Jesus is the law

[Guest]

Please understand Romans 13:8
" Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

It is very clear that love is the fulfillment of the law. We believers in Christ are the one who perform the action of love. We perform the action of love because it is the command of Christ to love therefore when we obey the command of Christ to love we also have fulfilled the law through our love because Paul said our love fulfills the law.



Exactly, and Christ said that loving God and neighbor as thyself fulfills the law and in Matt 23.23 he called "justice,mercy and faithfulness the weightier parts of the law.
So Christ himself as the representative of mankind in the eyes of God fulfilled the law perfectly and if we are "in Him" so have we.
And part of being "in Him" means believing and following Him and his Words.

[Guest]

Hello, Homer,

Thank you for your response.

I'm not going to say you are wrong in your conclusion, but I'm not sure you are completely right regarding the law. The article "the" would seem to indicate a (system of) law in particular rather law(s) in a general sense.

There is a definite article in the passage, yes, but in Greek usage of the definite article is somewhat fluid and not necessarily indicative in the same way that it is in English. It can reference a general abstract concept, e.g., law in a general sense.

Also, it may be worth noting that "decrees" is plural in the Greek text. If Paul were referring to "the law" as in other circumstances, one might expect him to use nomos in the singular; instead we have dogma in the plural. Looking at the usage of dogma in the New Testament, when it is used clearly it refers not to the Law as a whole, but rather to the decrees of men (viz., Caesar and the apostles). There is one less clear circumstance, but the usage there might be understood in the same way.

That the Law of Moses was in Paul's mind seems to be indicated by his references to circumcision, and being judged about particular food and drink, festival, new moon, and sabbaths, vs 13-17.

I'm not sure that Paul's discussion of circumcision interfaces with his argument in the same way as his comments on foods/holydays. His mention of circumcision may be to emphasize the Gentile Christian's departure from the taxonomy of Gentile authorities, into the chain of authority under Jesus' covenant.

But either way, Paul's point is not to feel beholden to the judgments of mere men. When he speaks of judgment concerning foods and holydays, he tells his audience not to let men judge them; this is part of his broader theme, where he addresses human traditions and vain philosophy. Certainly, in Paul's context, the human traditions and judgments pressing on some Christians' minds would have included interpretations about how to keep kashrut and celebrate the holydays. But such secondary interpretations are not equivalent to the Law itself.

When Paul encourages his audience not to be concerned by the judgments of other men on these issues, it is because he places the authority of Jesus to make such judgments over and against these other verdicts. So his statement on the foods and holydays would not mean that Christians are not accountable to the Law at all, but rather that they are accountable to the judgment of Jesus concerning the Law.

Thank you again for your response, Homer.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Paul,

Thank you for your response.

Regarding your reference to Romans 13: reductionism is a common enough element to Christian thought. And yet it is perilous stuff.

What is the fruit of such an argument? Is it to be imagined that one can fulfill the law against adultery while sleeping with one's neighbor's wife? Or to fulfill the law against murder when poisoning one's husband's mistress? Or to fulfill the law against stealing when burgling an engagement ring for one's prospective fiancee? Or to fulfill the law against false witness by lying in court to protect one's child? Or to fulfill the law against covetousness while pining for one's neighbor's spouse?

All such things could be appealed to love, but all would be a betrayal of the laws in question - and, in actuality, a betrayal of love itself. Instead, it must be realized that love is rightly determined by the Law, in the broader service of love itself. One cannot fulfill love while being in violation of the Law. As such, rather than saying "one who loves has fulfilled the Law," one should say "one who loves fully will take care to fulfill the Law."

It is very clear that love is the fulfillment of the law. We believers in Christ are the one who perform the action of love. We perform the action of love because it is the command of Christ to love therefore when we obey the command of Christ to love we also have fulfilled the law through our love because Paul said our love fulfills the law.

This is a splendid example of the kind of algebraic theology that Christians indulge in, but it is fuzzy math. One might say, "Driving safely is the fulfillment of traffic law; therefore, when I drive safely I have fulfilled the traffic law." This is patently untrue, because I easily can surpass the speed limit on an open highway while still driving safely. Yet such is not a fulfillment of the traffic law, but a violation of it - and I can be punished accordingly.

