Corpus-Paul

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Title: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?

Dear Mark,

> >> What was the telos of Paul
> writing such obsolete things, when the covenant
> >> with Moses had "ended" and "loses its
> function" several years before the
> >> letter to Rome was penned? Who was he trying to kid?
> >
> > HH: The Abrahamic covenant was of a different
> > nature than the Mosaic covenant, promise versus
> > law. The Book of Hebrews says that the Mosaic
> > covenant is obsolete:
> >
> > Heb. 8:13 ¶ By calling this covenant "new," he
> > has made the first one obsolete; and what is
> > obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
> >
> > HH: There is nothing wrong in people living
> > according to it, but it is not a
> requirement.

> I have no idea what your reply has to do
> with what you have cited from my
> post.

HH: You were saying that the Abrahamic covenant still had validity while the Mosaic covenant was in force, so why shouldn't the Mosaic covenant still have validity while the new covenant is in force. I responded that the nature of the Mosaic covenant as law was different from the nature of the Abrahamic covenant as promise, and that might explain how the Mosaic covenant of law could have been ready to disappear while the Abrahamic covenant never disappeared.

>  Nor do I have any idea what a quote
> from Hebrews is supposed to mean
> in a discussion of Paul's
> views.

HH: We do not do exegesis of Paul's writings in a vacuum but as part of the canon of Scripture. It takes all of God's word to get a full picture of what God has done and is doing, as I'm sure you agree. And the letter to the Hebrews speaks specifically to the issue of the status of the Mosaic covenant. When you suggest a certain status for the Mosaic covenant, you are not doing strictly Pauline theology but NT theology.

>  I do know that this covenant has
> not "soon
> disappear[ed]," so I suppose that one might say the writer of
> Hebrews was
> wrong on that point.

HH: The letter of Hebrews is part of Scripture, which comes from God, so I am sure he was not mistaken about what he said. A better argument on your part might be to say that on God's timetable perhaps two thousands years is "soon," and that the Mosaic covenant is not obsolete yet.

>  Nice that you condescend to permit
> other people to
> observe something;

HH: It is not a matter of personal condescension but of what Scripture teaches. We are to teach what Scripture teaches. Obviously, the Book of Acts shows that it was perfectly permissible for Jewish Christians to observe the Mosaic law. Yet the NT as a whole shows that this was not a matter of requirement for any Christian then, nor is it now.

>  however, I cannot remember that I
> suggested any non-Jew
> should observe it, much less that it was
> "a requirement."

HH: I was speaking about Jewish people. No one said that you suggested non-Jews should observe the Mosaic law. I am saying that it is fine for Jewish Christians to live by the Mosaic law if they so choose, but it is not a requirement for them according to the NT.

>  If you just have
> verses to cite without understanding that they require
> interpretation
> (forget that they are not about Paul), and that a challenge on
> particulars
> requires some kind of response on the points made by the discussion
> partner
> or what results is not a discussion, you can save us both the
> bother.

HH: I keep getting in trouble with this discussion group by presenting verses on a topic that I find self-evident in meaning. I'm sorry if others do not find them to be so. But I did give a comment. If a covenant is obsolete, then there is obviously no requirement to live by it. You can say that you don't agree with the NIV translation, so here is the HCSB:

Heb 8:13: By saying a new [covenant], He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging is ready to disappear.

HH: We live under the new covenant, not the old. Paul is clear about that:

2Cor. 3:6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

2Cor. 3:7 ¶ Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was,
2Cor. 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?
2Cor. 3:9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
2Cor. 3:10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.

2Cor. 3:11 And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

HH: The old covenant was fading away in Paul's day, and it had no glory (v. 10) in comparison to the surpassing glory of the new covenant. The old covenant was comparatively ineffective at producing the goal of inner righteousness that God seeks:

Jer. 31:31  "The time is coming," declares the LORD,  "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
Jer. 31:32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Jer. 31:33  "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD.  "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

HH: This is the evidence that the writer of Hebrews cites (Heb 8:8-12) in explaining why God inaugurated the new covenant in Christ that made the old one now ready to disappear. That new one is the covenant in effect now, so Jewish people, just like everybody else, need to understand that. God commands all men to repent and trust in Christ. Paul felt that Jewish people needed to hear this news and that those who rejected it would perish:

Rom. 10:1 ¶ Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
Rom. 10:2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
Rom. 10:3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

Rom. 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

HH: These words have to be understood together with the earlier ones in Rom 9:1-3, which show Paul's great sorrow over the spiritual condition of his fellow countrymen who were rejecting Christ, and which communicate his desire to be cursed in separation from Christ if it could do any good for them. So the matter of rejecting Christ was deadly serious. God's solution for the world is Christ. You believe this, so you should want others to believe it. Perhaps you think that Gentiles, tactically speaking, are not suitable messengers to the Jewish community today, but Gentiles do lead Jewish people to Christ. However, if Jewish Christians were the only messengers, that would be fine as long as someone told the rest of the Jewish people.

                                        Yours,

                                        Harold Holmyard

 

                                       

> Regards,
> Mark
> --
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> Rockhurst University
> Co-Moderator
> http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/
>
>
> on 1/16/05 2:14 PM, Harold R. Holmyard III at hholmyard AT ont.com
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Mark,
> >
> >> What was the telos of Paul
> writing such obsolete things, when the covenant
> >> with Moses had "ended" and "loses its
> function" several years before the
> >> letter to Rome was penned? Who was he trying to kid?
> >
> > HH: The Abrahamic covenant was of a different
> > nature than the Mosaic covenant, promise versus
> > law. The Book of Hebrews says that the Mosaic
> > covenant is obsolete:
> >
> > Heb. 8:13 ¶ By calling this covenant "new," he
> > has made the first one obsolete; and what is
> > obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
> >
> > HH: There is nothing wrong in people living
> > according to it, but it is not a requirement.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Harold Holmyard
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Corpus-Paul mailing list
> > Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul