Mosaic Law

[srferdave]

Im confused. In Ephesians 2:14-16 it says

For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh,
**abolishing the law** with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace,
and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it

I am fairly certain that when he says “abolishing the law” he is referring to the mosaic law. But didn’t the mosaic law include the 10 commandments. We still use the 10 commandments today. So if this isn’t referring to the 10 commandments, can someone explain to me why?

 

[JeanneH]

Im confused. In Ephesians 2:14-16 it says

For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh,
abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace,
and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it

I am fairly certain that when he says “abolishing the law” he is referring to the mosaic law. But didn’t the mosaic law include the 10 commandments. We still use the 10 commandments today. So if this isn’t referring to the 10 commandments, can someone explain to me why?

I don’t know about that. But Jesus came to fulfil the law and He also gave us two new ones. To Love God above all things and love our neighbors as ourselves. If we do that it would encompass all of the 10 commandments.

Jeanne

 

[eric_sammons]

In Paul’s letters, when he refers to the “law,” he almost always means the ceremonial works such as circumcision, food laws and calendar laws. This was the crux of his debate with the Judaizers - those who believed that Christians must also adhere to the full ceremonial Law in order to remain in the covenant. Paul, on the other hand, taught that those ceremonial works were unnecessary for justification. Never, however, does Paul discount the importance of the moral law (on the contrary, he often emphasizes that one who lives “in Christ” must live out that new life by adhering to a strict moral life).

For example, in Romans 3:28, Paul writes, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” He is referring specifically to the ceremonial rituals here, not the moral law associated with the Mosaic law. Likewise, in Ephesians 2:14-16, Paul is saying that those works such as circumcision have no value now that Christ has come.

 

[Fidelis]

The reason the ritual and dietary laws could be abrogated but not the moral laws (like the ten commandments) is because the written moral law is based on the unwritten natural laws that are eternal and placed in the hearts of all men by God.

To get a good idea of this, read Wisdom 13 and Romans 1–2.

 

[Pwrlftr]

In Paul’s letters, when he refers to the “law,” he almost always means the ceremonial works such as circumcision, food laws and calendar laws. This was the crux of his debate with the Judaizers - those who believed that Christians must also adhere to the full ceremonial Law in order to remain in the covenant. Paul, on the other hand, taught that those ceremonial works were unnecessary for justification. Never, however, does Paul discount the importance of the moral law (on the contrary, he often emphasizes that one who lives “in Christ” must live out that new life by adhering to a strict moral life).

For example, in Romans 3:28, Paul writes, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” He is referring specifically to the ceremonial rituals here, not the moral law associated with the Mosaic law. Likewise, in Ephesians 2:14-16, Paul is saying that those works such as circumcision have no value now that Christ has come.

Pauls point in Romans is that trying to justify yourself on the law instead of grace is pointless because you would have to keep the whole law perfectly…which as we know is impossible. Paul consistently uses “works of the law” to represent not only the ceremonial law but also natural law and the moral law (decalogue).

See the following link which discusses this topic thoroughly:

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/justification/works1.htm

 

[eric_sammons]

Pauls point in Romans is that trying to justify yourself on the law instead of grace is pointless because you would have to keep the whole law perfectly…which as we know is impossible. Paul consistently uses “works of the law” to represent not only the ceremonial law but also natural law and the moral law (decalogue).

I don’t believe that is correct. In fact, that was Martin Luther’s mistake; he transplanted his own scruples about being unable to feel justified by following the moral law to Paul. But Paul himself never had this issue. Jews of Paul’s time did not try to justify themselves by trying to keep the whole law; that has been a mistaken belief for almost 500 years. Instead, they believed that a Jew kept themselves in the covenant (i.e. they were “justified” before God) by following all the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant, such as circumcision. They knew that keeping the moral law perfectly was impossible - that is not a novel insight of Paul’s. But this Jewish conception of justification is what the Judaizers were trying to attach to the Gospel, and Paul would have none of it - he knew that it was by faith in Christ (working through love - Galatians 5:6) that one is justified before God. And grace through faith transforms a person into a new creature who now is able to keep the whole moral law.

Scott Hahn does a good job of explaining this briefly in the following discussion with Fr. Mitch Pacwa:

catholicipod.stblogs.com/2008/08/26/scott-hahn-the-year-of-st-paul-mp3/

 

[Fidelis]

Paul consistently uses “works of the law” to represent not only the ceremonial law but also natural law and the moral law (decalogue).

I disagree with this as well.

“Works of the Law” (ergon nomos) was, according to scholars, sort of a standard phrase in the Judaism of Jesus’ and Paul’s day that referred to the minimum standard for being a Jew, i.e…, table fellowship, circumcision, and dietary rules.

The notion that first century Jews were trying to save themselves by furiously keeping the 613 Levitical Laws and by doing good deeds has been shown (even by Protestant biblical scholars like N.T. Wright) to be an error of Protestant Reformation biblical interpretation.

Infrequently, Paul will use the phrase “good works” or “works” to refer to either keeping the ritual Law or the moral law, but he never uses “works of the Law” to refer to keeping the moral law.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I disagree with this as well.

