Who did away with the law?

[VictorC]

how does one die to the law?

When you're ready to read my post, you're sure to find the explanation for this idiom.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Gee, you just called Moses a liar, and I'm supposed to perceive your disaffection for the law as something other than abject hatred for it?

No, I'm not buying your opinion in deference to Scripture.

• The ten commandments was the covenant from Mount Sinai.
• We are not bound to that covenant that we have been delivered from and instructed to cast away.

Direct quotes were furnished for you, and you simply don't have an excuse to feign ignorance.

like i said, i've already answered this and you didn't like what i said for whatever reason.

and you know, i dont' agree with your evaluation either!

 

[JohnRabbit]

When you're ready to read my post, you're sure to find the explanation for this idiom.

which post #?

 

[VictorC]

why? because the husband died!

What did the first husband represent?

released from the law does not mean she is free from keeping the law.

Romans 7 offers no indication that anyone kept the law, and this is affirmed later in the epistle in Romans 11:32. Romans 7:6 is clear when it states that the law kept the recipients God redeemed in the past tense.

how does one die to the law?

Bury the dead husband.

 

[VictorC]

which post #?

It's on the same page you're viewing!

you can spin it anyway you want VictorC, so you tell me how does one die to the law?

Romans 7:4 says "you also have become dead to the law".
Romans 7:6 says "now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by".
In both cases the verbs used do not indicate any action by the individual. Your question about how you're going to die is fallacious, and this idiom was addressed in my post.

Having that question resolved, please return to my post and tell me what spin you think it contains.

i really do admire what you bring to the table VictorC, because i am convinced that you know a lot about the scriptures. we go back and forth on these subjects, and i know in my heart that you love the lord with all your heart.

with that said, i still have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, because verse 4 of romans seven tells me who has to die and verse 6 surely sounds like baptism to me.

Referring to baptism is a prejudice that you have imposed on the text, as the text contained in Romans 7 mentions nothing about baptism.

the law lost it's claim as stated in verse 3 which states that the "husband died" and that's what freed the wife from the penalty of adultery. that's what the verse says and there's no way to parse that imo.

According to the marriage analogy inserted into this text in verses 2 and 3, the husband has to die before the wife is free to marry another husband. Using that example, verse 4 redefines the terms that the author presented so that it applies our relationship with the law and with Jesus Christ:

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another----to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.​

The marriage analogy is presented first, and then the application of the analogy is given in the tenor of "likewise...". The first husband was the law, from which we need to be separated from before we can become married to another, Who is Jesus Christ.

The first half of Romans 7 is prefaced with the qualification "for I speak to those who know the law", and the narrative you're having so much trouble with is sandwiched between these two antithetical points made by the author:

• the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives - 7:1
• But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by - 7:6

The example of marriage was inserted between these to help lead the reader into the realization that one is bound (held, under dominion) to either the law or to Jesus Christ. It is not possible to belong to both, and redemption from the ownership of the law is a common theme most sabbatarians don't have a grasp of. Please remember that I was once a sabbatarian myself within the MJ community - and once redemption is understood, the exit door from sabbatarianism is only moments away. MJs also know the law a lot better than you do, and I was tempted to tell Frogster that there is no way you were a MJ. Your beliefs are more attuned to Adventism, but you display minor variances away from that belief system that I'm very familiar with.

Instead of following the flow of a narrative written by the author, you jump ahead and practice the same method of "line upon line, precept upon precept" that Isaiah 28:13 warns us to be a eisegetical trap and snare. No doubt that's why you grasp at baptism, which is foreign to Romans 7.

Romans 7:13-14 ( NKJV ) 13Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

paul answers your question if you care to believe what he says. it wasn't the law but sin that was producing death, paul says so.

You had best reconcile that assertion with "sin through the commandment". If you care to believe what Paul wrote, you would have recognized your out-of-context sound bite can't be reconciled with the previous verses you skipped over:

8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.
9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.​

In the longer narrative presented in Romans, you simply can't ignore the point made that sin is imputed by transgressions to the law in chapter 4. And unlike God, the law does not have the capability to forgive transgressions - it demands atonement by blood as its means of reconciliation.

the only way i know for the christian to die to the law, and notice the person dies and not the law, is to be baptized!

baptism is the symbolic act that shows a person put away the sinful self, and starting over as a new creation!

