# Jew Gentile division?



## Artfuldodger (Jul 14, 2017)

What does this mean in Romans 2:12-13?

When the Gentiles sin, they will be destroyed, even though they never had God's written law. And the Jews, who do have God's law, will be judged by that law when they fail to obey it.
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Wasn't this written after the event of Ephesians 2:15?

by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

If Christ abolished or ended or set aside the Law, why is Paul still telling us that "Gentiles will die when they sin and Jews will be judged by the Law if they fail to keep it?"

Is Paul still of the mindset that Jews and Gentiles are different describing one fate for Jews and another for Gentiles?
Did he forget that Christ died on the cross to abolish the Law that was causing the division?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 14, 2017)

Will the Jew be judged by the written Law against which he has sinned, and the Gentile by the unwritten law of conscience against which he too has sinned?

If so, why did Christ die on the cross to abolish the Law that was causing the division?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Eph. 2:15

G1378
δόγμα
dogma
dog'-mah
From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

If the Law was binding until Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70, why was the Jew able to divorce his dead wife(Law) and remarry Christ?

Paul said in Ephesians that Jesus “abolished” the “law of commandments” by means of the death of “his flesh,” and the shedding of his “blood” when he died on “the cross.” 
This act brought peace and  united Jews and Gentiles into one people.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Eph. 2:15
> 
> G1378
> δόγμα
> ...



Regardless of what type of Law Christ abolished on the Cross, it allowed Jews to remove it's hold on them and divorce their dead wife and marry Christ.

It also brought those Gentiles who were far away, without hope and God, into the commonwealth of Israel.
It made the two men one. No longer was there the Jew or the Gentile.

The type of Law that had such a binding was abolished on the cross. Ceremonial? Perhaps. But if it had to be removed to allow the grafting in of the Gentile, then so be it. If it had to be removed in order for the Jews to marry Christ, I'm glad it's gone. If it was ceremonial, I'm OK with that.

To abolish
To supersede something that is better than itself
To make void
To vanish away


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Whose law are you talking about?


----------



## Israel (Jul 15, 2017)

Paul had the wonderful job of undercutting any misplaced hope that could possibly seek to usurp Christ's primacy in all things including the heart and mind. 

Since he'd learned (and knew) it couldn't be done, he was he was able to speak freely of what is only possible to and with God, and what is utterly impossible with man. Salvation.

There's an odd thing a disciple may discover in his quest, an inward boast of having the better "compass". We see it commonly played out, even occasionally here...in matters of things called "morals". Each to each may maintain a position of having the better compass, or at least one "just as good" as another. It's not unusual for a disciple to hear from an unbeliever..."my compass is every bit as good as yours...I support charities, I take in the homeless, I give my body to be burned...etc, etc" And it's equally not unusual to hear, in some form, of the boast of Jesus...or the law, or some spiritual sounding thing as a superior...compass.


But then the question remains to each, "do you ever, have you ever...found yourself going against this compass you boast of?" What good then of having the "better compass"...if, and when it is manifestly not heeded?  Will we present our own suffering as sufficient? "See how I work and suffer under the weight of this superior morality!"...?(and who hasn't tried to take a stand on "good intentions"...and discovered a very strong thing?)

Faith must inevitably strip away all and any sense of coming to God upon our (esteemed) "right doing"...and any and all sense of prohibition when discovered in wrong doing. If our boast is in our "having the better thing" whether it be law (of any form), or a more sensitive conscience, is found coming to the fore...we will find then ourselves rightly condemned by it when it is made manifest (as it must be) all those places we have abandoned it...in favor of our own selves. _Every mouth_ is stopped, before God, except that One who ever liveth to make intercession for the saints.

He is greater than all we think we have we may present to our own comfort, or boast, or security. Our testimony is always and only to the righteous One, preeiminent in all things, and He alone will show...what He alone is, and has.

The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knows those that are His.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Whose law are you talking about?



God's


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> God's



Î´Î¿Ì�Î³Î¼Î±/dogma doesn't look like God's to me.

