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

[Carl Emerson]

Yes, they do.

Christ being God are not these matters embraced by the Law of Christ?

 

[Carl Emerson]

As a guy who worked on large computer systems prior to the advent of the personal computer

I was a computer engineer for Burroughs...

 

[Carl Emerson]

Much agreed.

Following Him & discipleship (learning from Him/His Word) are tied together.

Part of hearing His voice is learning His word and having Him illuminate our understanding.

His Commandments are part of His Living Word. His Spirit and our Father's functioning inside us will assist us to desire and do what pleases Him.

Thanks for your kind words.

Yes if you know what He has already said, you are better placed to recognise His voice now...

 

[Carl Emerson]

There was a mixed-multitude of races that came out of Egypt with the Hebrews to Sinai. Mosaic Law provided for proselytes. The Law of Christ contains Law from Moses.

There is no verse that specifically says Christians are under the Law of Christ. Open a Czech (my assumption) translation that hopefully was translated from Greek and see how it translates some of the "under [the] law" verses compared to English translations. If you need help in Greek, please feel free to ask. Begin with 1Cor9:21.

"Most of the Mosaic Law" not being universal I would agree with in a sense, but this would only begin a conversation. With your focus on cultures, we would likely soon disagree. If a nation's secular laws conflict with God's Law, then the nation is in conflict with God and the peace is ultimately false. There is a great divide in the US now. Secular laws at some point cannot keep peace as they must sooner or later lean one way or another way. The Biblical story is that external law fails, God's Law on hearts will not fail. There will be a land where righteousness dwells. Unrighteousness will be ended.

You present technical reasons for not referring to the Law of Christ. Would you endorse reference to the Law of the Spirit ?

Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

 

[trophy33]

Christ being God are not these matters embraced by the Law of Christ?

I am not sure where are your questions supposed to lead, but yes, I agree that lying, shedding an innocent blood, wicked plans, a haste to make evil, false witnessing and sowing discord between brothers belong to the universally immoral principles and are also seen as such in Christianity.

 

[trophy33]

That's not what Paul says in 1Cor9:21, but I'm tired of repeating this and explaining what he does say.

I checked all main translations on biblehub and all 14 or so say "I am under the law of Christ" or something of the same meaning. There are very few saying something different, but those are some I have never heard about or are generally free translations (for example New Living Translation has "I obey the law of Christ").

I understand that one or few translations may get something wrong, but if its you against practically all used translations, then I will perhaps stick to the vast majority, if you feel tired.

 

[trophy33]

Your or my opinion on a Biblical point of view do not mean there is or isn't one. Police aggression is certainly being questioned in the US. The reason it's being questioned is obviously because some do not see it as being just. Unless we have one standard for what is just, all we have is a multitude of opinions, ranging from no police to tyrannical police. By What Standard and By This Standard are some interesting writings on such topics. The Christian position is that God's Standard is the only standard of righteousness. From there it's research and debate.

I do not think its an official or generally accepted Christian position that, there is one God's standard for everything human, applicable to all situations and all ages. Not to say in the Bible, which was written so long ago that, many our topics were non-existent, back then.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Is that not precisely why the Holy spirit was given ? His final Word within us, on each personal circumstance we face in whatever culture?

 

[Carl Emerson]

I am not sure where are your questions supposed to lead, but yes, I agree that lying, shedding an innocent blood, wicked plans, a haste to make evil, false witnessing and sowing discord between brothers belong to the universally immoral principles and are also seen as such in Christianity.

The point I am making is that matters of absolute morality are expressed in Scripture aside from the formal Law we are no longer under.

 

[GDL]

I was a computer engineer for Burroughs...

Remember them well.

 

[GDL]

I checked all main translations on biblehub and all 14 or so say "I am under the law of Christ" or something of the same meaning. There are very few saying something different, but those are some I have never heard about or are generally free translations (for example New Living Translation has "I obey the law of Christ").