If a Christian loves, he may be fulfilling the law of Christ, but this is not necessarily the same thing as fulfilling the Law. Christians should be satisfied with claiming what is theirs, rather than trying to possess that which they simultaneously reject.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your response.

...Christ said that loving God and neighbor as thyself fulfills the law...

Your citation here is muddled. Who said what? And did anybody say we are to love God as ourselves?

Paul speaks of loving neighbor, but does not introduce loving God in that context. Jesus speaks of the two great commandments, but does not speak of their fulfilling the Law.

...and in Matt 23.23 he called "justice,mercy and faithfulness the weightier parts of the law.

But do not neglect the entire verse:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others [emphasis added].

The verse clearly is not advocating for allowing some matters of the Law to eclipse others.

So Christ himself as the representative of mankind in the eyes of God fulfilled the law perfectly and if we are "in Him" so have we.

Faithfulness cannot be fulfilled vicariously: each person must be faithful for themselves. This is, in part, because the character of the world to come depends upon the faithful choices of each person who shares in it. If Jesus was faithful, that would suffice only for his own inclusion in the world to come. Although others could be encouraged by his example, they could never ride on his coattails, because God would know who they truly were in their hearts - whether they themselves were faithful or not.

And part of being "in Him" means believing and following Him and his Words.

Even words such as "whoever has relaxed one of the least of these commandments and taught others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever has done them and taught them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven," and "these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others"?

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Even words such as "whoever has relaxed one of the least of these commandments and taught others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever has done them and taught them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven," and "these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others"?

Hi Emmet, IMHO "these commandments" are not referring to the Law of Moses but to the commands of Christ in Matt 5-7 and throughout the NT. I don't think Christ needed to give a discourse on the Mosiac law and repeat the same type of instructions that the Priests recited.
My previous citation on "Love God and your neighbor as yourself" was Matt 22.37 and then Jesus said "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Re vicarious abiding in Jesus , i take note of your response but as we know this depends on who Jesus really is. If He is the Son of God then His coming to earth to live among us carries a great deal more weight then His perfect life and atonement only counting for himself.
It comes down to the question Jesus asked "Who do you say that I am?"

[Guest]

Hi Emmett,

rather than saying "one who loves has fulfilled the Law," one should say "one who loves fully will take care to fulfill the Law

You are willing to rewrite what Paul have already said in order to fit your own view and it seems to me that you don't treat New testament with the same authority as the Old testament.

If a Christian loves, he may be fulfilling the law of Christ, but this is not necessarily the same thing as fulfilling the Law. Christians should be satisfied with claiming what is theirs, rather than trying to possess that which they simultaneously reject.

Again Paul did not say we maybe fulfilling the law when we love. He said that we fulfilled the law when we love for love fulfills the law.

This is a splendid example of the kind of algebraic theology that Christians indulge in, but it is fuzzy math

.
The truth is Paul uses the same style of writing.

All such things could be appealed to love, but all would be a betrayal of the laws in question - and, in actuality, a betrayal of love itself. Instead, it must be realized that love is rightly determined by the Law, in the broader service of love itself. One cannot fulfill love while being in violation of the Law. As such, rather than saying "one who loves has fulfilled the Law," one should say "one who loves fully will take care to fulfill the Law."

Well this is not what Jesus and Paul is teaching. What they are teaching is that love fulfills the law which means that love is greater than the law. What you are saying is that law is equal with love or law is greater than love.Your view is exactly the opposite of Christ's teachings.

Regarding your reference to Romans 13: reductionism is a common enough element to Christian thought. And yet it is perilous stuff

It is not reductionism rather I call it Logic.

[Guest]

Emmet,

You said:

If Jesus was faithful, that would suffice only for his own inclusion in the world to come.

This is an assertion. Where are your substantiating facts? Perhaps if you inform us of your facts we can discuss them.

Thanks in advance.

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your response. I am glad to hear from you.

...IMHO "these commandments" are not referring to the Law of Moses but to the commands of Christ in Matt 5-7 and throughout the NT. I don't think Christ needed to give a discourse on the Mosiac law and repeat the same type of instructions that the Priests recited.

John Chrysostom used this argument sixteen centuries ago, but it is tendentious and violates the natural flow of thought in the passage. When the text states "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments..." [v.19a], Jesus has just set the context for his comment by referring to the most minor aspects of the Torah [v. 18].

