The Old Covenant has been obliterated (Hebrews 8:13).

[Paprika]

Actually, Soyeong has the right of it. Paul spends the second half of several of his letters reiterating various points of Torah. Contra dispensationalism, there's no hint that he does this in the spirit of, "The whole Torah has now been deactivated as a revelation of what God and man are like, and thus how man should behave; however, I am going to re-activate selected portions as follows...." The moral components of the Torah (e.g. the 2 Great Commandments, the Decalogue) were given not arbitrarily, but as a statement about the nature of man. It's not as if murder suddenly became wrong at Sinai, nor did it cease being wrong just because Jesus died on the cross. It's not as if people magically stopped needing rest one day in seven. And so on. These moral laws are eternally true and good, and so God in his goodness has explicitly revealed them to His people at various points in time, while writing them on the hearts of other men even today. According to Paul, this continuing function of the Law is one reason that all men are accountable before God for their sins. As he says in Romans 5 for instance, death comes because of sin, and sin implies a Law which has been transgressed.

Christians are not "under the Law" in that we have been freed from its curse, but we should rejoice that the Law is good and worthy of being followed, just as Jesus and Paul did.

You misunderstand. Soyeong is of the view that all of the Mosaic Law must be kept, including circumcision, ritual purity and food laws.

[RBerman]

You misunderstand. Soyeong is of the view that all of the Mosaic Law must be kept, including circumcision, ritual purity and food laws.

I would reject that view in light of various NT comments on the matter. Soyeong doesn't say anything like that in this thread, so you must be going off of knowledge of his views gleaned elsewhere.

[JohnnyP]

Soyeong doesn't say anything like that in this thread, so you must be going off of knowledge of his views gleaned elsewhere.

We discussed it on Facebook Tweb group. His view seems to be that Acts 15 is just a starting point, and Gentiles should continue learning all Jewish Laws. However not that observance or works is required for salvation, but because Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism not a replacement of it.

I think I have that right, apologies to Soyeong if I'm wrong and correct me. He can expand when he comes back on.

[RBerman]

We discussed it on Facebook Tweb group. His view seems to be that Acts 15 is just a starting point, and Gentiles should continue learning all Jewish Laws. However not that observance or works is required for salvation, but because Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism not a replacement of it.

I think I have that right, apologies to Soyeong if I'm wrong and correct me. He can expand when he comes back on.

OK. The point of the New Testament as a whole is that not only do Gentiles not have to obey the Jewish ceremonial laws, but neither do Jews. That dividing wall between the two groups has been obliterated by Christ. However, not all of the Torah served distinctly Jewish ceremonial and civic functions. Some of it was eternal law which predated the Torah, and that law is just as true today as it was when God made Adam.

[footwasher]

When Paul talks about Law, he is talking about its compliance and the outcome.

Its very likely he means that compliance is belief, and the outcome of Law rightly complied with is acknowledgement by God that the right action has been carried out. This is very broad and vague, but Scripture tells us that Abraham believed God and that belief was considered reckoned to be the right compliant deed.

Before the Sinaitic Law was given, Abraham KNEW that God required men to be fair, merciful and caring towards one another, as opposed to other creatures which had no image of God imprinted on their being. This is belief.

He also knew that he was not meeting those requirements and doing so needed rescuing by God, redemption. He turned to God and God showed him Christ's day and he was glad. This is what happens to those who are reckoned for righteousness.

The exact same pattern is found in the lives of David, Zacharias and Cornelius.

1.Belief
2.Acceptance by God
3.Revelation of redemption

Psalm 22
Blessedness of Forgiveness and of Trust in God.

A Psalm of David. A Maskil.


************Surely in a flood of great waters they will not reach him.
******7You are my hiding place; You preserve me from trouble;
************You surround me with songs of deliverance.
Selah.
******8I will instruct you and
teach you in the way which you should go;
************I will counsel you with My eye upon you.
******9Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding,
************Whose trappings include bit and bridle to hold them in check,
************Otherwise they will not come near to you.
******10Many are the sorrows of the wicked,
************But he who trusts in the LORD, lovingkindness shall surround him.
******11Be glad in the LORD and rejoice, you righteous ones;
************And shout for joy, all you who are upright in hea

Luke 1
5In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. 7But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years.
******8Now it happened that while he was performing his priestly service before God in the appointed order of his division, 9according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10And the whole multitude of the people were in prayer outside at the hour of the incense offering. 11And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. 12Zacharias was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him. 13But the angel said to him,

[RBerman]

When Paul talks about Law, he is talking about its compliance and the outcome.

