Steven Carr

It doesn't. Both are abominations.

There is no attempt in the Bible by Jesus to say that certain bits of the Law were 'moral' laws, and that other bits were 'ceremonial' laws.

All 613 commands were commandments of God. Some were applied at certain times, others at other times, but all were commandments of God. Jesus considered all of them to be binding upon him.

And is tithing a 'moral' law? I think we should be told.

Steven Carr

It is you who claim to be able to tell which of God's commandments you feel free to flout.

As you can offer little more than circular reasoning 'A moral law is related to moral acts....', what can we conclude except that you have usurped God and set yourself up as the arbiter of what are moral/immoral acts?

Leviticus 11
You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable.

Leviticus 18
'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Both are detestable in the sight of God, so why do you think it is acceptable to do things which are detestable to God?

Sensei Meela

I wrote most of this a little while back, so forgive the disjointed feel it may have recycled here:

Let's revist the explanation for why Christians are excused from Torah [or most of Torah, anyway]. My first question would be, what does it mean to 'abolish' or 'fulfil the Law?' I know most Christians think they know, though most do not; but let’s look at the Scripture, first:
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 Rabbi would criticize his 'opponent' as (unknowingly) attempting to do away with God's 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�…the Christian often points to Pauls writing in their defense, thinking he's clearly stated they are unbound by Torah. But Paul doesn’t make that (or most 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?
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 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, 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! And now, let's see: did Paul say that [Gentiles] are not “under� the Law? 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? 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 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 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.

[Galatians 3:23-25 is often misinterpreted, too: the Law as "schoolmaster leading us to Christ" is a reference to the fact that we need the Law to see how we are sinful and in need of a saviour; once we find the need for salvation, we no longer need the law for the purpose of showing us we are sinful and in need of a saviour! The Law has a dual nature, though, remember, so we still need the Law to know and obey the ways counted as 'righteousness' in the eyes of God!]

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:
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 as a literal statement, even in conjunction with the idiomatic expressions] 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, the selective observance of God’s commands is without Biblical justification.

Sources:
=================================
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 (!)

myndreach

Every church I went to did this numerous times.


http://atheistbiblestudy.com