5 times in Bible

Acts 16:
4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees(G1378) which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.

Acts 17:
7 and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees(G1378) of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 

Eph. 2:
15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances(G1378), so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Col. 2:
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees(G1378) against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Luke 2:
1 Now in those days a decree(G1378) went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 15, 2017)

Ephesians 2:15 is concerning the law of Moses.  Who did Moses recieve the Law from?

http://biblehub.com/greek/3551.htm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

Meyer's NT Commentary
Ephesians 2:15. Î¤á½´Î½ á¼”Ï‡Î¸Ï�Î±Î½] This, still included in dependence upon Î»Ï�ÏƒÎ±Ï‚, is now the Î¼ÎµÏƒÏŒÏ„Î¿Î¹Ï‡Î¿Î½ broken down by Christ: (namely) the enmity. It is, after the example of Theodoret (comp. Ï„Î¹Î½Î­Ï‚ in Chrysostom), understood by the majority (including Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Clarius, Grotius, Calovius, Morus, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Meier, Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette) of the Mosaic law as the cause of the enmity between Jew and Gentile, in which case the moral law is by some included, by others excluded.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

How could man's law do this?

12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 

If man's law, why would it take Christ doing this?

13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us.

Even if it was man's law Christ removed it and allowed Gentiles to be grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel.

Romans 11 shows this as well. God chose a remnant from national Israel and blinded the rest of Israel until the full number of Gentiles was or were grafted in. 

There was a separation that was put back together by the Cross.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

Romans 11:17
But some of these branches from Abraham's tree--some of the people of Israel--have been broken off. And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, have been grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in the rich nourishment from the root of God's special olive tree.

Perhaps it was the Gentile man who was separating himself from the the Jews. Perhaps it was the Jew's own man made laws that separated them from the Gentiles. 

Maybe the Jews ate and dressed the way they did to distinguish themselves from the Gentile because of their own man made laws.

Regardless of whose or what law caused the separation, Christ died on the Cross to remove this Law which broke down the wall between the Jews and Gentiles.

It was an event in time when this separation was ended. Even if man caused it, Christ tore it down on the Cross.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

Here is part of this great mystery. God's gifts are irrevocable.

Romans 11:30-33
Once, you Gentiles were rebels against God, but when the people of Israel rebelled against him, God was merciful to you instead.
31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.
32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
33 O, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways!

36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.

Man this should be right up the predestination believers alley but for some reason they don't agree with it. It even has the election of a remnant and hardening of the rest. A remnant chosen by grace. 
I guess it goes against the "out of time" sequence  required to believe in the Reformed view of salvation from Creation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Eph 2:17  And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 

That preaching, which revealed the fulfilled/perfected Law, and was sealed/culminated at the cross, was what put an end to those "ordinances" which had (supposedly) made it sinful to walk too far on the Sabbath (and a multitude of fictitious interpretations, many of which created enmity between the Jews and others).

The Law as revealed through Moses creates a degree of separation between God's People and those who are not, but does not create enmity along ethnic lines.

Touching on ethnicity; the context of "Gentile" as used in the new testament must be watched very carefully, as it very often has meaning beyond ethnicity.

G1484
ἔθνος
ethnos
eth'-nos
Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 15, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Regardless of what type of Law Christ abolished on the Cross, it allowed Jews to remove it's hold on them and divorce their dead wife and marry Christ.
> 
> It also brought those Gentiles who were far away, without hope and God, into the commonwealth of Israel.
> It made the two men one. No longer was there the Jew or the Gentile.
> ...



So, you've been reading Hosea? Concerning the adulteress wife.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe the Jews ate and dressed the way they did to distinguish themselves from the Gentile because of their own man made laws.



Can it not be observed today, as then, that many who claim the Name take it as a mark of pride, while others are genuinely humbled.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Whose law are you talking about?



Colossians 2:14
having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

Is this too man's law or are you suggesting Paul goes back and forth as to which law Christ nailed to the cross?

