Doing the Law

[sincerly]

If there is one overriding them(e) in the Tanakh ("O.T."), it's probably that we were rewarded when we obeyed the Law but punished if we didn't. Because of this, one simply cannot make the claim that the giving of the Law was just some sort of warning, especially since it also says the Law is "perpetual", and "forever".

Hi metis, The Scriptures inform all that the Creator GOD made all things for HIS Pleasure. Rev.4:11, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
GOD in LOVE has from the "Beginning" provided for all the needs of mankind whom HE Created. It was NOT a "rewards system"---Neither a "robotic existence". It was one of mutual LOVE.
It was when mankind began to lust(covet) things which were not theirs that "Disobedience" and alienation from GOD occurred and that action called for one's death(ceasing to exist--back to dust from which one is /was made.).

True. GOD'S Law(Decalogue) is to remain as long as GOD remains.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Which circles back to my original question to which you studiously never answer.

Your original question is written in the present as if this had some current relevance. For you and many millions of others it does. For me, Paul's letters are historical artifacts and I answer regarding Paul's meaning to the best of our knowledge and from a historical standpoint.

 

[metis]

Paul does not get into a specific Law but speaks of the Law in general and clearly states that the Law was given because of sin and as such speaks of all men as sinners.

The Law actually states creates what is "sin" (to miss the mark) in the context of what it is if one doesn't follow the Law. Just because one may violate part of the Law doesn't make them a "sinner", which labels the entire person. That would be like saying if you ever stole one single item anytime in your life, you're a "criminal" and should be put into prison for life. What sense does that make?

We follow a different law.

OK, I will accept this, not as a basis for my personal belief, but that to me, it's at least hypothetically possible that God could have somewhat of a different set of rules for gentiles as He may for Jews. However, if God did as such, that cannot negate the original set of Laws that God says is "forever" and "perpetual". Agree?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Your original question is written in the present as if this had some current relevance. For you and many millions of others it does. For me, Paul's letters are historical artifacts and I answer regarding Paul's meaning to the best of our knowledge and from a historical standpoint.

Still circling...

 

[metis]

GOD in LOVE has from the "Beginning" provided for all the needs of mankind whom HE Created. It was NOT a "rewards system"---Neither a "robotic existence". It was one of mutual LOVE.

And do you think it's any difference with us? The Sermon on the Mount, which many think may be the basic summation of what Jesus believed, was a very "Jewish" speech that reiterates much of what we especially find in the Writings of the Prophets.

It was when mankind began to lust(covet) things which were not theirs that "Disobedience" and alienation from GOD occurred and that action called for one's death(ceasing to exist--back to dust from which one is /was made.).

True. GOD'S Law(Decalogue) is to remain as long as GOD remains.

There is nothing found in Torah/Tanakh that states that one would be eternally condemned for violating a Law. Over over again there were provisions made for repentance and forgiveness, and the Temple sacrifices was just one way that it could be done, and these were for communal sins, not personal sins.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Still circling...

It's not circling. This is your question:

What is the purpose of "doing" the Law.

My answer is "there is none." I didn't think this would be particularly helpful so I shared my thoughts on what Paul meant.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger
What is the purpose of "doing" the Law. Is it as Paul said in Romans that the "doers of the law shall be justified." Or is it an ongoing process of staying out of trouble? Perhaps a way or reconciling to God after sin? Something else? Is there an end purpose?

Your thoughts and insight please.

Whose law?

Hi Mike, Those Scriptures that are being investigated are written by the Prophets of the Creator GOD and given to mankind to have a right relationship to the Creator GOD and to other created human Beings.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's not circling. This is your question:

My answer is "there is none." I didn't think this would be particularly helpful so I shared my thoughts on what Paul meant.

