[Mr. Schwandt]

The traditional approach to the law looks at different applications of the law.

The reformers and Westminster devines acknowledged these uses of the law where effective in the OT and the NT.
1) Civil
2) Pedagogical
3) Moral

Paul looks at two other uses at the end of chapter 2 through chapter 3.
4) Justifier
5) Tutor (ceremonial)

Paul argues in 2:21 that the law did not justify in the OT and doesn't in NT.
Paul argues in 3:20ff that the law was effective as a tutor in the OT but not in the NT. The removal of effectiveness distinguishes #2 from #5. In #2 the law is used by our conscience in the process of sanctification as taught by the Westminster devines. In #5 the temple customs which looked forward to Christ, guiding and protecting the Jew from idolatry, would distort the truth after the advent of Christ. Therefore they were abrogated.

This is covenant theology. The other historical position is a stronger understanding of Paul's teaching in 3:20ff which abrogates the entire law (not just ceremonial) in the covenant system. This is dispensationalism and there are many varieties, but they all hold this in common. This is why M. Kline's theology is dispensational. Although he and his followers may claim to be covenantal they see no binding power of the Mosaic law in this church age. I find this a serious error (given NT affirmations of the law) and a distortion of traditional covenantal thought.

[Hana Griffith]

Mr. Schwandt,

Thanks for trying to answer my questions in recitation today. Perhaps it really is those dispensational roots coming back to haunt me, but i'm still having a hard time seeing how it is possible to divide the law into moral and civil (which according to you we are under) and ceremonial (which according to you we are no longer under). In the Mosaic law these catergories are not so clean cut as we might like them to be. What makes us think that we should be distinguishing between them at all? Is it even possible (ultimately) to do so?

cheers,

carisbud

[Klaas]

Like Hannah I don't see these distinctions are made in the Bible itself.
I even see that Jesus states Matthew 5:17-19 in order to make clear one should not think parts of the Law would be regarded as abolished.

17 μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας• οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. 18 ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. 19 ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν• ὃς δ’ ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ, οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν.

And I see indications in
- Mat. 7: 22 πολλοὶ ἐροῦσίν μοι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, Κύριε κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐπροφητεύσαμεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δυνάμεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαμεν; 23 καὶ τότε ὁμολογήσω αὐτοῖς ὅτι Οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς• ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν.

- 2 Cor 6: 14 Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις• τίς γὰρ μετοχὴ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀνομίᾳ; τίς δὲ κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος;

- I John 3: 4 Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία.
_________________
כח גַּם אֱוִיל מַחֲרִישׁ, חָכָם יֵחָשֵׁב
(משלי פרק יז)

[DHall]

Surely in Romans 6:14 it says we are not under the law but under grace...

...and Galatians 4 explains that law and grace cannot co-exist. The example of Abraham's wives and their children are used as an explanation. Hagar's child was symbolic of the bondage the law brought men under but Sarah's child was the child of promise.
_________________
There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.

[Klaas]

We're not 'under the law, but under the grace': but that doesn't contradict what Jesus meant when he said that even the smallest commandment will be valid till the end of heavens and earth.

For there can't be any grace outside of the law: only in a country where there's a binding law another one can step in for me to pay a fine for me that I have received upon transgressing an article from that law.

I've heard people say that Paul meant the Law isn't there any longer: but how then can one be held guilty and receive grace?
The thing for which Paul warns some people is thinking "the more commandents we violate, the more grace we'll receive": but that wasn't supposed to be.

Not the Law saves us, but God's grace saves us: this doesn't mean the Law has been done away with.
That violates Jesus' teaching, I think.
_________________
כח גַּם אֱוִיל מַחֲרִישׁ, חָכָם יֵחָשֵׁב
(משלי פרק יז)