What did Christ say about the Law?

[daq]

by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances ("dogma" from the greek),

What is "the Law" if not the Law of Moses?

Ephesians 2:15
15 την εχθραν εν τη σαρκι αυτου τον νομον των εντολων εν δογμασιν καταργησας ινα τους δυο κτιση εν αυτω εις ενα καινον ανθρωπον ποιων ειρηνην

It isn't hard to understand once you realize Paul uses dogmas in this statement.

τον νομον των εντολων εν δογμασιν ~ the law of the injunctions/commands in dogmas

However it is also evident that Paul uses nomos in the same sense as torah quite more often than most would like to imagine, and the meaning of torah is actually instruction, thus also teaching, and nomos here can also be read that way because it is just a Greek loan word for torah, instituted in the Septuagint, which the Apostles often quote from.

Dogma:

Luke 3:1 KJV
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree [G1378 δογμα] from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Acts 16:4 KJV
4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees [G1378 δογμα] for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Acts 17:7 KJV
7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees [G1378 δογμα] of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

Apart from Eph 2:15, Col 2:14, and Col 2:20, (dogmatizo), that's it for dogma in the N/T.
Strange how the translators forget the meaning when it comes to Eph 2:15 and Col 2:14, 20, eh?

Shall we go to the Septuagint?

I believe you are forced to argue that the word "ordnances" has to refer to human dogma. If you can make that case, you have at least the beginning of a case. More specifically, it seems to me that you are forced into the following argument:

1. The word rendered as "ordnances" here denotes "human dogma"
2. Since this thing called "the Law" is composed of such human ordnances, this "Law" cannot be the Law of Moses.

First, the overall context shows that is has to be the Law of Moses (I realize this is just a claim, for now). And why would the author use the term "Law" to mean something other than the Law of Moses given the obvious fact that, generally at least, the term "Law" does indeed refer to the Law of Moses? But let's set these objections aside for now.

The key point: The term translated as "ordnances" does not require us to see them as originating from humans. My sources define this word as:

"a decree, edict, ordnance. From the base of dokea; a law"

There is nothing in this definition that excludes a divine origin. So there is no real justification for concluding that "the Law" cannot be the Law of Moses specifically because it is composed of δογμασιν.

Let's be clear: I am not claiming, in this post at least, to have made a case that "the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordnances" is the Law of Moses. But when you say Torah is never referred to as something that contains "δογμασιν", I have shown we have reasons to doubt this claim as it seems at least plausible, and I suggest certain based on arguments I have yet to provide, that the very text we are discussing is a counterexample.

The scripture defines and interprets the scripture.

 

[Gary K]

From Jewish encyclopedia
" Similarly, the erection of the sanctuary and the sacrificial worship therein must be counted among the ceremonial laws, and no less so the dietary laws (Ex. xxii. 30; Lev. xi.; Deut. xvi. 3-21), as symbolically emphasizing the idea of Israel being God's "holy" or priest people."

Uncleaness is also ritually impure.
I think the Greek leitourgy (ministry) would be ritual, ceremony
For a sign, memorial, witness.

So the Jewish encyclopedia is now scripture?

 

[TPop]

Now the law is based on God's holy nature and as such scripture states are holy, just, and unchanging, and we see this in the Ten Commandments. But then you also have the ceremonial law which focused the people’s attention on God and gave the people signs that point to the coming Messiah, such as the Passover, and the sacrifices of the unblemished lamb by the priests. One was written with Gods own finger, and the other was from Moses.

Matthew 5:17-19
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.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

We see here that Jesus stated "Think not that I am come to destroy the law..but to fulfill", what did He mean? Now, since Jesus knew what laws His death would fulfill, would He be saying this about the Ten Commandments if He were going to fulfill them? So what was He fulfilling, it seems clear it was what pointed to Him, Moses’ ceremonial law which is evident if we see what Jesus said when asked.

Mark 12:28-31
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The Ten Commandments are arranged in two groups, the first group of four commandments deal with our relationship to God, the second group of the fifth to the tenth commandments deal with our relationship to one another. When Jesus talks about 'not that I am come to destroy the law', it is obvious that it is the Ten Commandments Jesus is talking about. So did Jesus want to do away with the Ten Commandments or did He came to fulfill that which pointed to Him as the Lamb of God, the ceremonial law of Moses. We have to understand His purpose...

