The Righteous Requirements of the Law

don · 05-28-09 7:52 am

The Righteous Requirements of the Law Romans 2:25-26 25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? Romans 8:1-4 1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. _________________________________ It has been said that the Bible presents no distinction in Law. When Law is used it means the whole Torah; that it can't be divided up into ceremonial, civil, and moral. The above verses don't show this tripartite division but they do show a distinction within the Law. In Romans 2, Paul talks about people who are not circumcised (technically not fulfilling a part of the Law) keeping the "righteousness of the Law." Obviously one part of the Law (Torah) is not part of the "Righteousness of the Law." In Romans 8, the very goal of the Gospel is that the "righteousness of the Law" be fulfilled in us. In both cases, this word righteousness means "righteous requirements". I suggest that, in the Christian era, offering a sacrifice which points to Jesus cannot be called a "righteous requirement" of the Law. Also, the regulation to stone the law-breaker cannot be called a "righteous requirement" of the Law, for Christ's Kingdom of God does not administer civil society. "Righteous Requirements" are the "Moral Requirements". All of the Ten Commandments have moral value. There are other points of law, regulations, which also reflect on moral life. I suggest that the principle behind any point of law which deals with moral concerns is eternal in its nature. For me, this helps explain most, if not all, that Paul says about Law. The "Righteous Requirements of the Law" condemn me, a sinner. I am not condemned by the sacrificial or civil administration aspects of the Law. We need Jesus' provisions because of our moral failure. We need His Spirit to restore us to moral righteousness. _________________________________ Also, consider Paul's use of the phrase, "The Law of God" Romans 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 1 Corinthians 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. _________________________________ I will take this one step further. Not only are the moral requirements of Judaism eternal in nature, but those of all the world's religions are so, as well. This idea can quite easily be tested by examining points of moral law as held by various of the world's religions. (Should be an interesting study.) (Message edited by Don on May 28, 2009)

elaine · 05-28-09 11:38 am

Don, compare the code of Hammurabi with the Ten Commandments. "Moral" should mean those laws which are applicable to all people at all times. The Sinai covenant was made exclusively with the Israelites as they state in the Hebrew Bible, and was NOT made for anyone else. It is immoral in all laws to murder, steal, and lie. The duties owed to the gods depends on the origin of such laws. The 1st, second, third and fourth commandment are exclusively a law pertaining to a theocracy for those people who have a particular god they obey. This is not the same for all other laws. Therefore, any law that commands obedience to a particular god cannot be moral universally.

don · 05-28-09 12:34 pm

The fourth commandment has "human" features as well. Rest for one's family and those in one's care and also rest for one's animals. These concepts of the fourth commandment apply in a moral sense to those in our lives. I wonder if other law codes contain a weekly rest day feature. If I believe that God passed on His moral values to the Jews in the form of the Ten Commandments and if I worship that God, I will be interested in those moral values expressed at that mountain for the Hebrews. Paul said that the Hebrews were the keepers of the oracles of God for all of us, didn't he? Even today, vast numbers of Gentiles hold dear the oracles of God found in the Hebrew scriptures. I believe that this was intentional by God. He chose Israel not to be some exclusive club but rather to be the educators of all humanity in the things of God. (It seems that I have presented the Bible foundations for this idea that the Jews were to be God's teachers to the world.) .

elaine · 05-28-09 2:29 pm

Don, every culture that has left us a record, has different versions of their origin and operations. The Hebrew version is one of many. Whether or not the other law codes contain a day of rest, would only apply if one made the decision to live by those laws. Since all of the ancient cultures, even Judaism, are somewhat obsolete (the Jews no longer sacrifice nor believe in stoning, etc.)and were predicated on a very local area with local tribal conditions, how can someone today on the opposite side of the globe claim to adhere to all the rules that were set down "in stone" by a Hebrew nation that no longer is in existence, nor has been for thousands of years? The claim that God chose Israel not to be some exclusive club, flies in the face of all the contrary evidence given throughout the Hebrew Scriptures: their own god, their own dietary laws, their many feasts and festivals--all were designed specifically by God to separate them from all the other nations--including intermarriage. If the dietary laws restrict hospitality (which always included shared meals in the Middle East), this effectively prevented association with other cultures. That they did not always adhere to those rules does not negate the fact that they were so ordered by God, according to their own scriptures. Weren't the Christians told to be a light to the Gentiles? And wasn't Paul who created the religion that we now know as Christianity? While Paul spoke of Jesus suffering and dying for "our sins" it was somehow recognized that his death had been for our benefit, but there were no detailed theories about the crucifixion as an atonement for some "original sin" of Adam. This theology did not emerge until the West. Paul and the other NT writers never attepted a precise, definitive explanation of the salvation they had experienced. Yes, in the Roman empire, Christianity was first seen as a branch of Judaism, but Christians made it clear that they were no longer members of the synagogue and separated from Judaism to the extent that Jewish/Christians fade from view by the middle of the second century, following the Bar Kochba revolt. Paul never thought of himself as a Christian, and in fact never uses that term. He always saw himself as a pious Jew who had been called by God, through Jesus, to take this new message to non-Jews. Thus, Paul's self-understanding remained thoroughly Jewish, even when he argued with Peter, James, or other Jewish followers. Neither did he cease being Jewish when he became a follower of Jesus. The Gentiles converted had to undergo a more radical form of "conversion" to an entirely different worldview, the worldview of Judaism, in which there is one and only one God. First, they had to believe in one, true God, but then come to believe that Jeus was, in fact, the Jewish messiah in keeping with the Jewish prophetic tradition. Yet, in converting the Gentiles, he had to contend with the Jews who were attempting to make these new converts conform to Jewish laws. He told the Galatians that to undertake full Torah observance would be like returning to the shackles of idolatry (Gal. 4:8-10) or throwing away the special grant of adoption that they had received by baptism into Christ. The failure of the Jews, eventually led to the Gentiles declaring Christ as the Messiah, and not the Jews.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 05-28-09 7:52 am

The Righteous Requirements of the Law

#2 05-28-09 11:38 am

Re: The Righteous Requirements of the Law

#3 05-28-09 12:34 pm

Re: The Righteous Requirements of the Law

#4 05-28-09 2:29 pm

Re: The Righteous Requirements of the Law

Board footer