Its very likely he means that compliance is belief, and the outcome of Law rightly complied with is acknowledgement by God that the right action has been carried out. This is very broad and vague, but Scripture tells us that Abraham believed God and that belief was considered reckoned to be the right compliant deed.

Before the Sinaitic Law was given, Abraham KNEW that God required men to be fair, merciful and caring towards one another, as opposed to other creatures which had no image of God imprinted on their being. This is belief. He also knew that he was not meeting those requirements and doing so needed rescuing by God, redemption. He turned to God and God showed him Christ's day and he was glad. This is what happens to those who are reckoned for righteousness. The exact same pattern is found in the lives of David, Zacharias and Cornelius.

1.Belief
2.Acceptance by God
3.Revelation of redemption

"Compliance is belief" might be understood in the modern NPP sense of faithfulness (obedience) as opposed to trust. We should certainly affirm that trust leads to obedience, but conflating the two leads one down the road to works-righteousness, whereas Paul's point in Romans 4 concerns the righteousness reckoned to "the man who does not work, but trusts God, who justifies the ungodly."

[footwasher]

Very good! That's where the NPP is erring. My phrase "compliance is belief" can be expanded to say "compliance is belief in one's own inadequacy". Jesus said without Him we could do nothing. We ARE the men who do "not work, but trust God, who justifies the ungodly".

"Compliance is belief" might be understood in the modern NPP sense of faithfulness (obedience) as opposed to trust. We should certainly affirm that trust leads to obedience, but conflating the two leads one down the road to works-righteousness, whereas Paul's point in Romans 4 concerns the righteousness reckoned to "the man who does not work, but trusts God, who justifies the ungodly."

[JohnnyP]

OK. The point of the New Testament as a whole is that not only do Gentiles not have to obey the Jewish ceremonial laws, but neither do Jews. That dividing wall between the two groups has been obliterated by Christ. However, not all of the Torah served distinctly Jewish ceremonial and civic functions. Some of it was eternal law which predated the Torah, and that law is just as true today as it was when God made Adam.

Yes my own view is that some like moral laws are for everyone, no murder, idolatry, etc. Gentiles should also observe Acts 15 laws, if they want to observe more that's fine.

But if you want to say you are a Jew, I think you're obligated to observe all Torah possible, in part based on Matthew 5:17-19. Otherwise just say you are a Gentile. That's where we may differ and I agree with Soyeong. I think the dividing wall obliterated is so Gentiles can come in, not so Jews can go out.

[KingsGambit]

But if you want to say you are a Jew, I think you're obligated to observe all Torah possible, in part based on Matthew 5:17-19. Otherwise just say you are a Gentile. That's where we may differ and I agree with Soyeong. I think the dividing wall obliterated is so Gentiles can come in, not so Jews can go out.

Does this reflect Paul's own practice? He did not abandon the self-identification of Jewishness.

[JohnnyP]

Does this reflect Paul's own practice? He did not abandon the self-identification of Jewishness.

I don't believe Paul abandoned the Law. Verses like...

1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

...I take to mean he tried to place himself in their shoes to understand where they were coming from in order to best relate to them. As for example, "to them that are without God, we become as atheists" wouldn't mean we become atheists, but we try to understand their mindset and proceed from there.

[RBerman]

Yes my own view is that some like moral laws are for everyone, no murder, idolatry, etc. Gentiles should also observe Acts 15 laws, if they want to observe more that's fine.

But if you want to say you are a Jew, I think you're obligated to observe all Torah possible, in part based on Matthew 5:17-19. Otherwise just say you are a Gentile. That's where we may differ and I agree with Soyeong. I think the dividing wall obliterated is so Gentiles can come in, not so Jews can go out.

Come in to what, though? If Gentiles were "coming in" to OT Judaism, then they would be required to keep the OT ceremonial laws too. That's the opposite of the NT's point on the matter. The book of Hebrews walks through OT Judaism point by point and shows how everything - Adam, Moses, Sabbath, priests, sacrifices, temple, etc. - has to be rethought in light of the person and work of Christ. It actually became wrong for Jewish believers to keep up the temple sin sacrifices in the NT era, which is one reason why God helped them out by destroying the temple in 70 AD.