What law is Romans 7:2-6 describing by the example of a woman being discharged from the law of her husband when he dies? I believe it to be the Law of Moses that this example gives which allows men to have died to the law through the body of Christ.

I'm willing to say that perhaps the Cross only remove our legal indebtedness or punishement to the law but regardless I think Paul is talking about the Law of Moses that Christ removed our legal indebtedness from. It's the same law he tells us about in Ephesians and the other epistles.
Christ did not die to remove our legal indebtedness from man's laws.

Now if Christ removed our legal indebtedness from this law, then it's the same as removing the law. In this way he fulfilled the law. We are free from the law even if it still exist. Christ removed the binding nature of the law.

Jesus didn't come to destroy the law rather he fulfilled it by beating it. He beat God at God's own game by living a sinless life.(Just my weird way of saying it) He fought the law and won. In this way he fulfilled the law. 
He also fulfilled the law by coming to the earth as prophesied. In this way he was the law. He was the Law before and after the law was the Law.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

I would think the Reformed view would be that since Christ was the way in prophesy even before the Law of Moses came, that this would mean the Law actually never existed. Not that it was eternal but that only Christ was eternal because he was the Word that was with God from before Creation. Jesus was the Law of God being eternal. He existed before and after the Law of Moses.
The Law of Moses had a beginning and an end within time when Christ fulfilled it on the Cross.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Colossians 2:14
> having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
> 
> Is this too man's law or are you suggesting Paul goes back and forth as to which law Christ nailed to the cross?
> ...



Trying a few other translations should solve the "legal indebtedness". 

As to the dead husband analogy, I confess I've never been able to make it work under any interpretation of the passage.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Eph 2:17  And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.
> 
> That preaching, which revealed the fulfilled/perfected Law, and was sealed/culminated at the cross, was what put an end to those "ordinances" which had (supposedly) made it sinful to walk too far on the Sabbath (and a multitude of fictitious interpretations, many of which created enmity between the Jews and others).
> 
> ...



Wouldn't it be safe to say that since Gentiles were without God and hope that they were pagans or heathens? Some Jews were pagans as well, can we call them Gentiles?
Wouldn't all non-believers in Israel back in Paul's time and all non-believers today in the U.S. be considered Pagans if they were without God? Jesus said you are either with me or against me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Can it not be observed today, as then, that many who claim the Name take it as a mark of pride, while others are genuinely humbled.



Whose law was it for Jews to eat certain foods and wear certain types of clothing? Did they set them selves apart from the Gentiles with laws or did God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> So, you've been reading Hosea? Concerning the adulteress wife.



No, Romans 7. Is it in Hosea?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Eph 2:17  And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.
> 
> That preaching, which revealed the fulfilled/perfected Law, and was sealed/culminated at the cross, was what put an end to those "ordinances" which had (supposedly) made it sinful to walk too far on the Sabbath (and a multitude of fictitious interpretations, many of which created enmity between the Jews and others).
> 
> ...



Please have a stab at how the Jews and Gentiles were separated by man and not God in Romans 11.

Part of God's way as presented in Romans 11 that people don't understand is that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. The Reformed believers know this better than some so it should come easy for them to visualize what Paul is teaching.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 15, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> No, Romans 7. Is it in Hosea?



It would probably help you to read the first four or so Chapters of Hosea and compare to Roman's 7.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> It would probably help you to read the first four or so Chapters of Hosea and compare to Roman's 7.



OK, thanks. Care to answer the OP?
 I'm trying to see the fading of the old and the ushering in of the new as it pertains to Romans 2:12-13. Considering that Christ abolished the Law on the Cross in Ephesians 2:15.

Romans 11 makes it appear that it happened over time. Like it wasn't a one day event.

I can see Christ removing the division caused by the Law in a day and yet it taking Paul to explain this to the masses.  Even that meeting he had with the other apostles to discuss what to do about it.  It wasn't like they all understood the mystery in a day.

