Paul not under the Law - but subject to the law of Christ.

[GDL]

Didn't Rahab lie about where the spies were ?

So, it's not me answering, here's a note from the NET Bible re: Ex20:16 and why I said "perjuring":

tn Heb "answer" as in a court of law.
tn The expression שָׁקֶר ) עֵד'ed shaqer( means "a lying witness" (B. S. Childs, Exodus [OTL], 388). In this verse the noun is an adverbial accusative, "you will not answer as a lying witness." The prohibition is against perjury. While the precise reference would be to legal proceedings, the law probably had a broader application to lying about other people in general (see Lev 5:1; Hos 4:2).

 

[GDL]

I think you have been inconsistent in your answers. If, here, you are saying the food laws are indeed gone, then what am I to make of these words of yours:

IMO it would take an awful lot of work to figure out what He did according to Law before I would charge Him of breaking Law. BTW, in this light, here is the first commandment in Romans:

Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged." (Rom. 3:4 NKJ)

Good luck judging Jesus to be lawless to the Law He was born under.

Can you not see how these words suggest you believe Jesus did not break the Law of Moses at any point? And the food laws are definitely part of the Law of Moses. I am merely pointing out that, yes, Jesus broke the food laws. Or to be more precise, He asserted they no longer apply. To me, this difference is inconsequential, although you and others may see it differently. And, in any event, I believe He clearly broke other elements of the Law - He touched people who were ritually unclean, for example.

You'll need to read more of my answer(s) to your posts to find my statements or questions about the changing of food laws and when this may have taken place.

 

[expos4ever]

Have I lost my marbles of does this make sense ???

I think your marbles are still rolling around in your skull. I see your point although I think there are quite a few arguments that are more robust and easy to make to the effect that the Law is now gone. Jesus declaring all foods clean and Paul (assuming he wrote Ephesians) directly and unambiguously declaring the abolition of he Law, for example

 

[expos4ever]

You'll need to read more of my answer(s) to your posts to find my statements or questions about the changing of food laws and when this may have taken place.

Why not just tell me: Do you believe Jesus overturned the food laws? I politely suggest that if you answer "yes", your words here are inconsistent with such an answer:

Good luck judging Jesus to be lawless to the Law He was born under.

Jesus was certainly born under the Law of Moses. And by saying "nothing that goes in you defiles", He is certainly challenging that law, if not breaking it. How does that not make Him "lawless"?

And I do not see how the "when this may have taken place" bit is relevant. As you may know, I have agreed that Jesus instructed others to obey the Law. And I have asserted that the Law ends at the cross, not before. I think Jesus, if pressed, would say "technically, the end of the food laws only happens after I go to the Cross". But I do not see that slight shift in time as relevant - He is still declaring the imminent end of the food laws.

If you say Jesus did not end the food laws, on the other hand, you have the same challenge others have - explaining why He says "nothing that you take into your body defiles" while believing nothing except pork, shellfish, etc. defiles.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So, it's not me answering, here's a note from the NET Bible re: Ex20:16 and why I said "perjuring":

tn Heb "answer" as in a court of law.
tn The expression שָׁקֶר ) עֵד'ed shaqer( means "a lying witness" (B. S. Childs, Exodus [OTL], 388). In this verse the noun is an adverbial accusative, "you will not answer as a lying witness." The prohibition is against perjury. While the precise reference would be to legal proceedings, the law probably had a broader application to lying about other people in general (see Lev 5:1; Hos 4:2).

So is lying OK under the Law then ?

 

[GDL]

Why not just tell me: Do you believe Jesus overturned the food laws? I politely suggest that if you answer "yes", your words here are inconsistent with such an answer:

Good luck judging Jesus to be lawless to the Law He was born under.

Jesus was certainly born under the Law of Moses. And by saying "nothing that goes in you defiles", He is certainly challenging that law, if not breaking it. How does that not make Him "lawless"?

And I do not see how the "when this may have taken place" bit is relevant. As you may know, I have agreed that Jesus instructed others to obey the Law. And I have asserted that the Law ends at the cross, not before. I think Jesus, if pressed, would say "technically, the end of the food laws only happens after I go to the Cross". But I do not see that slight shift in time as relevant - He is still declaring the imminent end of the food laws.

If you say Jesus did not end the food laws, on the other hand, you have the same challenge others have - explaining why He says "nothing that you take into your body defiles" while believing nothing except pork, shellfish, etc. defiles.

Once again, and with respect, honestly, I've answered you and have lost the desire to backtrack and find it for you.

You're claiming I'm inconsistent and missing things I say.