I understand that one or few translations may get something wrong, but if its you against practically all used translations, then I will perhaps stick to the vast majority, if you feel tired.

One can lead a horse to water...

DBY 1 Corinthians 9:21 to those without law, as without law, (not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ,) in order that I might gain those without law.

DRA 1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law.

YLT 1 Corinthians 9:21 to those without law, as without law -- (not being without law to God, but within law to Christ) -- that I might gain those without law;

BYZ 1 Corinthians 9:21 τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεῷ ἀλλ᾽ ἔννομος χριστῷ, ἵνα κερδήσω ἀνόμους.

ἔννομος adjective nominative masculine singular no degree from ἔννομος​

​

Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)​

​

[BDAG] ἔννομος​

• ἔννομος, ον (s. νόμος; Pind., Aeschyl. et al.; ins, pap, Sir prol. ln. 14; Philo, Abr. 242, Poster. Cai. 176; Jos., Ant. 19, 302; SibOr 3, 246; Just., D. 47, 4 ἔ. πολιτείαν; Ath., R. 70, 23 al.) pert. to being in accordance with law, legal, lawful. ἔ. ἐκκλησία Ac 19:39 could, acc. to the context, mean a legally convened assembly in contrast to a mob, but certain features of the word’s usage (Lucian, Deor. Conc. 14; SIG 672, 37 [II BC] ἐν τᾷ ἐννόμῳ ἐκκλησίᾳ) suggest the interpr. regular assembly in contrast to one called for a special occasion (s. IBM III/2, p. 141; WRamsay, Pauline and Other Studies3 n.d. [1906] 203-15).—Subject to law, obedient to law (Aelian, VH 2, 22 v.l.): ἔ. Χριστοῦ subject to the jurisdiction of Christ 1 Cor 9:21 as opposed to Mosaic jurisdiction (B-D-F §182, 3; Rob. 504—Proclus on Pla., Crat. p. 93, 5 P., the contrast ἔ. and ἔκνομος). The entire vs. can be rendered: ‘I identified as one outside Mosaic jurisdiction with those outside it; not, of course, being outside God’s jurisdiction, but inside Christ’s’. Fr. a purely linguistic point of view one can also transl. ἔννομος true to the law, upright, in the right (so ἔ. in Aeschyl., Suppl. 404; Pla., Rep. 4, 424e) acc. to the judgment of Christ.—CDodd, Studia Paulina (JdeZwaan Festschr.) ’53, 96-110.—M-M. EDNT. TW.​

 

[GDL]

I do not think its an official or generally accepted Christian position that, there is one God's standard for everything human, applicable to all situations and all ages. Not to say in the Bible, which was written so long ago that, many our topics were non-existent, back then.

I've seen that you are very oriented to cultures and the laws of men. Maybe it's a misprint, or an English issue (mostly your English seems excellent), but it seems you're denying the One True God having sovereignty over His creation. It's a very solid and well accepted point of Christian theology that God is sovereign and has final authority over all creation. His standards of righteousness are the only standards of righteousness and anything that does not align with His standards is unrighteousness/lawlessness/sin.

Setting aside the often and aggressively argued matter of Sabbath, is there any one of the 10 Commandments that does not apply today as it did when they were written? Do the commandments to Love God and Neighbor not apply now as they did when written (acknowledging that there are some commands that could be considered to have existed under the 2 summary commandments that are no longer applicable in Christ, but still can be used for wisdom)?

 

[GDL]

You present technical reasons for not referring to the Law of Christ. Would you endorse reference to the Law of the Spirit ?

Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

I'm not sure what you're asking. We are certainly within law to Christ, My technical points simply say our text does not say we are under the Law of Christ. Paul seems to reserve the phrase "under [the] law" to apply to a very specific condition in the OC era and he does not seem to let that phrase go outside his specific use. Whether we like it or not, the Spirit of God is very precise in what He inspires.