Still though how does Romans 2:12-13 line up with this grace delivered by the cross?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 15, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, thanks. Care to answer the OP?
> I'm trying to see the fading of the old and the ushering in of the new as it pertains to Romans 2:12-13. Considering that Christ abolished the Law on the Cross in Ephesians 2:15.
> 
> Romans 11 makes it appear that it happened over time. Like it wasn't a one day event.
> ...



Most millenialist put us in the already but not yet.  I agree with them that there was a transitional period,  but I end the yet at 70 ad. 

For forty years.. From the cross to the parousia in 70ad the Israelites wandered in the wilderness between two covenants (Hebrews 8:13). 
The epistles are written during this time. I know scripture where Paul says they are made free from the law,  and at the same time Paul participates in animal sacrifice. Acts 24:16f

https://www.gotquestions.org/already-not-yet.html

They were free from the law as far as God is concerned,  but they were not free from the priesthood yet.
70 ad vindicated the saints.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2017)

When I read scripture I too see this back and forth between the Law and Grace. It has in the past placed me on a religious roller coaster. 
Paul does it, James does it, Peter does it. You read one passage and it makes it seem like if you don't help the poor, you don't help Jesus and will die an eternal death. Another passage says that if you don't forgive the others, Christ won't forgive you. That one must still do a few things even with grace. Election based on anything other than grace is, well not grace.

One person says that once you are in you are in. Another tells you differently. They both have scripture to back up their beliefs.

I guess the way I see it is Christ died for my inability to quit sinning. He came to the earth to accomplish what I could not do. Now if I could have done it without him, why did I need him in the first place? 
I wouldn't. I would have just repented from sin.

It's a pretty basic concept that gets cloudy by reading scripture than the other way around. You would think it would be grace only or grace plus works. Then someone shows up and says yes but one must also have proof provided by the Holy Spirit to prove your salvation"took."
Otherwise you just had a self induced hallelujah moment instead of a conversion.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 16, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Whose law was it for Jews to eat certain foods and wear certain types of clothing? Did they set them selves apart from the Gentiles with laws or did God?





Artfuldodger said:


> Please have a stab at how the Jews and Gentiles were separated by man and not God in Romans 11.
> 
> Part of God's way as presented in Romans 11 that people don't understand is that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. The Reformed believers know this better than some so it should come easy for them to visualize what Paul is teaching.



Rm. 11 acknowledges that those actions of man which resulted in ethnic separation were Providential.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Rm. 11 acknowledges that those actions of man which resulted in ethnic separation were Providential.



Occurring at a favorable time; opportune, or involving divine intervention?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2017)

Romans 15:8
For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed. 9 He also came so that the Gentiles might give glory to God for his mercies to them. That is what the psalmist meant when he wrote: "For this, I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing praises to your name."10 Again, it says, "Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people."11 And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles; let all the peoples extol him."12 And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope."

I see what Isaiah is saying but I see it as a prophesy that came at a future event as told about in Romans 11. What was once a prophesy has come forth in time.

It was God's plan for Christ to come to the Jews to confirm the promises to the patriarchs and in doing so would let the Gentiles give glory to God for his mercy as well.

Romans 11:27-32
27And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins.” 28Regarding the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. 29For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.30Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, 31so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you.32For God has consigned all men to disobedience, so that He may have mercy on them all.

First the promises to the patriarchs, and then the grafting in of the Gentiles.
I don't really understand God's logic in doing it this way. He says in Romans 11 that we won't understand why he did it this way.

33 Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!  

He knows we are gonna wonder why he did it this way. This is why verses 33-35 are included.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 16, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Occurring at a favorable time; opportune, or involving divine intervention?



Yes.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Rm. 11 acknowledges that those actions of man which resulted in ethnic separation were Providential.



Leviticus 20:26
“You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.”  

Providential in the definition that God caused it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Yes.



The favorable time caused by the divine intervention for the division started way back with Abraham. It continued until another favorable time caused by divine intervention ended the division started by the first one.

33 Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 16, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> The favorable time caused by the divine intervention for the division started way back with Abraham. It continued until another favorable time caused by divine intervention ended the division started by the first one.
> 
> 33 Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!



To and for the glory of God; Amen.


----------

