If the Law was only to highlight sin,

[Elijah John]

If the Law was only for the purpose of highlighting sin, and to demonstrate our need for a Savior as Paul suggests, why the constant expectation in the OT/Hebrew Bible that the Law should be kept?

Why is the Law celebrated in Psalm and Proverb as life affirming?

Why did Moses impose punishments for failure to keep it, and promise Divine reward for keeping it?

Why didn't Moses clearly explain to the people that the Law was only prosecutorial, and couldn't be kept?

But that the coming Messiah would "fulfill the Law" for them?

Is this yet another instance where Paul is wrong?

[McCulloch]

Psalm 1:2
But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.

Psalm 19:7
The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

Psalm 37:31
The law of his God is in his heart; His steps do not slip.

Psalm 119:1
How blessed are those whose way is blameless, Who walk in the law of the Lord.

Psalm 119:72
The law of Your mouth is better to me Than thousands of gold and silver pieces.

[McCulloch]

Ephesians 2:14-16

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

The Law is enmity.

Galatians 2:20-21

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.�

Righteousness does not come through the Law.

1 Corinthians 15:55-57

O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?� The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The power of sin is the Law.

Romans 5:20-21

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase.

Romans 4:13-15

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

The Law brings about wrath.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]

Your posts 2 and 3 provide excellent contrast and is exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for "filling in the blanks" for me.

Does anyone still want to defend Paul's credibility in spite of him blatantly contradicting Scripture?

Or does anyone what to maintain their claim that the Bible is without major and fundamental contradiction?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]

Your posts 2 and 3 provide excellent contrast and is exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for "filling in the blanks" for me.

Does anyone still want to defend Paul's credibility in spite of him blatantly contradicting Scripture?

Or does anyone what to maintain their claim that the Bible is without major and fundamental contradiction?

The term "law" is not always indicative of the first five books of the Tanakh. Even the term Torah is not so specific. Though those terms commonly refer to the first five books of the Tanakh, they can also refer to what is known as the "Oral Torah" and rabbinics, based on context. As I hope you are aware by now, from my many posts, I think that Paul only discouraged the keeping of Torah for the sake of salvation. It is my view that, as is common rabbinic practice, the keeping of HaTorah requires not just following rules, but also seeking to understand them.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]

Your posts 2 and 3 provide excellent contrast and is exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for "filling in the blanks" for me.

Does anyone still want to defend Paul's credibility in spite of him blatantly contradicting Scripture?

Or does anyone what to maintain their claim that the Bible is without major and fundamental contradiction?

The term "law" is not always indicative of the first five books of the Tanakh. Even the term Torah is not so specific. Though those terms commonly refer to the first five books of the Tanakh, they can also refer to what is known as the "Oral Torah" and rabbinics, based on context.

I have heard the argument that Paul was only opposed to keeping the ritual purity and Ceremonial laws for the sake of salvation. Your's sounds like a similar argument. But Paul also seems to be saying that one cannot attain righteousness before God by keeping the big Ten. The moral Law.

As I hope you are aware by now, from my many posts, I think that Paul only discouraged the keeping of Torah for the sake of salvation. It is my view that, as is common rabbinic practice, the keeping of HaTorah requires not just following rules, but also seeking to understand them.

Yes, understanding them, and apprehending the Spirit of the Law, and not just the letter, as Yahshua taught. But remember, the Commandment to accept YHVH and have no God's before Him is a "Law" too. And salvation seems to depend on that one, at the very least. That is the foundation for the one's that follow.

And this, Mark 29-34:

29Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ 31“The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.� 32The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; 33AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE’S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.� 34When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.�

Those certainly seem to be Laws that pertain to salvation. And Yahshua also answered that to "inherit eternal life, keep the Commandments".

[ttruscott]

If the Law was only for the purpose of highlighting sin, and to demonstrate our need for a Savior as Paul suggests, why the constant expectation in the OT/Hebrew Bible that the Law should be kept?