In closing, I've written more than a few times in this thread about certain things, for example, the translation of "en law" in Rom3:19, which I posted for you once or twice, and you simply bypass and do not respond to it. It's nuances like this in the original languages that make differences and I'm qualified through training and experience to address and discuss them. I honestly find it difficult at this point to take some discussions seriously beyond a certain mark when they cannot address such things at the level of the meanings of actual words - meanings that can change the entire direction of thinking on what's being said.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[GDL]

So is lying OK under the Law then ?

It's been a while, Carl, but, as you've noted re: Rahab, there is more to lying than just a simple you shall not lie.

If you were in a movie level situation where some murderer was asking you if you know where your daughter is so he could kill her, and you knew, and he would let you live if you told him, would you lie and misdirect him? Do you think the Lord would condemn you for such a lie?

Look at Matt7:24 and Matt10:16. Our Lord uses the same word to describe the man who built on the rock as He uses to describe the snake. He uses this same word to describe the unrighteous steward in Luke16:8.

What do we owe evil? The truth about Christ, yes, but truth to assist their evil?

On the other hand, a proper judiciary and justice is of great importance to Him.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It's been a while, Carl, but, as you've noted re: Rahab, there is more to lying than just a simple you shall not lie.

If you were in a movie level situation where some murderer was asking you if you know where your daughter is so he could kill her, and you knew, and he would let you live if you told him, would you lie and misdirect him? Do you think the Lord would condemn you for such a lie?

Look at Matt7:24 and Matt10:16. Our Lord uses the same word to describe the man who built on the rock as He uses to describe the snake. He uses this same word to describe the unrighteous steward in Luke16:8.

What do we owe evil? The truth about Christ, yes, but truth to assist their evil?

On the other hand, a proper judiciary and justice is of great importance to Him.

Yes there are many issues to work through.

I appreciate your thoroughness.

I hope that a strong case can be made regarding what constitutes a false witness in a Christian sense as the teaching of the Koran permits lying and the nations that have embraced it have been seriously affected as a result.

However I need to ask - do you think the scripture has been given to us to intellectually understand or spiritually understand.

I ask because when I did a little Greek I thought initially that the truths of scripture would at last be revealed it but it doesn't work like that.

So many on CF can only debate the technicalities of the text when their arguments can be unwittingly driven by a false spirit.

These same folks dismiss positions that have no immediate textual support yet may be totally accurate.

Excuse the ramble...

 

[trophy33]

I'll keep this in mind next time I encounter situations where murder, adultery, fornication, stealing, perjuring, dishonoring parents, coveting, etc., may come up.

Sure, we all must judge what acts break these rules and what acts do not. In one culture, something is dishonoring, in another, it is not.

There are also so many grey areas in which people argue if its breaking of these rules or not.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sure, we all must judge what acts break these rules and what acts do not. In one culture, something is dishonoring, in another, it is not.

Is culture a measure of morality ???


I hope not !!!

 

[trophy33]

Gentiles do not have the law:
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
R 2:14

To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law. To those without the law I became like one without the law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the law.
1Cor 9:21

Peter (being a Christian Jew) did not live like a Jew:
I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
Gal 2:14

 

[trophy33]

Is culture a measure of morality ???


I hope not !!!

Sure, to an extent. You cannot behave in the same way in Japan like in USA, in the time of peace like in the time of war and in the 5th century like in the 21st century.

While general goals are the same, their specifics are culturally different.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So what God hates e.g. a lying tongue - is OK in a culture that tolerates it ?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Proverbs 6:16-19

English Standard Version

​

16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.

Do not these stand Law or not ???

 

[trophy33]

Do not these stand Law or not ???

I do not understand your question. The book of Proverbs is not Law.

 

[GDL]

Yes there are many issues to work through.

I appreciate your thoroughness.

I hope that a strong case can be made regarding what constitutes a false witness in a Christian sense as the teaching of the Koran permits lying and the nations that have embraced it have been seriously affected as a result.

However I need to ask - do you think the scripture has been given to us to intellectually understand or spiritually understand.

I ask because when I did a little Greek I thought initially that the truths of scripture would at last be revealed it but it doesn't work like that.

So many on CF can only debate the technicalities of the text when their arguments can be unwittingly driven by a false spirit.

These same folks dismiss positions that have no immediate textual support yet may be totally accurate.

Excuse the ramble...

Excused. Sometimes our rambling is just expressing the process we need to think through to reach the point. I know this is my process.

IMO it kind of goes like this (begin rambling): Hebrew is a very pictorial language in a sense. The root word begins the thought and what's developed from the root can many times create a picture in our mind that's related to the root (this was my experience when I worked with it more than I have in years since then). Greek is very precise. Although there is quite a range of meaning in words, it can be boiled down to saying something very specific that it may take an English paragraph to define and for translators and interpreters it's quite a bit of work at times to conclude what's being said. For example, many if not most of the times we read "of" in the NC it's a grammatical structure that can be translated many ways to provide more specificity of what's being said. A simple example; 1John5:3 love of God or love for God or? The default translation is most always "of".