Are you saying that Love God and Love Your Neighbor are not enough?
You could not raise your children on Love God and Love your Neighbor? It would not be sufficient?
Are you saying it is Love God and Love Your Neighbor + something?

You are making this way more difficult. It is very easy. And not burdensome.

Peace and Blessings.

 

[TPop]

As followers of Christ, we should live in a way that points towards him by continuing to obey the Mosaic Law in accordance with the example that he set for us to follow rather than a way that points away from him by refusing to follow his example.

You are then saying that Love God and Love your Neighbor are not sufficient. It is.

Peace and Blessings.

 

[TPop]

Of course not, not even Jesus kept the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period.

And this garbage is what is wrong with reaching back to the Law of the OT.
Now Jesus. Our High Priest and God, does not even keep 1 law. Therefore...

Wow.

 

[TPop]

What did Christ say about the Law?​

John 15:22

Jesus is the source of all OT and NT scripture.

Peace and Blessings.

 

[ralliann]

So the Jewish encyclopedia is now scripture?

No just an acknowledgement of ritual purity as acknowledged by Jew's.

 

[Gary K]

You are then saying that Love God and Love your Neighbor are not sufficient. It is.

Peace and Blessings.

That's not what was said. Tell me how many of the last six commandments you would break by loving your neighbor as yourself. And tell me what your life would be like by loving God supremely. Would you look for a way to get out of keeping any of the first four?

What do you owe Jesus for His sacrifice? Are you willing to give up your life for Him?

 

[Soyeong]

You are then saying that Love God and Love your Neighbor are not sufficient. It is.

Peace and Blessings.

If it were sufficient, then God could have given just those two laws, but thankfully God gave the rest of the laws to flesh out how to correctly obey them. Jesus taught obedience to more than just those two commandments, so there is no point in acting like he thought that all we needed to know.

And this garbage is what is wrong with reaching back to the Law of the OT.
Now Jesus. Our High Priest and God, does not even keep 1 law. Therefore...

Wow.

There is nothing wrong with someone not following a law that does not have its condition met, but that does not mean that we should not be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey. Jesus set a perfect example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law.

Jesus is the source of all OT and NT scripture.

Peace and Blessings.

The you should not interpret the NT as speaking against following what was commanded in the OT.

 

[honey badger]

Jesus is the source of all OT and NT scripture.

Peace and Blessings.

the whole book testifies of him, as it does us ...

 

[ralliann]

If it were sufficient, then God could have given just those two laws, but thankfully God gave the rest of the laws to flesh out how to correctly obey them. Jesus taught obedience to more than just those two commandments, so there is no point in acting like he thought that all we needed to know.


There is nothing wrong with someone not following a law that does not have its condition met, but that does not mean that we should not be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey. Jesus set a perfect example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law.


The you should not interpret the NT as speaking against following what was commanded in the OT.

You are advocating keeping two covenants, simultaneously. Scripture does not advocate for that, nor is it even possible.

 

[Gary K]

You are advocating keeping two covenants, simultaneously. Scripture does not advocate for that, nor is it even possible.

How is that? The new covenant is the writing of the law of God in our hearts. When that happens we keep the Sabbath because it is written in our hearts just like we keep the rest of the commandments.

 

[ralliann]

How is that? The new covenant is the writing of the law of God in our hearts. When that happens we keep the Sabbath because it is written in our hearts just like we keep the rest of the commandments.

Because the Mosaic law is a covenant, that is why. The term old testament is used, God' law is used, avoiding the reality of a COVENANT. Advocating for keeping two covenants simultaneous to each other is what this does. There was "law" before Moses law, which Abraham kept. Law from Moses was added 430 years later. We know the people of the land "defiled" the land and were spewed our because of it. Israel was prohibited from doing the same, and would suffer the same penalty (spewed out). Moses law in this regard merely "retained" law which was to all nations generally ( law that the nations were judged by) before Moses law was given.