As I mentioned, baptism is foreign to the narrative we're considering. I don't want to rely on what you know, but rather point you to reliance on the text you're staring at. Dying to the law is an old idiom that means that the law is powerless to affect you, and conveys the same meaning as the law has lost jurisdiction over you.

i'm one who is not going to throw the ten commandments under the bus.

God didn't ask for your permission. As I mentioned before, direct quotes were furnished in many cases that show:

• The ten commandments was the covenant from Mount Sinai.
• We are not bound to that covenant that we have been delivered from and instructed to cast away.

It was God Who took the former covenant away, not mortal mankind, for it is Jesus Christ Who is referred to by "He" in Hebrews 10:9: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second". The new covenant is not compatible with the covenant from Mount Sinai, which conveys the same point that you can't be married to Jesus Christ and the law concurrently found in Romans 7. To claim that you are is adultery and open defiance to the new covenant. That leads to the next point...

so this question you posed:

how do you plan on escaping your death penalty for adultery, which violates the entire covenant?

Don't refer to baptism anymore; it is not germane. You're apparently content to practice adultery and you're making excuses to rationalize your practice away in your own mind.

i still have to disagree with you about the adam and eve deal, they were married and i know that there was a law that bound them together.

But you can't find that law, can you? There was no law describing marriage over Adam and Eve, and there was no ordinance describing adultery that had never happened in their lives. What you "know" is ridiculous to the point of inanity.

i told you one time before, i am not going for "the banana in the tailpipe", you can, but i simply won't go there.

Does anybody know what this guy is talking about?

 

[JohnRabbit]

What did the first husband represent?

Romans 7 offers no indication that anyone kept the law, and this is affirmed later in the epistle in Romans 11:32. Romans 7:6 is clear when it states that the law kept the recipients God redeemed in the past tense.

Bury the dead husband.

are you saying, that keeping the law is a bad thing to do?

 

[VictorC]

are you saying, that keeping the law is a bad thing to do?

Answer my question contained in the post you quoted, and I will gladly respond to yours.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Answer my question contained in the post you quoted, and I will gladly respond to yours.

tell me what post #!

 

[Frogster]

[

Paul said he died to the law..released from the law..

Dying to what once bound us..the law..

It says released from..THE LAW..

Look at the comparison right in the verse..


6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

NOT..in the written code, what in tarnation do you think the written code was?

The whole issue was the law in that verse..

 

[VictorC]

tell me what post #!

You can't even remember your own post #396 you wrote a mere ten minutes ago?

 

[Frogster]

i've already answered on this to you before, go look it up.

Oh come on. Like I am supposed to start fumbling around looking for it..

Please..just a simple answer..


What was written in stone, now set aside?

2 Cor 3;7 Now if the ministry of death, chiselled in letters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, 8how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory? 9For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory! 10Indeed, what once had glory has lost its glory because of the greater glory; 11for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!

What cov was being spoken of here?

Hebrews 10:8-9 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Victor,
Yesterday, we discussed Rom 5:13 “until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed (charged) where there is no law.”

I think I explained that this verse proves that law was in existent prior to Moses. The last part of verse 13 and the definition of sin being the transgression of the law, we can clearly see that it is law that identifies what sin is. So I think it is clear that you and I agree that law did exist prior to Moses.

We do not; however, agree on what law it was.

But I was thinking about this today. Earlier I posted in this thread, how that the children of Israel, before they being led out of Egypt, were commanded to keep the Passover, a high day Sabbath. Also, I posted how they kept the Days of Unleavened Bread, also a high day Sabbath, as they exited Egypt; both of which, being prior to Mt. Sinai. Also, we see in Gen 39 Joseph refusing to commit adultery, which he thought to be a great sin against God. We see in Gen 26:5 that Abraham kept “My statues, My commandments, and My laws.” Among other acts, prior to Mt. Sinai, we would understand those acts to violate the Ten Commandments. But were the Ten Commandments in effect prior to Sinai? A most valid question.

