Wednesday, October 12, 2016

TELOS (Possible Meanings)

TELOS can have different senses, depending on context. Here's some material I once worked up, but have not confirmed its veracity since. However, I think what I'm posting is accurate:

For TELOS (i.e., end), see the following uses:

1 Cor. 1:8 who shall also confirm you to the end, blameless in the
day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and
they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the
ages have come.

1 Cor. 15:24 then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to
the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority
and power.

2 Cor. 1:13 For we write nothing else to you than what you read and
understand, and I hope you will understand until the end;

2 Cor. 3:13 and are not as Moses, who used to put a veil over his
face that the sons of Israel might not look intently at the end of
what was fading away.

2 Cor. 11:15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also
disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be
according to their deeds.

Concerning Eph. 2:14-15:

The International Critical Commentary on Ephesians and Colossians (T.K. Abbott) has this to say:

"The Mosaic law as such, not merely certain aspects of
it, has come to an end in Christ. He is the 'end of
the law,' Rom 10:4. Faith having come, we are no
longer hUPO PAIDAGWGON" (page 64).

He adds:

"NOMOS here is not to be limited to the ceremonial
law; there is nothing in the connexion to show such a
limitation, which on the contrary, would make the
statement very weak . . . The moral law retains its
obligation, not, however, because the Jewish law is
only partially annulled, but because its obligation
was independent of the law and universal (Rom 2:14)"

Christ could be "goal" (TELOS) of the Law, though I have always construed TELOS here [Rom. 10:4) to mean "termination" or "cessation." BDAG lists Rom 10:4 under this sense, but reports that TELOS in 10:4 could possibly mean "goal." I favor "cessation" in view of the immediate context and the discourse features of Romans. For instance, Rom 10:5-6 states that the man who "has done the righteousness of the Law will live by it." Paul then makes a contrast in 10:6 when he employs the adversative particle DE ("but"). He then goes on to juxtapose righteousness emanating from the Law with righteousness emanating from faith. He concludes: "For with the heart one exercises faith for
righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation."

Additionally, he writes in Rom 8:7, "The minding of the flesh means enmity
with God, for it is not under subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can
it be." Cf. Rom 7:1-11.


Duncan said...

Like the ambiguity of theos and kurios in koine you are also going to have to tease apart law as law or Torah.

There are some arguments here that are contextually incorrect unless ALL Christians are christ (anointed). "Minding of the flesh" seems to be misapplied unless you interpret flesh = meat.

"For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation."

Faith does have works so again you are going to have to tease apart "minding of the flesh".

You are going to have to square all this with 3 John 1:2.

Duncan said...

James 2:10 must also be put under the microscope since 2:11 is referring specifically to the 10 words, so what holos nomos is it referring ?

Duncan said...

The majority of scriptures quoted above could still be understood as goal.

1 Cor. 10:11 is an interesting on goals of the ages - you cannot end ages that have already ended.

Edgar Foster said...

One must read the entire context of James 2:10-11. Yes, those verses are referring to the Mosaic law. But is James telling those in the "Disaspora" that they're still under law? Compare 2:8-9, 12-13. Cf. James 1:25.

Edgar Foster said...

Looked at contextually, I would say all of those passages or almost all, definitely speak about the termination of something. Eschatology must be considered for these verses and there's also Mt 24:13. Enduring until the end which is also stated in an eschatological context.

Moreover, Paul teaches that we cannot keep law. The law was a pedagogue leading to Christ. Now that faith has arrived, we no longer need the pedagogue. See Col 2:16-17 for days and dietary laws. Compare Gal. 4:8-11.

Duncan said...

I still think we have to tease apart law and torah.

Duncan said...

If you unrepentantly break any of the 10 then you are condemned.

The 10 words are still in operation, but this does not prevent this from being a Hebraism or an argument against the Pharisaical tradition.

Also I think you remember my point about how we should probably understand James 1:23,24 in light of the arc itself.

This is the 10, NOT the adaptations for "the land" or a given circumstance.

Is the pedagogue leading to Christ the TORAH (10 words) or its application (613) or its oral tradition?

Duncan said...

Thinking on - is it that we cannot keep the 10 or the 613?

Duncan said...

Colossians 2:16-17 does not state whether it is for or against the practices?

Galatians 4:10 does not specify the specifics - we have things like:-

Many of these existed in the 1st cent CE. but are they biblical?

Edgar Foster said...

See the other thread to view my comments on law/Torah. To repeat what I've written there, Torah encompasses law, but is not exhausted by it. Torah is more than the 10 words, right? Where does the scripture teach that breaking the 10 words or other aspects of law unrepentantly results in condemnation? In other words, I understand Paul to say if you break any of the laws (period), then you're condemned, whether one is unrepentant or not.

Why limit Torah to the ten words? However, I don't believe we're obligated to keep the ten either. Torah can encompass all 613 laws, not just the ten words or the oral tradition. Numerous works point this out. Yet we can't keep the ten, much less the 613.

Colossians tells the ecclesia to not let anyone judge them on the basis of food or drink, because the Jewish laws were the shadow, not the reality.

So we're supposed to believe that early followers of Christ advocated sabbath-keeping, atonement day, the observance of new moon, Passover and Purim?

Edgar Foster said...

In the utterance, "minding of the flesh," meat is not the issue. Flesh there refers to fallen humanity or wrong desires.