As for the Law of the Spirit, IMO this does refer to the Law of Christ, and I see the translation you're using (ESV?) as taking liberties with the original wording, which literally says, "...the law [of] the Spirit [of] the life in Christ Jesus..." I simply don't work with these varied and different English translations even though I will look at them and use them to copy and paste for this forum.

And, as I said to @myst33 a few posts ago, I looked at a few translations of 1Cor9:21 into other languages and out of 3, they were all different from one another. 1 seemed literal, 1 may be saying something similar, 1 went with "under" which the Greek does not say.

 

[trophy33]

The point I am making is that matters of absolute morality are expressed in Scripture aside from the formal Law we are no longer under.

Sure, nothing against that. There is a lot of moral teaching in various places in the Bible.

 

[trophy33]

(mostly your English seems excellent)

Thank you, I appreciate your kindness. I am well aware that my English is not too good, though. Hopefully, it will get better in time.

but it seems you're denying the One True God having sovereignty over His creation. It's a very solid and well accepted point of Christian theology that God is sovereign and has final authority over all creation. His standards of righteousness are the only standards of righteousness and anything that does not align with His standards is unrighteousness/lawlessness/sin.

I do not see the sovereignty of God being incompatible with the idea that different contexts may allow or even require different shapes of basic/fundamental moral rules. Different for the ancient Israel, different for the ancient Rome, different for a jungle tribe, different for the modern Germany.

I do not think these two topics are related to each other.

Setting aside the often and aggressively argued matter of Sabbath, is there any one of the 10 Commandments that does not apply today as it did when they were written?

For example, honoring our parents. What the western society does to old parents would not be possible in the ancient Israel. The idea that old parents are some kind of a burden and somebody else must take care of them. But people, including Christians, do it frequently and still believe they are honoring their parents.

However, if your question is more about the general principles - "Are we still supposed to honor our parents, not to steal, not to murder etc.?" Then the answer is yes, these did not change. With the exception of the Sabbath.

Do the commandments to Love God and Neighbor not apply now as they did when written (acknowledging that there are some commands that could be considered to have existed under the 2 summary commandments that are no longer applicable in Christ, but still can be used for wisdom)?

I do not see a reason why would these two commandments not apply today. The specifics of how they apply can be various, of course.

 

[trophy33]

One can lead a horse to water...

DBY 1 Corinthians 9:21 to those without law, as without law, (not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ,) in order that I might gain those without law.

DRA 1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law.

YLT 1 Corinthians 9:21 to those without law, as without law -- (not being without law to God, but within law to Christ) -- that I might gain those without law;

BYZ 1 Corinthians 9:21 τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεῷ ἀλλ᾽ ἔννομος χριστῷ, ἵνα κερδήσω ἀνόμους.

ἔννομος adjective nominative masculine singular no degree from ἔννομος​

​

Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)​

​

[BDAG] ἔννομος​

• ἔννομος, ον (s. νόμος; Pind., Aeschyl. et al.; ins, pap, Sir prol. ln. 14; Philo, Abr. 242, Poster. Cai. 176; Jos., Ant. 19, 302; SibOr 3, 246; Just., D. 47, 4 ἔ. πολιτείαν; Ath., R. 70, 23 al.) pert. to being in accordance with law, legal, lawful. ἔ. ἐκκλησία Ac 19:39 could, acc. to the context, mean a legally convened assembly in contrast to a mob, but certain features of the word’s usage (Lucian, Deor. Conc. 14; SIG 672, 37 [II BC] ἐν τᾷ ἐννόμῳ ἐκκλησίᾳ) suggest the interpr. regular assembly in contrast to one called for a special occasion (s. IBM III/2, p. 141; WRamsay, Pauline and Other Studies3 n.d. [1906] 203-15).—Subject to law, obedient to law (Aelian, VH 2, 22 v.l.): ἔ. Χριστοῦ subject to the jurisdiction of Christ 1 Cor 9:21 as opposed to Mosaic jurisdiction (B-D-F §182, 3; Rob. 504—Proclus on Pla., Crat. p. 93, 5 P., the contrast ἔ. and ἔκνομος). The entire vs. can be rendered: ‘I identified as one outside Mosaic jurisdiction with those outside it; not, of course, being outside God’s jurisdiction, but inside Christ’s’. Fr. a purely linguistic point of view one can also transl. ἔννομος true to the law, upright, in the right (so ἔ. in Aeschyl., Suppl. 404; Pla., Rep. 4, 424e) acc. to the judgment of Christ.—CDodd, Studia Paulina (JdeZwaan Festschr.) ’53, 96-110.—M-M. EDNT. TW.​

