Old Doxoblogy

Sunday, July 23, 2006

The Unity Of The Law

I'll be honest with you, I haven't had a lot of time to respond to Peter's critique of my view that the Mosaic Law should not be divided into three separate parts. So consider this a non-response. A full response will come either Monday evening or Tuesday morning.

I have read both posts and I can only say, I can't see how any of the verese that are quoted there would lead me to believe that the Law could be divided into three parts. I acknowledge that there are parts that are ceremonial, parts that are moral, and parts that are civil, but I don't see anywhere in Scripture where it is an option to take any of those apart from the others. Instead, Paul says,
I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. (Gal 5:3)
And James says,
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. (Jam 2:10)
And now, on a completely different note...

This question has been in my inbox for about a week now and I don't want to forget it.
Did Paul consider himself to be writing "inspired" words? Or did he think it was just another letter? What about the other writers of the NT?
That will be the subject of Monday morning's post.

2 comments:

ThirstyDavid said...

That's an interesting question. I'm sure you'll have an interesting answer.

Peter D. Nelson said...

Yes I too am looking forward to your response.