Edgar Foster said...

Article on Torah:

Duncan said...

My definition of Torah is the 10. The 613 are extrapolated from the 10 and the oral is extrapolated from the 613.

The law given to the gentiles was already in effect before the Torah it applied to all. Vermes has shown evidence that first century noahides were to be excluded, not aloud to follow the 613. I will seek it out again.

When I say 10 I actually mean 9 as the Sabbath carried special conditions that do not apply to all.

One little issue that has just occurred to me. Are those early Jews who were judged deserving of death by breaking the Torah inelligable for resurrection? If they are still eligible then they have not been judged.

Edgar Foster said...

I'm using Torah as it's used in studies of Judaism. See the link I posted. I'm not saying you're mistaken, but please explain the historical/scriptural basis for limiting Torah to the 10 words.

Paul wrote, if it had not been for the Law (Torah), I would not have known that coveting is wrong (Romans 7:7). But then notice what he writes in Rom. 7:8-13.

In Rom. 7:6, we also read: "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (NIV). Cf. 7:4-5.

My comments about the Jews being judged by Law were not meant to imply that Jwhovah necessarily pronounced eternal judgment upon them. However, at the very least, they experienced Adamic death as judgment. See Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:1-6.

Duncan said...

Exodus 31:18
Deut 9:10

This term has a deep significance in the language.

Exodus 8:19

Paul Being a Pharisee would have known the Torah from a pharisaical perspective including an oral (but I think still written) law and this is significant to any argument he makes regarding "law". Like his arguments regarding circumsision which was a covenant only to the descendants of Abraham.

Vermes again has arguments that proselytes should not be allowed to circumcise. So this also was not "in the written code" as we might understand it.

Edgar Foster said...

Okay, but I still have yet to see evidence that Jews usually took Torah to mean "Ten Words only." I don't see Paul using nomos this way either.

Duncan said...

In exodus 20 Jehovah speaks the 10 but Moses then speaks the rest. Deut 9:10 confirms this.

But is Paul's que taken from this understanding of Jesus divide between all Torah and the oral Torah a division that to a Pharisee would have been alien.

You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.

He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintaind your own tradition.

At this time Paul would have understood this tradition to be from god.

Because it seems that at any point that Paul actually argues against the "law" he is arguing against things not actually in the law, or am I missing something?

When Jesus followed the Torah completely he demonstrated adherence with a perfect conscience. I am sure you remember the paper I sent you regarding raising the sheep.

If Paul understood the Torah as the whole pentacheuch would it make a significant difference when examining what he actually argues against.

I am not satisfied with the normal explanation of 1 cor 9:20, they could both be referring to Jews.

Duncan said..."under+law"+pharisee&source=bl&ots=L7cmqNwJzY&sig=pQVjlPkKrhcpoOY6D61Dq7i_wXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMjLv_kNvPAhWqC8AKHY1fARw4ChDoAQgkMAQ#v=onepage&q=%22under%20law%22%20pharisee&f=false

Edgar Foster said...

I'm not going to spend extensive time debating this point, but the Torah (meaning the first five books) itself shows that all the commands issued from Jehovah, even if Moses mediated them. Compare Deut. 5 where Moses speaks the ten words in slightly different form, then he reminds Israel that the nation must walk in all the statutes outlined by Jehovah (5:32-33).

As you mentioned earlier, some terms must be parsed, but I cannot do it now. Suffice to say that I don't equate the entire oral tradition with a divinely given Torah. Jesus himself indicated that the Pharisees elevated human tradition above the commands of God. He certainly did not think all (perhaps most) of the Pharisaic traditions originated from on high.

Would Paul have understood the Pharisaic tradition to have emanted from God after he began to follow Christ? Galatians and Romans may suggest otherwise. Where exactly does Paul argue against things not in the law?

Yes, I do remember the paper, and I'll review it again. One other task might be to ascertain how torah has been used throughout JEwish history.

Duncan said...

Jub 15:33-4.

Never something for proselytes and apparently neglected by Jews but pharisaical later oral law might have demand it although vermes mentions evidence that circumsision of non jew was frowned upon. That full law observance and circumcision was seen by some as a birth right only. It seems that the circumcision issue was not a Torah issue but rather a problem for some having come from various sects.’-anger-or-his-compassion/

This indicates Torah observance being glossed over.

V45 also sound like a gloss as to why Jesus could no longer enter a town for a period of time.

I have found a few papers that think jew may mean amharetz and under law as a term for what may mean the educated law observers like Pharisees. This would be another explanation for Paul making the point of saying that he was not under law having turned his back on his past. But those without law would be seen as gentiles.

This gives a flavour of some of the issues but I need to investigate this further and check for facts.

Duncan said...

I will now start digging into the history.

Edgar Foster said...

As you know, circumcision preceded Sinai (Moses) since Jehovah gave the circumcision command to Abraham. Later, in Lev. 12, we read about the law being given to Jacob's seed. Yet some first-century converts to the Christian ecclesia still insisted that circumcision was vital for salvation.

The last link you submit does not technically say that the Ten Words constitute Torah, but only that they "contain" the whole Torah. I forgot that there is a book I have that deals with the Ten Words. I'll search that book and post accordingly to another entry. Unless we have anything else to add regarding the denotation of TELOS, I'm going to close this entry for commenting.