What is your point though, that there is no law of Christ?

I am not even sure what do you think is the difference between being under the law of Christ, in the law of Christ, subject to the law of Christ, obeying the law of Christ etc. It seems all synonymous to me.

 

[GDL]

Thank you, I appreciate your kindness. I am well aware that my English is not too good, though. Hopefully, it will get better in time.

Honestly, FWIW, I had no idea you were not a native English speaker until you said something about your English in one of your posts.

I do not see the sovereignty of God being incompatible with the idea that different contexts may allow or even require different shapes of basic/fundamental moral rules. Different for the ancient Israel, different for the ancient Rome, different for a jungle tribe, different for the modern Germany.

I do not think these two topics are related to each other.

I don't know what you mean by "different shapes." I will consider what you may mean, and I'll do so with your next statement.

For example, honoring our parents. What the western society does to old parents would not be possible in the ancient Israel. The idea that old parents are some kind of a burden and somebody else must take care of them. But people, including Christians, do it frequently and still believe they are honoring their parents.

For the most part it doesn't matter what Christians believe about honoring parents. We honor them according to God, or we don't honor them, no matter the culture. If this is your concept of "shapes," then I can understand what you're meaning. If we have a well-developed system of senior care, and it can be afforded, then IMO such a facility with health care professionals who actually do their jobs and do them well, can provide better care than I could provide, for example. Other factors can of course be brought into the discussion.

Nevertheless, the core of the command is to be applied universally. The Jews were playing games with this command and Jesus rebuked them for it in Matt15, Jesus tied it to Love Neighbor (which is also to Love/obey God) in Matt19, Paul reminds that this is the first commandment with a promise in Eph6 (so it has a special place in God's heart).

However, if your question is more about the general principles - "Are we still supposed to honor our parents, not to steal, not to murder etc.?" Then the answer is yes, these did not change. With the exception of the Sabbath.

The command is not negated if there are "shapes" as you've called it. The command remains unchanged and how we may apply some commandments accurately may have some "shapes." Again, I cannot agree to your "general principles" language, because it can be used IMO to soften and even negate a command and act as if there is no law anymore. There are commands and there is Law, even though we are not "under law."

I do not see a reason why would these two commandments not apply today. The specifics of how they apply can be various, of course.

Good, they do apply today and so do the commands they summarize. But this does not mean we are "under law" in the context of how Paul uses this phrase.

Other than your "shapes" concept, which may well be true for some commandments, murder is murder, adultery is adultery, fornication is fornication, perjury is perjury, stealing is stealing. Are you saying there are shapes to these also?

In the US, adultery being illegal was changed some time ago. US law is in opposition to God. Look at the current efforts to change laws re: gender and a host of associated sins. The argument about consenting adults (adultery, fornication) is now going for the next degenerating phase of godlessness and according to some adults, children's choice is being exerted above parental authority and God commanded honor of parents (10 C & Eph6). It's all just an attack on God and His commanded order and morality for His creation.

Antinomian professed christians are complicit IMO (small "c" for a reason). At some point, God says enough, and world dynamics change again.

 

[GDL]

What is your point though, that there is no law of Christ?

I am not even sure what do you think is the difference between being under the law of Christ, in the law of Christ, subject to the law of Christ, obeying the law of Christ etc. It seems all synonymous to me.

