The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

32k, You had asked what scripture would point to christians not being under the law, but I don't see where anyone replied to your request. A scripture I'm thinking of is Romans 6:11-14, particularly verse 14, "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace". As a matter of fact, any scripture saying we have died to sin (see Romans 6:1-10) is also saying we are not under law, in this respect, that we have died in Christ, and the law has no jurisdiction over a dead man. NIV Jack

Thanks Jim for pointing that out.

Since I kind of just rushed into this topic without even laying a foundation from my understanding of Judaism; i'll take the time here to do that right now.
The conversation in Acts 15 is really going something like this:
Messianic Pharisees: "The Gentiles must be in every part Jewish in order to be saved"
They make this pretty clear at verse 5 in saying that the Gentiles should be directed to "observe the Torah of Moses..." In saying that, they don't just mean the Written Torah, but the Oral Torah as well. However, this isn't required for salvation according to the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures), Judaism, or the teachings of the apostles.
The Tanakh clearly says in Joel 2:32, "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." - (ESV)
Judaism teaches that in order to be saved, Gentiles need only to obey the seven Noachide laws which are found in the Talmud (see Sanhedrin 56a). The Brit Hadashah (Hebrew name for the New Testament) clearly teaches in the books of Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, the Jews and Gentiles are equal before God concerning salvation; they also make it clear that observance of the Torah, as it applies to Jews, is not a condition of salvation for Gentiles.
So the threat to the Gospel was that Gentiles convert to Judaism; because if people who are not born into Jewish cultural society are each required to become Jews before God will recognize ther faith in Him, many Gentiles wouldn't have accepted the Gospel.
So the real issue is not whether we should keep the Law, but whether faith in God and Jesus can transcend Jewish culture. The real issue is whether a Gentile become a Christian without also becoming a Jew.

Hi Jack,

Thanks for noticing that, you presented a very nice Scripture in defense of the position that we aren't under the Law. May I suggest to you that Paul is not referring to the Law of Moses but rather of legalistic observance of the Law. I know that the word νόμος (nomos) is usually translated in the New Testament as "law", but I feel it should be translated as "legalism". What I mean by "legalism" is: Perversion of the Torah. In other words, the Torah is being turned into a system of rules for earning God's praise without trusting God, loving Him, or communing with Him.
The word ὑπό (hupo), which is usually rendered as "under", means "controlled by" (compare Rom 3:9) or "in subjection to" (compare Rom 7:14). God's people are to live within the framework of the Torah, but they are not in subjection to legalism.

Context is not about what one "feels" in translation is correct. Rather it is about what is correct.

It seems Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew scriptures into the LXX disagree with your "feelings".
See Exodus 24:12 where "Law" is νόμος in the LXX. As is Lev. 6:9; 6:14; 6:25; 7:1; 7:7; 7:11; 11:46; 12:7; 13:59; 14:2; 14:32; 14;54; 14:57; & 15:32. There are 20 references in Numbers where νόμος "law" cannot mean "legalism". Deuteronomy also has 20 references again where νόμος "law" cannot mean "legalism". one example from Deuteronomy is Deut. 31:26 where "book of the Law" cannot mean the "book of legalism".

I can now hear your argument saying that you were referrring to the New Testament. But once again you have removed context where only "law" can fit. For instance νόμος is used in the following passages Mat. 5:17; 5:18; 7:12; 11:13; 12:5; 22:36; 22:40; & 23:23.

Shall we now assume that the Jews were referring to "legalism" in John 19:5-7 (particularly vs. 7 where νόμος is used twice)?

Shall we assume the same of Acts 28:23 that Paul persuaded according to the "legalism" of Moses rather than the νόμος "law of Moses" ?

Neither does your "felt position" fit contextually where νόμος is used no less than 21 times in Romans 2 alone. Not once does "legalism" really fit contextually within the arguments Paul makes.

Even in Galatians νόμος is again referring to the "law" and not "legalism". This is abundantly clear in Galatians 3:10 where Paul quotes Deuteronomy 27:26. (BTW, "law" in Deut 27:26 is νόμος in the LXX.)

Neither in Paul's epistles to Timothy or Titus does such a rendering of "legalism" vs. "law" work. A good example would be 1 Tim. 1:5-11 where a form of νόμος is used 5 times.

12 times (by my count) the writer of Hebrews uses νόμος and it is clearly "law" and not "legalism". For instance Hebrews 9:19.

James uses νόμος no less than 10 times and each contextually mean only "law". for instance James 1:25 or the 4 times νόμος is used in James 4:11.

I have found Biblically where, in both the LXX and the NT, νόμος is used more than 400 times and means clearly "law".
Your point above simply does not hold water.

Blessings,
Randy

How can you possibly know that? What in the text would lead you to think "the Law of Moses" included the oral tradition that was not part of the Law of Moses?
Which the Council decided Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians.
What does that even mean?

Hi Randy,

I appreciate your diligence. But it appears there was a misunderstanding. I didn't mean that the word for law should be translated as "legalism" everywhere. Just in that certain place. So I totally agree with you.

Sorry for my lack communicating skills.



Hi Psychobobicus,

You asked how I can possibly know; I will precede to tell you. As I mentioned before; a Gentile who wanted to become a Jew went through certain procedures required by Judaism. Gentiles need only to obey the seven Noachide laws which are found in the Talmud (Oral Law). The one's who said this were also Pharisees, who were learned in the Oral Traditions.

Glad you asked!

What I mean is simply this: in connection with the Law.

Hi psychobob. You quoted me as saying , "God's people are to live within the framework of the law, but they are not in subjection to legalism". That is not my quote, but 32k's quote.

