opponent as attempting to do away with Gods Law, debasing it into a human law through poor understanding.
Indeed, this was the very problem Jesus was, here, addressing! He declares, upfront, that he has the mission and authority to correctly interpret the Scripture in verse -:17, and in the very next verse states that the Torah will never pass away, not until heaven and earth have! [Indeed, Paul restates that mission in his Ephesians letter, as we shall see] Jesus then assumes this authority in -:20, announcing that the Pharisees and teachers of the Law are unrighteous, misinterpreting Scripture, and goes on for 28 verses to correct them in the “You have heard them say…but I’m telling you� fashion. Jesus corrects the Pharisees several times throughout the Gospels, accusing them of adding to, replacing or perverting God’s Torah [Mark 7 comes immediately to mind…]; they were “abolishing the Law.�
Speaking of “abolishing the Law�…
Quote:
|
Paul makes it very clear those who are uncircumcised may continue to do so and still inherit the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ. Why? Because they are not "under" the law nor do they have to be.
|
Actually, no he doesn’t. I’ll get to this “under� [in quotes] business in a second, but divvying this-up, I’ll tackle the first part: Paul doesn’t make things clear. His ministry was a bone of contention to many of the Apostles in part because his writing is difficult to understand and creates a lot of “lawlessness� [ie ‘abolishing’] by the spiritually depauperate, as Peter noted in 2 Peter 3:14-18. Polemic aside, Paul uses the term “abolish� in his writings too, right?
Quote:
Ephesians 2:15-16
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
[NIV]
by (1) abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is (2) the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might (3) make the two into (4) one new man, thus establishing (5) peace, 16 and might (1) reconcile them both in (2) one body to God through the cross, by it having (3) put to death the enmity.
[NASB]
|
Note the subtle difference in translations; the NASB makes the object of verse 15 more clear: Christ abolished the enmity between Jew and Gentile! The enmity is then described as “the law with it’s commandments and regulations.� So it’s clear, right? Paul said Christ abolished the Law? No! [This is obvious when you look at the Greek: the ‘law’ used in this passage is “dogma� (the same used in Colossians 2:14 [which I’ll be returning to]) and is not “nomos�, the word used almost exclusively for the Law (aka Torah… ‘law’ is too simple, actually, and contains a lot of baggage for the Western audience; “instructions� or, better yet, “revelations� are more accurate)!] Christ put an end to the mistranslations of Torah that gave rise to the ‘ordinances and regulations of men,’ which caused division between Jew and Gentile (and Man and God), by correcting them both and making a new body of believers! [Verse 16 states this more directly.]
So the prima facie contradiction between Matt 5:17 and Eph 2:15 is explainable, but unfortunately not to the benefit of the Christian position! The second half of your statement above then now comes under scrutiny: did Paul say that Gentiles are not “under� the Law? Being the skeptic and truth-seeker that I am, I did a little investigation to see if you’ve represented Paul accurately. I took the liberty of looking up the phrase “under+law� in the NT [NIV]; here are the results:
So first off, what does it mean to be “under the law,� anyway? One could, as has been done, read it to mean '[to be] accused by the Law.' A literal interpretation would probably render it as ‘the law is binding [for you].’ However, as with most cases in the Bible, you must examine each one closely; this we shall do. The passage above from Acts is obviously irrelevant, so then first up is Romans 2:12. It’s important to read the whole chapter, and the ones that follow it, so assuming you’ve used the link and done so…you should notice Paul’s words in the very next line:
“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.�
Truly, he thinks obedience to the Law is needed for righteousness. He even said, in the verse after that, that those Gentiles who don’t know they are keeping the Law will still be rewarded for their unwitting obedience! Paul makes a recurring observation here as an explanation for why: it’s because they have the Law on their hearts! The law is Spiritual in nature [eg Rom 7:14], and one carries it in them, they are not “under� the Law (as though it were a burden placed upon them); it’s all about perspective. Jesus said, “If you love me you will obey what I command� [John 14:15]; John says the one who does righteousness is born from God [1 John 3:9-10]; I needn’t go on…
Paul, nonetheless, goes on and he says in Romans 3:19 -- the next subject of my focus -- that ‘the Law says what it does to those under the Law;’ and that would be everybody in no uncertain terms. He continues, in -:21-31, to declare that there is righteousness apart from Torah, to which the Torah testifies: and that is faith in Christ. [In chapter 4, Paul said that it was the same faith that justified Abraham, whom we are all, as faith-havers, descended from] He then makes [in verse 31] an explicit warning: “Do we nullify the Law by this faith? Not at all!� Chapter 4 begins as a continuation of the thought in 3:31, which elucidates this rather well.