No, I go back post #40 where I asked

So you figure that Gentiles refuse to eat catfish, put paddles on the end of their spears or go to see the preist when they have leprosy of other surch obscure things in order to fulfill the Law?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The Law actually states creates what is "sin" (to miss the mark) in the context of what it is if one doesn't follow the Law. Just because one may violate part of the Law doesn't make them a "sinner", which labels the entire person. That would be like saying if you ever stole one single item anytime in your life, you're a "criminal" and should be put into prison for life. What sense does that make?

One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that all men are sinners and Paul specifically points out that the sin nature is part of our flesh.

OK, I will accept this, not as a basis for my personal belief, but that to me, it's at least hypothetically possible that God could have somewhat of a different set of rules for gentiles as He may for Jews. However, if God did as such, that cannot negate the original set of Laws that God says is "forever" and "perpetual". Agree?

Certainly yet Paul, in Romans seems to show that God offers man a choice, be judged by the Mosaic Law which justifies no one or the law of faith that justified Abraham.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you figure that Gentiles refuse to eat catfish, put paddles on the end of their spears or go to see the preist when they have leprosy of other surch obscure things in order to fulfill the Law?

No I don't figure. I don't know where you are getting this from.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't know where you are getting this from.

Obviously.

I'll try once more. Gentiles which, "which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law," "in the spirit, and not in the letter," do they follow every obscure and unique tenet of the Law.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

do they follow every obscure and unique tenet of the Law.

No. You cannot the whole point of distinguishing the letter and the spirit of the law is that the latter is the important one and isn't concerned with the minutiae of rules but with why those rules "really" exist and the "true" purpose of the law. For Paul, Jesus' resurrection meant that much of the law was outdated and no longer necessary. That's why he argued with Peter and James over circumcision- they believed that one still needed to obey the laws of Moses to follow Jesus and Paul saw such ideas as foolish. The law was needed in full before but not anymore: ἁμαρτία γὰρ ὑμῶν οὐ κυριεύσει, οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλ ὰ ὑπὸ χάριν/for [your] sins shall not rule-over you, for you are not under the law but under grace" (Rom. 6:14 translation mine)

"νυνὶ δὲ κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα, ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος./"but now we are freed from the law, dying to that in which we were held, so that we serve in the newness of spirit and not in the oldness of letter." (Rom. 7:6; translation mine)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No. You cannot the whole point of distinguishing the letter and the spirit of the law is that the latter is the important one and isn't concerned with the minutiae of rules but with why those rules "really" exist and the "true" purpose of the law.

Finally. Now since gentiles don't actually "do" the Law we are back to my OP. The doing of the Law is not the actions but the spirit that drives the actions?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Finally. Now since gentiles don't actually "do" the Law

They do. That's his point. They don't obey the letter or the law and don't realize when they obey the law at all, but they do by nature obey/follow/do the law. What about this isn't getting through?

The doing of the Law is not the actions

This is about as divorced from Paul's point as one can get.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

They do. That's his point. They don't obey the letter or the law and don't realize when they obey the law at all, but they do by nature obey/follow/do the law. What about this isn't getting through?

This is about as divorced from Paul's point as one can get.

And you are about as divorced from your answers as you can get. Now since gentiles only follow the Law in spirit is it a heart matter or an action? Keep in mind that since gentiles, as you say, do not do the actual action of the Law, such as not eating catfish or going to a priest for their leprosy the their actions do not keep the letter of the Law.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And you are about as divorced from your answers as you can get.

Not really. You just don't seem to understand me. Which is no doubt my fault, but it isn't because my answers don't cohere.

Now since gentiles only follow the Law in spirit is it a heart matter or an action?

You keep making statements (and turning mine) into things that seem to indicate actual truths. All of my statements apply only to what Paul thought. There are aspects of the law that gentiles do. Take the pairing of the shema with "love thy neighbor" indicating how important "love thy neighbor" was. Gentiles were just as capable of loving their neighbors as Jews were, but did so by virtue of human nature which allows for this kind of action. In doing so, according to Paul, they would by nature be following the law. More importantly, they'd be following the heart and spirit of the law, doing what they were supposed rather than just hearing/having the letter of the law.