“Works of the Law” (ergon nomos) was, according to scholars, sort of a standard phrase in the Judaism of Jesus’ and Paul’s day that referred to the minimum standard for being a Jew, i.e…, table fellowship, circumcision, and dietary rules.

The notion that first century Jews were trying to save themselves by furiously keeping the 613 Levitical Laws and by doing good deeds has been shown (even by Protestant biblical scholars like N.T. Wright) to be an error of Protestant Reformation biblical interpretation.

Infrequently, Paul will use the phrase “good works” or “works” to refer to either keeping the ritual Law or the moral law, but he never uses “works of the Law” to refer to keeping the moral law.

Paul contrasts two systems in Romans, one of grace and one of law. Paul doesn’t limit the “law” to only the ceremonial aspects of Jewish teaching in Romans or anywhere else.

For example:
Romans 2:17-23.

17 But if you bear the name "Jew " and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?

The law in the above verses clearly goes back to the decalogue. No one can be justified by a system of law be it moral or ceremonial. Take a look at the article by Sungenis and let me kno what you think.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I don’t believe that is correct. In fact, that was Martin Luther’s mistake; he transplanted his own scruples about being unable to feel justified by following the moral law to Paul. But Paul himself never had this issue.

I don’t know what you mean here. Surely you don’t think anyone can be justified by the law do you, be it any system of law (moral or ceremonial)?

Jews of Paul’s time did not try to justify themselves by trying to keep the whole law; that has been a mistaken belief for almost 500 years.

Again, I may not be understanding you.

Romans 9:31-32:
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone…"

And grace through faith transforms a person into a new creature who now is able to keep the whole moral law.

Can you keep the moral law? I can’t. I wish I could but I haven’t been able to keep it perfectly for any length of time. Fortunately our justification is not based on keeping the law perfectly.

Scott Hahn does a good job of explaining this briefly in the following discussion with Fr. Mitch Pacwa:

catholicipod.stblogs.com/2008/08/26/scott-hahn-the-year-of-st-paul-mp3/

Thanks for the link. I’ll take a look at it later today.

Have you had a chance to review what Sungenis has to say on this?

 

[Valke2]

My issue is that Judaism never required adherence to all the laws in order to ensure salvation. At a minimum there was a discussion within the tradition on this issue and there was room within Judaism for various answers.

 

[Pwrlftr]

My issue is that Judaism never required adherence to all the laws in order to ensure salvation. At a minimum there was a discussion within the tradition on this issue and there was room within Judaism for various answers.

Hello Valke,

I have recently read several books written by Jews defending their faith and I must say that what I have read is quite an eye opener. The latest one I am working my way through is by David Klinghoffer “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”. It would appear that what I learned previously on this subject may not be entirely accurate.

As an interesting side note. There is a family in our neighborhood that is a Noachide family. They have rejected Christianity and live by the 7 Laws of Noah but aren’t converting to Judaism. Don’t know why I through this in the post but I had never heard of such a thing before.

 

[Valke2]

Hello Valke,

I have recently read several books written by Jews defending their faith and I must say that what I have read is quite an eye opener. The latest one I am working my way through is by David Klinghoffer “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”. It would appear that what I learned previously on this subject may not be entirely accurate.

As an interesting side note. There is a family in our neighborhood that is a Noachide family. They have rejected Christianity and live by the 7 Laws of Noah but aren’t converting to Judaism. Don’t know why I through this in the post but I had never heard of such a thing before.

I really enjoyed Klinghoffer’s book. I picked it up on a lark in a bookstore and now I keep running across people who have read it.

Merry Christmas to you (and everyone)

 

[Fidelis]

Paul contrasts two systems in Romans, one of grace and one of law. Paul doesn’t limit the “law” to only the ceremonial aspects of Jewish teaching in Romans or anywhere else

In fact, as I explained above and as many scholars point out, he often (and usually) does, especially when he uses the stock-phrase “works of the law.”

Take a look at the article by Sungenis and let me know what you think.

I have read just about everything Sungenis has written and have listened to his major talks on soteriology. I admire him greatly, but I don’t think he’s taken recent scholarship into account on this.

May I recommend you read some of NT Wright’s writings or those of James D.G. Dunnn on this subject?

thepaulpage.com/New.html

.

 

[Pwrlftr]

In fact, as I explained above and as many scholars point out, he often (and usually) does, especially when he uses the stock-phrase “works of the law.”

I have read just about everything Sungenis has written and have listened to his major talks on soteriology. I admire him greatly, but I don’t think he’s taken recent scholarship into account on this.

May I recommend you read some of NT Wright’s writings or those of James D.G. Dunnn on this subject?

thepaulpage.com/New.html

.

I have one of NT Wright’s books now that deals with the ressurection. So far so good…it’s kind of long though. I like 'em short and w/ plenty of pictures.

I’ll take look at the book you are recommending and might add it to my reading list.

Thanks.

 

[eric_sammons]

I don’t know what you mean here. Surely you don’t think anyone can be justified by the law do you, be it any system of law (moral or ceremonial)?