 

[Gary K]

Because the Mosaic law is a covenant, that is why. The term old testament is used, God' law is used, avoiding the reality of a COVENANT. Advocating for keeping two covenants simultaneous to each other is what this does. There was "law" before Moses law, which Abraham kept. Law from Moses was added 430 years later. We know the people of the land "defiled" the land and were spewed our because of it. Israel was prohibited from doing the same, and would suffer the same penalty (spewed out). Moses law in this regard merely "retained" law which was to all nations generally ( law that the nations were judged by) before Moses law was given.

The two covenants are exactly the same as far as the content. The only thing that differs between them is where they are written.

 

[ralliann]

The two covenants are exactly the same as far as the content. The only thing that differs between them is where they are written.

No, they are unalike.
Paul speaks of the law of faith, vs law of works.
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
The law works wrath....
4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

The law of faith...... Which Abraham kept.......
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

 

[ralliann]

No, they are unalike.
Paul speaks of the law of faith, vs law of works.
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
The law works wrath....
4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
The new covenant believes in the completion of the promises made to Abraham, which requires Faith, in hope (future after death)
The law of faith...... Which Abraham kept.......
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

 

[Gary K]

No, they are unalike.
Paul speaks of the law of faith, vs law of works.
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
The law works wrath....
4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

The law of faith...... Which Abraham kept.......
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

That has nothing to do with where they are written.. You;re making the Bible, and Paul, contradict itself/himself.

2Corinthians 3: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
......

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

 

[Soyeong]

You are advocating keeping two covenants, simultaneously. Scripture does not advocate for that, nor is it even possible.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so I have been speaking about how to live under the New Covenant. Furthermore, in Galatians 3:16-19, a new covenant does not nullify the promise of a covenant that has already been ratified, so the New Covenant does not nullify our need to obey the Torah in connection with the promise.

 

[ralliann]

That has nothing to do with where they are written.. You;re making the Bible, and Paul, contradict itself/himself.

It is not a contradiction, It is two covenants. the difference between the two.
Just one basic difference
Mosaic Concerns this world and this life.
Abrahamic/ Christian concerns the next world and the next life.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob......

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Again the same thing...
Acts7:3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

Gen 15:15.......
Abraham dies....... The need for a resurrection is right here

Ge 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
Isaac, and Jacob, also will be dead........The covenant concerns the 4th generation of his seed...

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Joseph knew this full well
Ex 1:6 And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation

What you are mixing is the promise made to the 4th Generation and the promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which is in the resurrection from the dead. Christ is made the firstborn of all the dead in Genesis 17

Hence the testing of Abraham's faith in Isaac
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Faith according to hope.

 

[TPop]

That's not what was said. Tell me how many of the last six commandments you would break by loving your neighbor as yourself. And tell me what your life would be like by loving God supremely. Would you look for a way to get out of keeping any of the first four?

What do you owe Jesus for His sacrifice? Are you willing to give up your life for Him?

How would one sin by obeying Love God, Love your Neighbor? They would not. I break nothing if I can do it. But if I dont do it, it is not bad because I broke a Law. It is bad because I did not love.

Every time one brings the Two back to the Law for modification, improvement, and jurisdiction, as you just did, you make the Law more important than the Two. Since the Two, the focus is no longer the Law. So stop refocusing on the Law. All that is needed is the Two.

We know the 10 were given specifically for the Israelites. Not the Gentiles. And Like the Jews tried to say Paul was short, it is Salvation + Circumcision, others here are saying it is the Two + all the laws. And if one is going to do that, one must be circumcised as well. Because one does not get to pick and choose the Law any more than one gets to cherry-pick verses. One cannot say, well, not that law, it was for the Jews. And now we are back under the law and must be circumcised. But Paul said No!

The whole point of Jesus giving the two, and Paul saying no to + circumcision, was to not put more upon the Gentiles than needed, and to show the Jews how much more full it is under the Two without all the offerings, sacrifices, days, and sin around the Law.

Those who follow the Law, are judged by the Law.
Those who follow Grace and Love are judged through Grace and Love.

Not under the Law: The world is a huge circle with all things lawful to me, and a little circle in the center saying - Love. Because Agape Love is Perfect.
Under the Law: The world is a huge circle filled with don't do's, and a little circle that says - Only these things are allowed. Because the law was imperfect.

Yes. You don't know what I have sacrificed.

Peace and Blessings