We know from the gospels the Christ taught the Ten Commandments, by naming most of them and keeping all of them. He even summarized them in order, “Love thy God, and Love thy neighbor.” Some do not agree that Christ was summarizing the Ten Commandments here and that is how they might perceive it but is not mine. Not sure of your stance on that.

We do not differ, in that; the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses were both part of the covenant (agreement) made with the peoples of Israel. We agree on that.

It seems to me, and I have explain my position, that the law which came 430 later and was added because of transgressions, implies an existing law, as well. We know the Ten Commandments were written by the hand of God and given to the children of Israel.

Now let me get to my point which I was thinking about. If Christ being the Word and the Word was God, and Christ being the one who gave the law at Mt. Sinai, does it not make sense to you that the Law of God – the Ten Commandments – which he taught and gave at two different times, thousands of years apart, also gave it in the beginning? Does it not make sense to you, that the Creator of man would reveal himself and give the very laws in which he never violates? How would man know in what “way” he was to live?

Christ said, “I am the same, yesterday, today and forever.” Do you not think he lived by those laws yesterday?

You might not agree with this. Just interested on your take.

 

[YosemiteSam]

[

Paul said he died to the law..released from the law..

Dying to what once bound us..the law..

It says released from..THE LAW..

Look at the comparison right in the verse..


6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

NOT..in the written code, what in tarnation do you think the written code was?

The whole issue was the law in that verse..

What is it that holds captive? the law?

 

[JohnRabbit]

What did the first husband represent?

Romans 7 offers no indication that anyone kept the law, and this is affirmed later in the epistle in Romans 11:32. Romans 7:6 is clear when it states that the law kept the recipients God redeemed in the past tense.

Bury the dead husband.

oh, i see.

the first husband represented her first husband.

i didn't say that anyone kept the law!

Romans 7:6 ( NKJV ) 6But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

"now we have been delivered from the law". how did that happen?

Christ died for us! now, did the Christ die so we wouldn't have to keep the law?

John 3:16 ( NKJV ) 16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

the bible says that the Christ died so that we should not perish or die.

if it said that He died so that we don't have to keep the ten commandments, then i'd be onboard. simply doesn't say that.

now, as far as i know, the dying thing only happens if we transgress God's law.

Ezekiel 18:20 ( NKJV ) 20The soul who sins shall die. ...

we have died to what we were held to. what was it that we were held to?

the law? no, SIN!

Romans 7:13 ( NKJV ) 13Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, ...

the law which is good did not become death, but SIN!

so it is Sin we were held to, it is Sin that we married, it is Sin that we are a slave to, it is Sin that is our master, it is Sin that seperates us from God, not His laws!

so we died to what we were held to, Sin or our sinful self. the law just let us know that we were wrong.

Romans 7:7 ( NKJV ) 7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

how are we supposed to know what Sin is but for the law?

i really don't see how you law haters get around that.

 

[JohnRabbit]

You can't even remember your own post #396 you wrote a mere ten minutes ago?

whatever!

 

[JohnRabbit]

Oh come on. Like I am supposed to start fumbling around looking for it..

Please..just a simple answer..


What was written in stone, now set aside?

2 Cor 3;7 Now if the ministry of death, chiselled in letters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, 8how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory? 9For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory! 10Indeed, what once had glory has lost its glory because of the greater glory; 11for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!

What cov was being spoken of here?

Hebrews 10:8-9 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

what do you think i be doing?

 

[VictorC]

whatever!

What did the first husband represent?

 

[VictorC]

the definition of sin being the transgression of the law

It has been pointed out several times that this is both an incomplete definition of sin according to the same epistle written by the same author you got this partial definition from, and that because it refers to the specific law mediated by Moses consistent to how Paul used it to refer to the law that came 430 years after Abraham received the promise that is the basis of our salvation.

You're faced with an analysis that posits that there was no such thing as sin prior to Moses. This is the inevitable result of your definition opined in error.

 

[JohnRabbit]

What did the first husband represent?

i answered that in post #404.

 

[VictorC]

the first husband represented her first husband.

You took 45 minutes to research the answer, and the answer you provided was wrong.