Jesus (and/or Matthew) needed to comment on the Mosaic Law to lay the foundation for his further teaching. Jesus then supplements the Law with his own teachings, but thereafter it is not necessary (or desirable) for him to reinvent the wheel.

Failure to recognize that the Law forms such a foundation has led to distortion in Christian thought. For example, it has been observed that Jesus offers only an ethic for the disenfranchised, and that he offers no paradigm for how people in power should act. It would be impracticable (and erroneous) to insist that a government should turn the other cheek, or that it should not judge. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus already endorses a paradigm for how people in power should act: the Torah lays out patterns and standards for such circumstances.

My previous citation on "Love God and your neighbor as yourself" was Matt 22.37 and then Jesus said "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Such a statement is not equivalent to stating that these two commandments fulfill all the others - only that they are conceptual linchpins.

Re vicarious abiding in Jesus , i take note of your response but as we know this depends on who Jesus really is. If He is the Son of God then His coming to earth to live among us carries a great deal more weight then His perfect life and atonement only counting for himself.
It comes down to the question Jesus asked "Who do you say that I am?"

When it comes to vicarious atonement, it doesn't matter who Jesus really is. What matters is who he really isn't. He really isn't you; he really isn't me; he really isn't Penelope.

Jesus' being perfect does not make you perfect; Jesus' being faithful does not make you faithful; Jesus' being at peace with God does not make you at peace with God. God knows who and what you are; he is not deceived.

And when God executes justice, he is not bribed. He will not overlook the true state of affairs for the blood of bulls or goats, or for the blood of a perfect man, or for for the blood of a god, or for sweet chocolates from Godiva (not even kosher ones).

What God does require is a true willingness to be faithful to him and to his ways. Without this, the world to come will soon enough degenerate into the fallenness of the present one. With this, the perfection of the world is fully attainable.

No one can have this willingness for us by proxy. No one can gloss over our unwillingness. As a matter of practical requirement, the destiny of the world requires that God judge us in the stark reality of who we truly are, without legal fiction or economic exchange.


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Paul,

Thank you for your response.

You are willing to rewrite what Paul have already said in order to fit your own view and it seems to me that you don't treat New testament with the same authority as the Old testament.

Nice bold letters. I am Jewish. So, naturally.

Again Paul did not say we maybe fulfilling the law when we love. He said that we fulfilled the law when we love for love fulfills the law.

Paul said.

The truth is Paul uses the same style of writing.

Makes sense. The apple doesn't rot far from the tree.

Well this is not what Jesus and Paul is teaching. What they are teaching is that love fulfills the law which means that love is greater than the law. What you are saying is that law is equal with love or law is greater than love.

I made my statement about the relationship between the Law and love very carefully the first time. Love and the Law cannot be divorced; both flow from the heart of the same Giver. Neither violates or eclipses the other.

Your view is exactly the opposite of Christ's teachings.

Care to substantiate that from the teachings of Jesus?

It is not reductionism rather I call it Logic.

To paraphrase Martin Luther, logic is a whore. And false logic is a whore with syphilis.


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Homer,

Thank you for your response.

Quote: If Jesus was faithful, that would suffice only for his own inclusion in the world to come.

This is an assertion. Where are your substantiating facts? Perhaps if you inform us of your facts we can discuss them.

The substantiation is present in my previous sentence: Faithfulness cannot be fulfilled vicariously: each person must be faithful for themselves. This is, in part, because the character of the world to come depends upon the faithful choices of each person who shares in it. But I am sorry if I was too spare in stating my argument. Let me try again.

Human beings have individual will and the capacity to either choose or reject God's design. The world to come depends upon the faithful fulfillment of God's design; elsewise, the world to come will simply descend into the same state of degeneration as the present world. Accordingly, God can only admit into the world to come those persons who will exercise their individual choice in a way that faithfully fulfills God's design.

If Jesus was faithful, then he would be a trustworthy person to admit into the world to come. But his trustworthiness could not eclipse the untrustworthiness of another person. Neither Jesus nor Moses nor God himself will make another person's choice for them, to be faithful or not; that choice is something each person must do for themselves. And in the end, God will know who is essentially trustworthy and who is not, and he will do what is necessary to properly sieve the citizenry of his new kingdom.


Shalom,
Emmet