How could it be otherwise??? No matter what the ultimate purpose of the law, it is good and should be kept until that purpose is fulfilled. The law was celebrated because it gave life through repentance.

If the law is such a be all and end all, why was there no law between Adam and Moses? Why did the Messiah not come with the law? Should modern Jews still keep the law in its entirety? Why are not all condemned since there is no temple and no sacrifice...Deuteronomy 27:26 'Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.' with Leviticus 17:11, “The life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.�

If repentance, prayer, and good deeds have supplanted the law and its sacrifices because GOD desires mercy not sacrifice, why is this not seen as a rebuke of the law? It is ok for Jews to ignore the perfect law but not for Christians to believe sacrifice was fulfilled in Christ? Secular Judaism with no law and no Messiah seems to have no rock to stand upon in the quicksand of personal opinion.

[bluethread]

The term "law" is not always indicative of the first five books of the Tanakh. Even the term Torah is not so specific. Though those terms commonly refer to the first five books of the Tanakh, they can also refer to what is known as the "Oral Torah" and rabbinics, based on context.

I have heard the argument that Paul was only opposed to keeping the ritual purity and Ceremonial laws for the sake of salvation. Your's sounds like a similar argument. But Paul also seems to be saying that one cannot attain righteousness before God by keeping the big Ten. The moral Law.

Well, I am not one of those who bifurcates HaTorah into "the moral law" and the Mosaic law" as the JW's do. I would be interested in seeing the passages hat you believe refer exclusively to "the big Ten", so I can consider them in detail.

Yes, understanding them, and apprehending the Spirit of the Law, and not just the letter, as Yahshua taught. But remember, the Commandment to accept YHVH and have no God's before Him is a "Law" too. And salvation seems to depend on that one, at the very least. That is the foundation for the one's that follow.

And this, Mark 29-34:

29Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ 31“The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.� 32The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; 33AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE’S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.� 34When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.�

Those certainly seem to be Laws that pertain to salvation. And Yahshua also answered that to "inherit eternal life, keep the Commandments".

Where do you get that final quote? The passage states, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.� I think the problem is in seeing the sole purpose of the written Torah is to highlight sin and nothing more. It begs the question, how should we then live. When Paul says, (Rom. 3:28) "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.", we need to recognize what the therefore is there for. This is one of a series of conclusions that are preceded by the prior argument. (Rom. 2:13-15) "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness . . ." This argument presents the hypothetical of keeping HaTorah.

It is not the observance of HaTorah that saves, that is a presumption. It is the intent that saves. That is why the Jerusalem Counsel concluded, after admonishing believers to avoid hot button issues, "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." It is presumed that,after one chooses to follow Yeshua, one would consult HaTorah regarding further details on how one should behave.

I know many like to pull specific verses or passages out of Paul's arguments to justify their preferred lifestyles. However, to do so is to pull the proverbial thread that unravels any argument regarding a consistent moral code.

[Elijah John]

The term "law" is not always indicative of the first five books of the Tanakh. Even the term Torah is not so specific. Though those terms commonly refer to the first five books of the Tanakh, they can also refer to what is known as the "Oral Torah" and rabbinics, based on context.

I have heard the argument that Paul was only opposed to keeping the ritual purity and Ceremonial laws for the sake of salvation. Your's sounds like a similar argument. But Paul also seems to be saying that one cannot attain righteousness before God by keeping the big Ten. The moral Law.

Well, I am not one of those who bifurcates HaTorah into "the moral law" and the Mosaic law" as the JW's do. I would be interested in seeing the passages hat you believe refer exclusively to "the big Ten", so I can consider them in detail

Yes, understanding them, and apprehending the Spirit of the Law, and not just the letter, as Yahshua taught. But remember, the Commandment to accept YHVH and have no God's before Him is a "Law" too. And salvation seems to depend on that one, at the very least. That is the foundation for the one's that follow.

And this, Mark 29-34:

29Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ 31“The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.� 32The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; 33AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE’S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.� 34When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.�

Those certainly seem to be Laws that pertain to salvation. And Yahshua also answered that to "inherit eternal life, keep the Commandments".