I find it significant that, following Jesus' general prefatory comments in Matthew 5:17-19 that you cited, Jesus proceeds with an exposition not of the Torah in general, but of much of the Decalogue in particular. This suggests what part of "the Law" Jesus intends to highlight as of eternal applicability. Not the Cities of Refuge; not the ritual for a Yom Kippur sacrifice; not whether capital punishment should be enacted for all disobedient children in all cultures across time.

[Paprika]

But if you want to say you are a Jew, I think you're obligated to observe all Torah possible, in part based on Matthew 5:17-19. Otherwise just say you are a Gentile. That's where we may differ and I agree with Soyeong. I think the dividing wall obliterated is so Gentiles can come in, not so Jews can go out.

If so, the wall still divides. But instead of the law keeping Gentiles out, now it keeps the Jews out of the freedom of the Spirit. As Paul says, "Through the law I died to the law".

[Paprika]

I don't believe Paul abandoned the Law. Verses like...
...I take to mean he tried to place himself in their shoes to understand where they were coming from in order to best relate to them. As for example, "to them that are without God, we become as atheists" wouldn't mean we become atheists, but we try to understand their mindset and proceed from there.

The preceding verse makes things very clear.

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

Paul is not under the law, yet to win the Jews he follows the law. Whereas with the Gentiles who are not under the law he does not.

[JohnnyP]

Come in to what, though? If Gentiles were "coming in" to OT Judaism, then they would be required to keep the OT ceremonial laws too.

In the sense of Gentiles graffed into Israel Romans 11, where the wall is torn down. In Judaism, Gentiles "coming in" also aren't required to observe all Laws, only Noahide. Similar things discussed in Acts 15.

That's the opposite of the NT's point on the matter. The book of Hebrews walks through OT Judaism point by point and shows how everything - Adam, Moses, Sabbath, priests, sacrifices, temple, etc. - has to be rethought in light of the person and work of Christ. It actually became wrong for Jewish believers to keep up the temple sin sacrifices in the NT era, which is one reason why God helped them out by destroying the temple in 70 AD.

There was still no command to Jews to suspend their own ceremonial laws, Acts 21:26 Paul still takes part in purification.

I find it significant that, following Jesus' general prefatory comments in Matthew 5:17-19 that you cited, Jesus proceeds with an exposition not of the Torah in general, but of much of the Decalogue in particular. This suggests what part of "the Law" Jesus intends to highlight as of eternal applicability. Not the Cities of Refuge; not the ritual for a Yom Kippur sacrifice; not whether capital punishment should be enacted for all disobedient children in all cultures across time.

By all indications to me Jesus is saying that death under the Law will be no more, when death and sin are no more after heaven and earth pass after Judgment. Until then the Old Covenant may be fading away but it still exists (Hebrews 8:13). When do you believe Revelation 21:1 takes place?

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.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

What do you make of this, is it past or still future?

Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

If so, the wall still divides. But instead of the law keeping Gentiles out, now it keeps the Jews out of the freedom of the Spirit. As Paul says, "Through the law I died to the law".

Meaning we are saved by grace not works. Not that if we are Jews we should eat pork, or if we are anyone we can lie, steal, etc.

The preceding verse makes things very clear.

Paul is not under the law, yet to win the Jews he follows the law. Whereas with the Gentiles who are not under the law he does not.

Interpreted that way has Paul sneaking around like Peter did, not to mention that if Jews saw him actually breaking the Law there goes his trying to be like a Jew when he's with Jews, he would have been discredited and a joke.

So I would go with what I said, he is talking about a mindset, thinking like Jews and Gentiles so as to approach them from some common ground in discussion of the Gospel.

[Paprika]

I repeat: if Jewish Christians are still under obligation to keep the law they are still under the burden of the law, enslaved by it, and are thus kept by the law out of the freedom through the Spirit.

Interpreted that way has Paul sneaking around like Peter did, not to mention that if Jews saw him actually breaking the Law there goes his trying to be like a Jew when he's with Jews, he would have been discredited and a joke.

Peter's fault was fellowshipping with the Gentiles at first, but later withdrawing and trying to rebuild the wall under pressure. Paul makes it clear that no Jew or Gentile Christian is under the law, yet he is willing to submit himself to the law's regulations to win Jews.

How do you explain, for example, Paul circumcising Timothy but not Titus?

So I would go with what I said, he is talking about a mindset, thinking like Jews and Gentiles so as to approach them from some common ground in discussion of the Gospel.

I think you need to explain why "became" is used if Paul is merely talking about mindset.