Maybe they debugged this site over the last few days???

This thread began with some discussions about the phrase "under law." My point is simple, I want to think and speak in line with our Bible - I want to think God's thoughts after Him. To expand the simplicity of this point, once we change what the Text actually says, we lose its meaning and begin asserting connections that don't actually exist and then we argue.

I've asked anyone reading to show me one verse that specifically and accurately translated says we are "under the law of Christ." If we can't find one, then let's not speak against the Text, but find it's terminology and think & talk like it. Then these nuances we argue about might begin to be fewer, until maybe there are none and the commanded unity of mind our Text talks about (1Cor1:10; Phil2:2 for example) and the adulthood of Christ's Ekklesia might come about, or we'd get closer to it - see Eph4:13 and the following context about futility of mind and ignorance.

We've been put "under Grace." Being under law and under grace are different. They're different eras and they have different dynamics. We weren't removed from being under law and put under law again. We were put under grace, and we, just like obedient to Christ in Christ in Spirit Paul, can say we are "lawful [men] [to] Christ and not "lawless [men] [of] God." In this language we can both see some type of a change and an association rather than a contrast between God's Law and the Law of Christ.

From here, much more language needs to be studied, before I might accept any of your seemingly synonymous language above. There are Greek words for every phrase you use in English above. Which, if any, are used in our Text? We can see in Gal6 that we can fulfill Messianic Law. We can see in 1Cor9 that we can be lawful men to Christ, but even this language points to Christ. IOW, am I subject to law being in Christ and walking in Spirit, or am I subject to Christ and being led & guided by the Spirit and the Word of God? If the Text speaks in this nuanced language, then there's a difference God wants us to understand.

 

[trophy33]

We honor them according to God, or we don't honor them, no matter the culture.

Thats probably what I mean by "the general principles". But how to follow them exactly, is based upon our specific situation. Specific instructions for ancient Israel or their habits do not need to apply to us.

The command is not negated if there are "shapes" as you've called it.

What is negated are specifics that are dependent on time and place.
Also, a command as such may be a part of a law that is not longer valid (like the Mosaic Law). But if the command is based upon universal principles, it will be repeated in some form in other laws or teachings (like in the New Testament).

Again, I cannot agree to your "general principles" language, because it can be used IMO to soften and even negate a command and act as if there is no law anymore. There are commands and there is Law, even though we are not "under law."

IMO, general good principles are more than commands. Commands, laws are just various implementations of those principles for a specific group of people. But the principles are above that.

 

[GDL]

Thats probably what I mean by "the general principles". But how to follow them exactly, is based upon our specific situation. Specific instructions for ancient Israel or their habits do not need to apply to us.


What is negated are specifics that are dependent on time and place.
Also, a command as such may be a part of a law that is not longer valid (like the Mosaic Law). But if the command is based upon universal principles, it will be repeated in some form in other laws or teachings (like in the New Testament).


IMO, general good principles are more than commands. Commands, laws are just various implementations of those principles for a specific group of people. But the principles are above that.

I don't recall you defining what you mean by "general principle" even when I brought out a definition from an English dictionary that says a principle can be a comprehensive and fundamental law. I see no reason to change the Biblical language of Law to principle. You're welcome to choose your terminology. I prefer the mindset of Jesus Christ:

NKJ John 12:48-50 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him-- the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 "And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."

Not much more I can say. We see things differently. God's Commandments are His sovereign standards for His creation. I do my best to walk in Spirit in Christ and understand and use the words He speaks without asserting my own. He spoke succinctly as our Father commanded and told Him to do. All else is eisegesis and I was taught to exegete.

You shall not murder, commit adultery, fornication, perjure, steal, covet, are commandments in God's Law. This is simple. There is no need to change His language to suit culture(s) or any antinomian leanings. Beyond there being no need, it is ill-advised.

Thanks for the discussion.