Galatians 5:16, "So I say, live by the spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature". Galatians 5:18, "But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law"

The law promotes works of the flesh (sinful nature), the spirit works of the spirit. NiV Jack

Sorry Jack. I knew it was 32k
So even though it means "law" everywhere else, here it should be "legalism"? Do you have any evidence (aside from your feeling) that it should be translated in such a radically different and isolated way?
You didn't give evidence. You just re-stated your argument, and added another assumption. Where in Acts does it say the judaizing Christians were Pharisees?
I still don't know what that means. Living "within the framework of the Torah" means living "in connection with the Law"? Huh?

I sure do, although I disagree that my interpretation is radical. Many Bible scholars who have studied Paul's letter to the Romans realize that Paul uses the word nomos three different ways throughout the text (this is also true for almost all his letters). It is used to mean a rule or principle, the Law of Moses, and the law of the people (Jewish or Roman law). I believe that Paul uses it in Rom 6:14 as a meaning the Law of Moses, but not the Law itself since this would be an injustice to Paul who was a Pharisee (see Acts 23:6) and who kept the Law blameless (see Phil 3:6) and said it was good (see Rom 7:12).

The phrase upo nomon literally means "under the law", and the usual interpretation would have Paul meaning that Jews were imprisoned by the Mosaic Law until Christ came to free them from it, however, Paul uses it as a technical term which he coined in order to mean legalism.
C.E.B Cranefield, in his commentary, The International Critical Commentary, Romans, says in page 853:
"...the Greek language of Paul's day possessed no word-group corresponding to our 'legalism,' 'legalist' and 'legalistic.' This means the he lacked a convenient terminology for expressing a vital distinction, and so was surely seriously hampered in the work of clarifying the Christian position with regard to the law. In view of this, we should always , we think, be ready to reckon with the possibility that Pauline statements which at first sight seem to disparage the law, were really directed not against the law itself but against that misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we now have a convenient terminology. In this very difficult terrain Paul was pioneering. If we make due allowance for these circumstances, we shall not be so easily baffled or misled by a certain impreciseness of statement which we shall sometimes encounter."

Honestly, as with any doctrine, it's based upon another doctrine or understanding of a doctrine. I won't take the time to explain now since it would take too long, I would rather that we discuss it in the sense of getting each other's opinions for now.

Also, I'd recommend a book by Daniel P. Fuller called, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? It could probably clarify things better than I can.
With that said; what is your interpretation of Romans 6:14?

You're right, that's my mistake. Actually after reviewing it they aren't said to be Pharisees, just other believers who weren't authorized to teach (see v. 24). My belief of them meaning Oral traditions is based on the fact that the Written Torah doesn't specify in what manner circumcision was to be done in, but it is specified in the Oral Law


Hmm.. Not sure how else to put it.

How about I say, in other words, not apart from the law.


It can't be circumcision because every Jew was circumcised yet they could bear it. Keeping the Law of Moses as a means of salvation is exactly what I mean by leaglistic observances.

Hi Andy,

I totally agree, Christians aren't saved by the Law, but following the Law is of true faith since the bible doesn't say "stop following the Law", on the contary, Jesus came to make the Law more understandable for us to follow (see Matt. 5:17).

To me, it seems illogical to believe in two-covenant theology and say, "we should still follow some of the Law..."

Mmm...bacon!


BTW, doesn't "The Law" also involve animal sacrifices, blood offerings, etc.?

It seems to me that many aspects of "The Law" would be illegal today.

_________________
Some say Jesus was not a pacifist...

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Matthew 26:52 (NIV)

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.
Galatians 5:14

_________________
Jude v. 24-25

_________________
Jude v. 24-25

True, hence the title: "The Old Covenant: Should aspects of the Torah be observed?" rather than "The Old Covenant: Should the whole Torah be observed?"

Whenever I think about how the temple sacrifices have ended it makes me wonder how Jews continue in Judaism and be sure of their salvation.

Rabbi Yochanan Ben-Zakkai, who led the Synod of Yavneh (90 C.E.) in reorienting Judaism toward law and away from the sacrificial system after the Temple had been destroyed, apparently continued to have sin on his mind.

"Now I am being led before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, who lives and endures for ever and ever. If he is angry with me, he is angry for ever. If he imprisons me, he imprisons me for ever. If he puts me to death, he puts me to death for ever. I can't persuade him with words or bribe him with money. Moreover, there are two ways ahead of me: one leads to Gan-Eden [Paradise] and the other to Gey-Hinnom [Hell], and I do not know which one will take me. How can I do anything bt weep?" (Talmud tractate: B'rakhot 28b)

Daniel P. Fuller's Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum has been widely criticized by theologians from all kinds of traditions.

Even if you are right, and Paul meant "legalism" and not "the law," for the life of me, I can't figure out how you differentiate "living in the framework of the Torah," "living in connection of the law" and living "not apart from the law" from being "under the Law." What makes all the former "required" and the latter contrary to the true Gospel (5:18)?


Acts 15:1 says "And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”" That's pretty clear. They weren't quibbling about the "manner of circumcision."
Now, I did find that there were ex-Pharisees in Jerusalem who were also demanding that the Gentiles be circumcised. I don't think its a logical leap to think they were from the same group who came to Antioch. But that doesn't change the fact that both groups were demanding circumcision for salvation. This is why I am so confused by your position. Circumcision is one of the basic commands of the law. If Gentiles were required to be circumcised, why would Paul and the Jewish elders of Jerusalem say it wasn't? If circumcision is just something required by the Christian, but not for salvation, that still doesn't answer why Paul and the council didn't require it.

So which do we keep, and which do we ignore? If the NT doesn't say we don't need to keep the Law in general, where does it say which Laws we don't have to keep?

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.