My apologies for being unclear. What I mean is that Martin Luther was distraught because he could not keep the moral law, and therefore did not feel “justified.” He came to believe that this was Paul’s problem as well, and the Catholic Church of his day, with its emphasis on works (in his view), came to be equated with 1st century Judaism. However, this is a misinterpretation of Paul’s issue - Paul did not have terrible scruples as a Jew that he was not justified before God, like Luther did before he left the Church.

Paul did not convert away from Judaism as much as he converted to Christ. He was not overwrought before his conversion that he was not justified. Luther was incorrect to push his own problems on Paul and then re-interpret all of Paul’s teachings in that light.

Can you keep the moral law? I can’t. I wish I could but I haven’t been able to keep it perfectly for any length of time. Fortunately our justification is not based on keeping the law perfectly.

I have not kept the moral law, but through baptism and the sacraments I have been given the grace to do so. It is my own rejection of that grace that is the issue, not the power of the grace itself.

Luther didn’t believe that one could keep the moral law, even with the grace of Christ. We are merely imputed Christ’s righteousness. Paul, however, said that we become the righteousness of God. We are transformed and are now able to keep the law. The fact that we don’t is due to our own rejection of grace, not due to the inability of God to make us holy.

Through Christ, God transforms us so that we can actually keep the moral law, and even more than that, we can become the likeness of His Son. This is a true transformation of the whole person, and it really can happen. For most of us, it takes years, and requires purgatory to complete it, but it really does happen.

Have you had a chance to review what Sungenis has to say on this?

I did, and I agree with the person who stated that Sungenis has not kept up with recent scholarship on this matter. I believe he is still reading Paul in light of Reformation-era debates, not in their original context. The writings of E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright are especially helpful on this topic.

 

[Pwrlftr]

My apologies for being unclear. What I mean is that Martin Luther was distraught because he could not keep the moral law, and therefore did not feel “justified.” He came to believe that this was Paul’s problem as well, and the Catholic Church of his day, with its emphasis on works (in his view), came to be equated with 1st century Judaism. However, this is a misinterpretation of Paul’s issue - Paul did not have terrible scruples as a Jew that he was not justified before God, like Luther did before he left the Church.

Paul did not convert away from Judaism as much as he converted to Christ. He was not overwrought before his conversion that he was not justified. Luther was incorrect to push his own problems on Paul and then re-interpret all of Paul’s teachings in that light.

I have not kept the moral law, but through baptism and the sacraments I have been given the grace to do so. It is my own rejection of that grace that is the issue, not the power of the grace itself.

Luther didn’t believe that one could keep the moral law, even with the grace of Christ. We are merely imputed Christ’s righteousness. Paul, however, said that we become the righteousness of God. We are transformed and are now able to keep the law. The fact that we don’t is due to our own rejection of grace, not due to the inability of God to make us holy.

Through Christ, God transforms us so that we can actually keep the moral law, and even more than that, we can become the likeness of His Son. This is a true transformation of the whole person, and it really can happen. For most of us, it takes years, and requires purgatory to complete it, but it really does happen.

I did, and I agree with the person who stated that Sungenis has not kept up with recent scholarship on this matter. I believe he is still reading Paul in light of Reformation-era debates, not in their original context. The writings of E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright are especially helpful on this topic.

Thanks for your post. I am not familiar w/ EP Sanders at all but as I mentioned before, I have one of NT Wrights books…maybe I will have to read a little more into this.

 

[Fidelis]

Good post, Eric.

 

[BrianH]

Hello Valke,

I have recently read several books written by Jews defending their faith and I must say that what I have read is quite an eye opener. The latest one I am working my way through is by David Klinghoffer “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”. It would appear that what I learned previously on this subject may not be entirely accurate.

As an interesting side note. There is a family in our neighborhood that is a Noachide family. They have rejected Christianity and live by the 7 Laws of Noah but aren’t converting to Judaism. Don’t know why I through this in the post but I had never heard of such a thing before.

An intense book. I love the Old Testament. The stories, people, places, and history. I went to several classes offered by the local Rabbi.
I also spent time on the Jews for Judaism site as well. A different perspective…

 

[srferdave]

Thanks for everyones response. The part I am confused about is it says “… abolishing the law WITH its commandments …”.

How is that interpreted NOT to mean the 10 commandments?

 

[John7]

Thanks for everyones response. The part I am confused about is it says “… abolishing the law WITH its commandments …”.

How is that interpreted NOT to mean the 10 commandments?

Don’t know if this is correct but

The enmity in his flesh
even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances
**having abolished **
for of two (Gentiles and Jews)
to make in himself
into one new man so making peace

The way I read this verse is that its the enmity that has been abolished at cross, the enmity that came about between these two groups (see 2:11-2:13) because of ‘the law of commandments’. I don’t think he means that the eg moral law is abolished but the enmity that the law creates between Jews and Gentiles (those who keep the law versus those who don’t) is abolished so as to make ‘one new man’ (neither Jew nor Gentile). I don’t know, that’s how I’ve read it.