A well-versed in the Biblical languages teacher once said in a class something like "we can't think beyond our vocabulary." Words are vital. God uses words to mean things specific. I've used years of Greek instruction and practice to revert back to some basics of doing some very lengthy word studies in our Text. They've done more for my learning than almost anything. I know that learning even re: those words is not finished.

With all that said, apart from Him we can do nothing and apart from His Spirit all the language study is just a tool to analyze an ancient Text. But in Christ and with His Spirit those studies are a very useful tool to interact with Him, at least they have been for me and others who have them.

Mental vs. Spiritual: At one level I see no difference (I'll leave some for you without my notes).

NKJ Proverbs 1:23 Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

• The last 2 clauses are parallel meaning they are saying the same thing. If we have His Spirit, then we know His words.

NKJ Rom. 8:27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

NKJ Eph. 4:23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind,

• Remembering what I said about "of" - this could be translated "...in your spirit meaning in your mind."

NKJ Phil. 1:27 Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel,

• I wish we all were in this state

NKJ 2 Tim. 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Knowledge & Freedom:

NKJ John 8:31-32 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

• The context of this says the freedom provided by this knowledge is freedom from sin

NKJ Titus 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according (with regard) to the faith of God's elect and (can be translated as "meaning" or "namely") the acknowledgment (practical knowledge - knowledge to be used) of the truth which accords with (for the purpose/goal of) godliness (living a willingly obedient, righteous and holy life towards God our Father as did our first-born Brother and Lord Jesus Christ),

• I use the NKJ because I'm used to searching in it and because it's fairly literal. I don't rely on it or any English translation.
• If you look at several English versions, you'll note differences (as usual).
• My parenthetical notes concern some range of translation choices for these words.
• The word translated as "acknowledgement" and "godliness" here, are two of those extensive word studies I mentioned I've done.
• The translations "according to" and "which accords" are some of those default translations I mentioned, like "of", but there is a range of meaning to these words and their parsing.
• So, our Faith (originated and completed by Jesus Christ Heb12:2) is the practical knowledge of truth for godliness (a life like Christs).
• A lot to agree or disagree with here, but godly thinking and behavior is related to knowledge of truth, just as knowledge will make us fee [from sin]. Actually, then, John8:31-32 and Titus1:1 are saying the same thing. From Jesus we get knowledge that will make us free from sin / make us live obediently to God. Knowledge. Mentality. Spirituality (see below).

NKJ 1 Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

• Same word as in Titus 1:1 "practical knowledge"
• "and" here can be translated (as I noted in Titus 1:1) as "meaning" or "namely"
• So, our salvation can be a parallel to coming "into" (literal Greek) practical knowledge of Truth.
• Now compare John 8, Titus 1, 1 Timothy 1, and they're basically all saying the same thing; salvation - free from sin - godly living - saved. In addition, all are related to knowledge, and via Titus 1, our Faith originated by Jesus Christ and His teaching us this practical knowledge.

Spiritual:

NKJ Heb. 5:13-14 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled (lack of knowledge or capacity to do something) in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses (faculties for discernment) exercised to discern both good and evil.

• The 2 parenthetic notes are definitions per BDAG Lexicon.
• The difference between the mature (a "telos" cognate) and the child is knowledge of the "Word of Righteousness"
• From the Word of Righteousness, the mature has faculties that become well exercised (gumnazo - think of our "gym") to evaluate both good and bad. This is mentaility once again.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.

• Paul uses this same word "babe" (nepios) used in Heb5:13 - and parallels it to being fleshly - and contrasts it with being "spiritual"
• If we read in context, he's talking about being able to give them only milk and not solid food (basic vs. advanced teaching - same language as Heb5)
• So, the spiritual Christian has advanced knowledge and from Hebrews this would mean having developed faculties to distinguish both good and bad in accordance with the Word of Righteousness. Consider all we have discussed in your thread re: knowledge of what is sin through the study of God's [Righteous] Law).
• We now have a tie between having practical knowledge of Truth (which can make us free from sin, godly, saved) and this knowledge is tied to being Spiritual.

NKJ Galatians 6:1-2 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass (violation), you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

• So, a "spiritual" person (per Paul and Hebrews is a Christian with advanced learning who has well-exercised [mental] faculties able to distinguish good & bad based upon God's Righteous Word) is able to identify "any" violation (violation of what???) and thus able to help restore another who has been "overtaken" in some/any violation (violation of moral standards, offense, wrongdoing, sin BDAG). By so doing, the Spiritual Christian can fulfill Messianic Law.
• I see this as imitating Christ who bore our sin burden on the cross.
• I thus see this as fulfilling Christ's command to love one another as He loved us and gave Himself for us. See John 13:34-35 and John 15:12-17 and ponder these with all of the above. Note in John15:35 how Jesus ties this to being His disciples (students). Note in John 15:14-15 Jesus ties this to being His friends and having taught them (KNOWLEDGE) of all that God gave Him to teach them. And from there Jesus ties this to going and bearing fruit.