Where do you get that final quote? The passage states, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.�

Matthew 19.17

"if you want to enter into life, keep the Commandments

I think the problem is in seeing the sole purpose of the written Torah is to highlight sin and nothing more.

Right here, you are conflating the "written Torah, with the "Law" I never said that. I have not, nor even Paul has suggested that the sole purpose of the Torah was to highlight sin. Only the "Law" in Paul's eyes.

It begs the question, how should we then live. When Paul says, (Rom. 3:28) "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.", we need to recognize what the therefore is there for. This is one of a series of conclusions that are preceded by the prior argument. (Rom. 2:13-15) "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness . . ." This argument presents the hypothetical of keeping HaTorah.

It also contradicts Paul's assertion that by "works of the Law, no one can be justified".

But contradiction, and twisting of Hebrew Scriptures is not unusual for Paul.

It is not the observance of HaTorah that saves, that is a presumption. It is the intent that saves. That is why the Jerusalem Counsel concluded, after admonishing believers to avoid hot button issues, "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." It is presumed that,after one chooses to follow Yeshua, one would consult HaTorah regarding further details on how one should behave.

If you mean by "Yeshua" "YHVH", then yes, After one embraces YHVH and His ways, one should consult the Laws of the Torah to understand the practical application of Halachah. All applicable 613 if one is a Jew, the Ten and/or Noahide laws if one wants to embrace the Elohim of Israel as a Gentile. (Except for the Sabbath law, which is not binding on Gentiles.)

Remember, the first of the Commandments is to embrace YHVH alone as your Elohim, and the rest of the Law follows. The "Ten" are a package deal, and define what kind of a God YHVH is, namely an ethical one. Spirituality and ethics are solidly linked in the Ten Commandments. (the first three or four being the "Spiritual" ones.)

Remember, Yahshua himself taught that salvation is a path that one must walk. The "staight and narrow" way. That is Halachah.

Yes, intent, embracing YHVH and His ways "from the heart" as in the first and greatest of all Commandments, to love YHVH thy Elohim with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, THEN to love one's neighbor as oneself.

I know many like to pull specific verses or passages out of Paul's arguments to justify their preferred lifestyles. However, to do so is to pull the proverbial thread that unravels any argument regarding a consistent moral code.

Paul is not the end all and be all of the moral code. For that, I turn to the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Yahshua.

Here is a passage which may shed some more light on our discussion, from Taylor Marshall:

Nevertheless, Saint Paul includes the moral precepts (for example, “thou shalt not covet�) as belonging to the “works of the law� (Rom 7:6-8). Consequently, the Catholic Church has officially followed the interpretation of Saint Augustine, who taught that the phrase “works of the law� refers to the entire Law of Moses—to the moral precepts, to the ceremonial precepts, as well as to the judicial precepts. Augustine recognized the “works of the law� referred specifically to the ceremonial precepts in their Jewish context, but he also understood that the message extended to a general interpretation of “works.�

[bluethread]

Where do you get that final quote? The passage states, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.�

Matthew 19.17

"if you want to enter into life, keep the Commandments

Thank you, that is the basic answer to the question Yeshua was asked. If you want eternal life, keep the commandments. Yes, when pressed he gave the short form for the ten commandments. However, that two is short form for all of HaTorah(first five books and possibly more). That is correct, if you can do it. The Scriptures do say that is possible and the young man said he had done that. I have my doubts that he was correct, but Yeshua did not press that and neither do I. However, that is a high bar that Paul seems to believe was only attained by Yeshua. I tend to agree with Paul on that.

I think the problem is in seeing the sole purpose of the written Torah is to highlight sin and nothing more.

Right here, you are conflating the "written Torah, with the "Law" I never said that. I have not, nor even Paul has suggested that the sole purpose of the Torah was to highlight sin. Only the "Law" in Paul's eyes.