If I were to sum up Paul’s Romans doctrine, here, in a word, I might use “anti-legalist.� For the legalist, salvation was attainable through observance of the Law; Paul says that no one is justified by works but only by faith. Paul is putting obedience in it’s place: after faith in God.
Turning now to the two Corinthians passages, we see that Paul most certainly doesn’t consider himself “free from God’s law� even though he is under Christ’s grace, in verse 9:21. This agrees with his Romans doctrine [sp. 3:31 and 6:15]. I have problems with 9:20-21, as you well know, that are not worth going into here. Suffice to say, Paul is attempting to grow the new body of believers, with the enmity between Jew and Gentile now out of the way.
Galatians is a repeat of Romans in the sense that it is also anti-legalist. Galatians 2:15 and 3:10 make that point transparent: ‘all who rely on observing the Law are under it’s curse.’ The Torah, as mentioned before, is better translated as “instructions� or “revelations.� The dual nature of Torah is thereby revealed: it’s purpose is both to reveal how sinful we are and instruct us in the ways of righteous living. For those who rely on the Law, they are under it’s curse -- they have not escaped the revelation of our sinful nature -- for none can escape it with Torah observance, alone. Those who are guided by the Spirit are freed from it’s curse; they are not freed from the Law, itself! Gal 5:18 reiterates Paul’s perspective about the Spiritual nature of the Law.
Alright, so that’s it…right? We covered all the bases, and we’re clear on the need for Torah observance, yes? Well, almost…
Christians use a few other verses to justify abandoning God’s Law. One that I had mentioned above is Colossians 2:14:
Quote:
“having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.�
[NIV]
“having canceled out (1) the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and (2) He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.�
[NASB]
|
As mentioned before, the term here is “dogma� (ordinances) and not “nomos� (the Law, or Torah). What Christ took away was the dogma that stood opposed to our Spiritual life and salvation; the “list of ordinances against us� was the list of our debt to God, as the NASB makes clearer. In short, Christ took away sins, not the Law!
The Book of Hebrews is also sometimes cited, wherein Paul declares [in 8:13] “the ‘new’ covenant� come, “the old obsolete, ready to vanish.� In fact, Paul was speaking of the Priesthood of the Temple in a bit of prophecy: the Jewish Temple was about to be destroyed, and the Levitican, ‘earthly’ priesthood of the Pharisees replaced by the Melchizedian, ‘heavenly’ priesthood of Jesus [as is obvious with a reading of chapters 7-9].
Let’s recap: Jesus came “not to abolish but to fulfill� Torah. [Interestingly, replace Torah with “revelation� and “fulfill� with “complete� and it makes considerable sense, even in conjunction with the idiomatic expressions, as a literal statement] Paul reiterates this in Ephesians, and throughout Romans declares: faith in Christ does not “nullify� the Law [3:31], the Law is “holy, righteous and good� [Rom 7:12], the Law is Spiritual [7:14], those with the Spirit do the things of God [8:5-17]. Galatians warns against seeking salvation through observance; Paul cautions to place faith first, then you will have the Spirit indwelling, compelling you to keep the Torah. Those who love God keep His commands [John 14:15, 24; 1 John 2:4; etc]. In short: Love and obey the LORD (in that order)..
To summarize, then, there is no Biblical justification for the selective observance of God’s commands.
See also:
http://www.yashanet.com/library/law_1.htm
http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles...tian_attitudes
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/fulfill.html
http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/torah_study.htm
http://www.netten.net/~derekg/forum/...d_the_Law.html
10 year old seminary notes (!)
|
|
12-03-2004, 10:34 AM
