Mb_C
Active Member
Well, if you want to be technical, this wasn't written in English. In the original Greek, Paul had that phrase written without the "state of being" verb. ie. He didn't include "was/is" because it was common to leave out the verb for predicate nominatives ("glory", δοξα, is the predicate nominative form) ie. the original Greek sentence didn't use "was". Therefore, verse 9 and 10 can be read like this:
"If the old way, which brings (there's no tense form here, because 'condemnation' is a noun in genitive form) condemnation, was/is/has/had (you cannot bring the importance of tense here, because there's no 'state of being' verb here; the 'was/is' is a filler to make it flow in English) glory/glorious ('glory' is more accurate because it's a noun in Greek), how much more glorious/glory (again, 'glory' is better because it's a noun) has/is (again, there's no verb here) the new way, which makes us right with God!"
I don't just read it in English. It's still a translation and meanings do get lost in translation for the sake of smooth reading in English, so I look up the sentence structure in the original text.
Even if you don't look into the original sentence structure, a look across the large number of English translations can show the loss of meaning. You really shouldn't stick to one translation; each translation has verses that carry the thought and structure of the original text well while lacking in others.
Here's the NET version:
"But if the ministry that produced death– carved in letters on stone tablets– came with glory, so that the Israelites could not keep their eyes fixed on the face of Moses because of the glory of his face (a glory which was made ineffective)"
Here, the NET version correctly indicates that the last bit is a descriptive phrase of Moses' lit-up face by using parentheses. ie. "glory that ceased/made ineffectual" was a reference to Moses' face's glow.
To be precise, Paul wrote in Greek that the letter still kills; Paul wrote that verb in the Present tense in the Active voice.
At a cursory reading, it certainly makes it sound like Paul wrote that the letter is the one doing the killing. It's not - it ends up killing you, but is not the one doing the killing. Romans 7:8-9 states the mechanism -> there's sin in you, but it doesn't result in killing you unless you're aware of the law of God. Once you know the law of God, the sin in you pounces on you and makes you dead.
Paul later stated in Romans 8:6-7 as to why that happens -> your carnal mind defaults to being totally against wanting to obey the law of God (the word Paul used in Greek means 'willing obedience' that is sometimes translated as 'subject to' which is NOT the same as 'under'), which means being cut off from God, so you die.
The old covenant, which was about humans promising "all you have said, WE will do", could only result in death because, as Romans 8:6-7 says, the default human carnal mind is driven to not being willingly obedient to the law of God.
The new covenant, which is about the Holy Spirit transforming your nature into a holy mind, results in life because this new nature's mind is driven to being willingly obedient to the law of God -> as a result, sin cannot pounce on you and bring death to you.
Well I'm surprised you're not linking these two statements together:
Romans 7:6 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.
2 Corinthians 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
In the case of what Paul wrote ministry means 10cs.
It was also a sampling of how we are to treat God. This thread has highlighted the main disagreement is about the command to remember the Sabbath by keeping it holy.
And you are so very right, that the 10C are just samples. Jesus pointed out that the nature of the adultery commandment extends to the mind's lust. The 10C are the behavioural guideposts. In Galatians 3:24, Paul described the 10C role as being the paidagogos, the tutor in charge of making sure a boy's behaviour and morals mirror what was expected of nobility.
It is precisely because the 10C are samples, that if you truly have matured into a spiritual adult, your behaviour and morals mirror that of the 10C. That is not to say that adults don't stumble while walking; they just don't stumble anywhere near as frequently as babies do.
I have done nothing with interpreting concepts. What I have done is pointed out the importance of not relying purely on English translations to understand how it was written. Grammatical structure analysis is mainly what I've done. Not interpretation, but translation.
Ok, I see another misunderstanding to clear up -> the 10C covenant had nothing to do with the new moons, agricultural and bounty celebrations, etc. Those laws were not included in the covenant with Israel. Those laws were given after the 10C covenant had already been ratified, which means nothing could be added to it.
While the Sabbath was given to Israel to remind them of God's deliverance from Egypt, the Sabbath did not originate because of this deliverance. Furthermore, the command was to remember the Sabbath by keeping it holy; the command did not institute the Sabbath. The command was about how to treat the Sabbath.
So do I. The Sabbath isn't a day to serve God. We are to serve Him every day. The Sabbath is the day God set aside as the special time to bask in His providence and to extend His blessings to others. A husband shouldn't be loving to His wife only on special dating nights, but every day. Nevertheless, those dating nights are different - they hold special meaning. That's how it is with the Sabbath.
It was not my intention to offend, but to lighten up the intensity by attempting less formal address standards. If you want me to be more formal, then I will oblige.
This is taken out of context of the earlier sentences.
"God has set His Sabbath at the end of the six working days, that men may stop and consider what they have gained during the week in preparation for the pure kingdom which admits no transgressor. We should each Sabbath reckon with our souls to see whether the week that has ended has brought spiritual gain or loss. {6T 356.3} It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30. {6T 356.4} "
The Sabbath is directly related to eternal salvation, because without the special reflection required of the Sabbath, you will not recognise when you have progressed or regressed in your spiritual development. You may say, "I do this everyday," and that is good. But realistically, it is easy to forget to do that. But even if you do, it is the special day set aside by God to do it. This is reflected in the sacrifices on the Sabbath being special according to Levitical law.
Again, as with my comment above, the Sabbath is a special time God has set. Satan convinced the Catholic church back then that it was ok to do so. If you are asking "what does it matter?", then the fact you ask this shows why it matters. Satan's purpose was to make people think it is ok to disregard God's law for the sake of convenience.
As I affirmed earlier in this reply, the 10C is the sample behaviour expected from those who claim to be spiritual adults. A spiritual adult in God's kingdom would not be saying it is ok to behave in a way contrary to the sample behaviour, because that's the minimum. Jesus said: "Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (who made it their mission to follow the law scrupulously, including their own made-up restrictions), you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." You can't make a cup overflow until you've reached the brim. But it is impossible without having your nature first converted by the Holy Spirit.
Well I am surprised you disagreed with this. Substitute this statement with what Jesus said about adultery and it reads like this:
"No man who disregards the commandment about adultery, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of it extending to lust in the mind, can be held guiltless in the sight of God when that man lusts after another woman."
This is an application of what Jesus said:
"Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his lord's will and did not prepare, nor did according to His will, shall be beaten with many stripes."
Again, this is the application of what Jesus said in Luke 12:47. The key phrase being "If the light has shone". By "light has shone", it doesn't mean mere listing of proof in front of a person. It has to be presented the way truth was presented to Pharaoh. Pharaoh's heart hardened as a result of God's Spirit being involved (Exodus 4:21). If the truth is presented to someone, but without the Holy Spirit enlightening them, then it is not the same as "rejecting" - instead it is "not understanding".
Again, reading without the Holy Spirit enlightening the passages is "not understanding" and is very different from "rejecting".
Not an oath. An affirmation of belief.
"spend millions upon millions"? A rather extravagant claim, just because we add what the Bible says about the Sabbath to the list of things we present in evangelism meetings? We preach only what the Bible says about anything. Since Jesus brought up the Sabbath during His first coming, that's what we do too.
To the contrary, we are merely saying it is impossible to run (have God's character) before being able to walk (willingly obeying the sample, the 10C) and that it is impossible to walk without having legs (the Holy Spirit enabling the possibility by changing your carnal mind).
Upvote
0