There is the rub. What is Paul talking about when he uses the term '"law". As is common in most rabbinics, it can refer to a wide range of things. One has to look at each usage in context to determine the scope that is intended.

It begs the question, how should we then live. When Paul says, (Rom. 3:28) "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.", we need to recognize what the therefore is there for. This is one of a series of conclusions that are preceded by the prior argument. (Rom. 2:13-15) "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness . . ." This argument presents the hypothetical of keeping HaTorah.

It also contradicts Paul's assertion that by "works of the Law, no one can be justified".

But contradiction, and twisting of Hebrew Scriptures is not unusual for Paul.

I would say that is because of the contradictory nature of human nature. In the letter to the Galatians, Paul is speaking to Peter's duplicity. "(W)hen I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Which illustrates the if you can do it argument. Sure, Yeshua gets a pass and can make the just keep the commandments argument, because he kept HaTorah. The rest of us, not so much.

It is not the observance of HaTorah that saves, that is a presumption. It is the intent that saves. That is why the Jerusalem Counsel concluded, after admonishing believers to avoid hot button issues, "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." It is presumed that,after one chooses to follow Yeshua, one would consult HaTorah regarding further details on how one should behave.

f you mean by "Yeshua" "YHVH", then yes, After one embraces YHVH and His ways, one should consult the Laws of the Torah to understand the practical application of Halachah. All applicable 613 if one is a Jew, the Ten and/or Noahide laws if one wants to embrace the Elohim of Israel as a Gentile. (Except for the Sabbath law, which is not binding on Gentiles.)

Remember, the first of the Commandments is to embrace YHVH alone as your Elohim, and the rest of the Law follows. The "Ten" are a package deal, and define what kind of a God YHVH is, namely an ethical one. Spirituality and ethics are solidly linked in the Ten Commandments. (the first three or four being the "Spiritual" ones.)

No, Yeshua and Yocav are saying that His followers should LIVE Torah observant lives. I do not buy the so called "Noahide laws". I find that to be contradictory of the one law principle one finds in HaTorah.

Remember, Yahshua himself taught that salvation is a path that one must walk. The "staight and narrow" way. That is Halachah.

Yes, intent, embracing YHVH and His ways "from the heart" as in the first and greatest of all Commandments, to love YHVH thy Elohim with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, THEN to love one's neighbor as oneself.

Yes, but what Paul is addressing is how one starts that walk? Must one be perfect before one is saved? If that is true, what is one being saved from? More directly to the cultural context of Paul's midrashim, must one undergo rabbinic circumcision in order to begin that walk. Can one just accept the teachings of Yeshua, which include a Torah submissive lifestyle, and "go learn", as Hillel says.

I know many like to pull specific verses or passages out of Paul's arguments to justify their preferred lifestyles. However, to do so is to pull the proverbial thread that unravels any argument regarding a consistent moral code.

Paul is not the end all and be all of the moral code. For that, I turn to the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Yahshua.

Here is a passage which may shed some more light on our discussion, from Taylor Marshall:

Nevertheless, Saint Paul includes the moral precepts (for example, “thou shalt not covet�) as belonging to the “works of the law� (Rom 7:6-8). Consequently, the Catholic Church has officially followed the interpretation of Saint Augustine, who taught that the phrase “works of the law� refers to the entire Law of Moses—to the moral precepts, to the ceremonial precepts, as well as to the judicial precepts. Augustine recognized the “works of the law� referred specifically to the ceremonial precepts in their Jewish context, but he also understood that the message extended to a general interpretation of “works.�

Yes, I agree with Augustine, in what you have quoted. However, I do not agree with the RCC in the doctrine of HaTorah no longer applying to Yeshua's followers. Paul is not the be all and end all. However, I do think his is the best and most complete explanation circumcision, i.e. the seminal event in the life of a believer. That controversy is the thread that runs through nearly all of Paul's writings. When one pulls that thread out, then it can very well look like Paul is saying that one need not keep the commandments. However, as I said before, then all Scriptural morality unravels.