Mentality is Spirituality. Is there more to the word "spirit"? Sure. But it doesn't negate the fact that according to the way the word of God speaks, mentality with truth and spirituality are one and the same.

So, take this out to all the non-Christians who say they are very spiritual people. Not Biblically and apart from Christ and God's Spirit they're not. Nor are childish/fleshly Christians. Assuming we desire to speak like the Word of God speaks.

Pardon the length, but you asked and I rambled.

 

[GDL]

Sure, to an extent. You cannot behave in the same way in Japan like in USA, in the time of peace like in the time of war and in the 5th century like in the 21st century.

While general goals are the same, their specifics are culturally different.

So, in Japan they can murder, be adulterous, fornicate, steal, perjure, covet, etc... and all is well as long as it's cultural? Even though God is sovereign over the world and Jesus Christ has all authority in Heaven and on earth, cultural behavior trumps His glory? And this is the case in 5th or 21st centuries as long as sin, which is lawlessness, was or is cultural? So, God never put all of humanity within the jurisdiction of His Law and when He judges all people as sinful, it's without explanation other than He can do what He wants?

Assuming my assumptions from above are incorrect and not what you're saying, will you elaborate what you mean?

 

[GDL]

Sure, we all must judge what acts break these rules and what acts do not. In one culture, something is dishonoring, in another, it is not.

There are also so many grey areas in which people argue if its breaking of these rules or not.

And we in Christ in Spirit must judge based upon the written Word of God - including His written Law - rightly divided/understood.

No matter the culture, God is sovereign over His creation and ultimately, it's what dishonors, rebels against, is unfaithful to, disobeys God no matter the race, borders or culture.

There are no grey areas. There is lack of understanding and wisdom.

 

[expos4ever]

I would like to address that runs something like this: since Paul instructs us to engage in certain behaviors that were also mandated by the law Moses, or to refrain from certain other behaviors that were prohibited by the law of Moses's, this means those elements of the law of Moses persist into the present.

Obviously, I can understand the thinking behind this. However, upon a little reflection, and in consideration of everything else we know about Paul's view on the law, namely that we are to leave it behind since it is a Ministry of death, I think this thinking needs to be challenged.

It simply does not follow logically that if a behavior X is mandated by the law, and if Paul (or Jesus for that matter) also mandate it, that the law is still applicable in any sense. Again, this is rather obvious when you think about it. Consider this analogy: imagine that for some technical reason, American law is amended to eliminate the prohibition of murder. Now, the President goes on national television and declares, Joe Biden style: "Come on man, no murder". We know, from this declaration that we are not supposed to commit murder. The fact that there was, repeat was, a legal prohibition of murder is irrelevant - the fact that Biden is echoing what was contained in law does not mean the law applies, we now look to the President, not the Law for moral guidance in this hypothetical example.

 

[expos4ever]

What does Scripture say about how we will be judged in the future? What role, if any does the Law of Moses play? Let Paul speak:

Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned [j]without the Law will also perish [k]without the Law, and all who have sinned [l]under the Law will be judged [m]by the Law

So we already know that Gentiles - who were never under the Law - will not be judged, at least negatively, by the Law. On the the other hand, we know that at least some Jews will indeed be judged by the Law. I say "some" since we cannot necessarily assume that the Law of Moses lasts forever.

Granted, Paul does go away to say this rather challenging stuff:

13For it is not the hearers [n]of the Law who are [o]righteous before God, but the doers [p]of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have [q]the Law [r]instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having [s]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

If, as some are wont to, one takes v13 out of context, one might think Paul is indeed declaring that all who are in the end justified are in fact so justified based on their conformance to the law of Moses. But Paul elaborates in v14, reiterating what any Biblically literate person will know: Gentiles are not under the Law. He then explains, in what is admittedly a challenging bit of text, how Gentiles seem to have access to the Law of Moses via their "conscience". Importantly, he declares that this works out to the Gentiles having a "law to themselves", making it clear that this is not really the Law of Moses they are obeying but something related to it.

Again, it would be absurd for Paul to declare that Gentiles are under the Law of Moses, and subject to ultimate judgement by it, since he falls all over himself in the rest of his writings, not least at the end of chapter 3, to make it clear that Gentiles are, in fact, not subject to the law of Moses.

Bottom line: Paul, here at least, only envisages Jews as being judged by the Law of Moses. And, importantly, we cannot conclude from this text alone that he means all Jews because this text does not foreclose the possibility that at some point the law of Moses will come to an end.