Paul was centrally concerned with how Jesus changed the law and made following the letter of the law (in the way that zealots and Pharisees were known to) unnecessary. Romans is at heart intricately concerned with how Jesus had changed things both for Jews and gentiles and was probably writing to both Jewish Christians and gentile Christians. Central to Paul's doctrine was that the law as understood before was no longer relevant (abolished in some sense in Paul's eyes) and thus gentiles did not have to be circumcised. In Romans he explains why- it's more important to obey the spirit and live in Christ serving god (doing) than mindlessly keeping to (possessing) the law when this only matters (one is only justified) if one does/lives the law (action).

Keep in mind that since gentiles, as you say, do not do the actual action of the Law,

They do, they just don't do all of it. And according to Paul, they didn't need to. It was more important to do the spirit of the law than to keep the letter without the spirit. Being circumcised was nothing if one didn't obey the spirit, and one could not keep the law as Jews did yet be truer to it nonetheless.

 

[metis]

One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that all men are sinners and Paul specifically points out that the sin nature is part of our flesh.

But one can play it the other way and say that all men are saints as well. Depends on what you want to emphasize, and I would suggest that we're a bit of both. However, the point is moot since Torah says our actions have consequences, whether they be good or bad, and no where does it state that one is condemned automatically on the basis of sin. If that were to be the case, that would logically be cited over and over again in Torah, but it ain't.

Instead, there are provisions for our forgiveness. If you have a concordance, look up "forgive" and its variations as found in the Tanakh and you can see for yourself.

Certainly yet Paul, in Romans seems to show that God offers man a choice, be judged by the Mosaic Law which justifies no one or the law of faith that justified Abraham.

Gentiles may have a choice, but Torah and Tanakh make it abundantly clear that we don't. BTW, what makes you believe Abraham didn't have rules to follow given by God? If the binding of Isaac means anything, it's that Abraham was willing to put faith into action.

 

[Juanster]

Sandy and our Orthodox Bro,
If either of you knew the difference between an Israelite and a Jew, this question wouldn't be needed. Let me refer both of you back to Jacob's All Night Wrestling match. Contained in this scripture is a Blessing. Understanding what that Blessing consisted of, explains the difference between an Israelite and a Jew. It also explains why Ezra refused the aid offered by the Jews to rebuild the 2nd Temple, upon Judah's repatriation to Palestine and Jerusalem. Paul as a Pharisee, functioned under the teachings of Hillel and Gamaliel, both proselytes to the religion Judaism. This allegation I base on the 17th chapter of 2nd Kgs. Here you will discover the becheeching of a Gentile people to be taught the religion of the Israelites, and what they did with this teaching after receiving it.. I will leave off here and let you read this for your selves,There is much more on this topic hopefully we can discuss ,using just Torah as reference

This may be an unfair question to ask an Orthodox Jew but why do you think Paul wrote in the book of Romans, "Therefore by thedeeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."

 

[Shermana]

the law of faith that justified Abraham.

What part about the "Judgments, statutes, and ordinances" that Abraham obeyed had to do with this "law of Faith" exactly? Jack nothing?

 

[Juanster]

Anytime I read a message of this sort, I hurridly turn to the book of Deut.4:2 to refresh myself with the WORD. From there I reread of the incidence that caused Moses to become an obedient servant of the Creator, to wit: "Moses, yea Lord. Take one of your hands and place it in your bosom". Not knowing what to expect, Moses obeyed and placed his right hand in his bosom. "Now remove it", says the Lord.When Moses removed his hand, and held both hands in front of his face, he saw that the one he'd placed in His bosom, it was as white as snow, as if it was Leperous. Now, replace it in your bosom and take it out again, saith the Lord".[EX.4:6] When this was done the hand had returned to it's original color.What was the original color of Moses hands if there was such a stark contrast between them when one had been turned white?