IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

[LoveGodsWord]

I have never said there is no law.

Well that is not true. Are you not the one claiming Gods' 10 commandments have been now been abolished in the new covenant?

 

[HIM]

See 1 Corinthians 9:21.

Did that.
It does not say the law of Christ it says, lawful to Christ. Or mind you subject to the jurisdiction of or to Christ as the BDAG Lexicon puts forth in regards to the Greek word ennomos. The BDAG is the go to for understanding the Ancient Greek.

The ABP Bible translates it correctly. As does Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, the English Majority Text Version, the Literal Standard version, and Modern Literal Version to name a few. As you go about to find all the translations that agree with what you have put forth mind you please what was shared from the BDAG. Below is the citation from the BDAG for your convenience. It is also worthy to note the clause in question, “the law of Christ” as you have put forth is in the dative case. To translate the clause the way you think with the word “of” would be grammatically incorrect.
Take care

 

[Clare73]

Did that.
It does not say the law of Christ it says it says, lawful to Christ.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 9:21 states: (I became) "to the ones without law as without law, not being without (the) law of God but under (the) law of Christ." (Nestle text)

Or mind you subject to the jurisdiction of or to Christ as the BDAG Lexicon puts forth in regards to the Greek word ennomos. The BDAG is the go to for understanding the Ancient Greek.

Koine Greek was the common Greek spoken during the NT.

The ABP Bible translates it correctly. As does Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, the English Majority Text Version, the Literal Standard version, and Modern Literal Version to name a few. As you go about to find all the translations that agree with what you have put forth mind you please what was shared in from the BDAG. Below is the citation from the BDAG for your convenience.
Take care

 

[expos4ever]

Well that is not true.

Please stop your demonstrably false statements - I have never, repeat never, declared that we are not subject to some law.

Readers will know this - they can scour this thread and others and they will most assuredly fail to find even a scintilla of evidence that my position entails commitment to the idea that we are not subject to at least some kind of law.

Are you not the one claiming Gods' 10 commandments have been now been abolished in the new covenant?

I am indeed claiming this.

But, again, it is beyond obvious - and you should really come to terms with this since it is only hurting your position - that this does not mean I embrace lawlessness in the general sense. I believe I am subject to all sorts of laws, just not the 10 commandments and the rest of the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

If you agree that love is expressed in obedience to Gods' law as shown through the scriptures earlier, than what is your argument now? - You have none.

Well I do not agree with that, and believe I have never posted anything that suggests that, this side of the cross, love is expressed through obedience to the 10 commandments, or any other element of the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

As Paul says Gods 10 commandments are not abolished through faith it is ESTABLISHED through faith that works by love (see Romans 3:31...

I have already provided an argument that it is plausible to read Romans 3:31 as Paul saying that we "establish" or "uphold" the law in the specific sense of endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan even though role has come to an end.

The details of the argument are here - I believe you have never actually engaged that argument.

Did all the laws end at the cross- Part 2

As posted and shown from the scriptures already all the law does is to show give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing when obeyed) and evil (moral wrong doing when disobeyed)

I suggest you have not made this case at all in the sense that you have not actually addressed the argument this role of the law comes to an end at the cross as I have argued in detail.

For example, where have you actually my argument (below) to the effect that the "but now...." wording in Romans 3:21 does not mean that we have moved on from what was said in verse 20, namely that the law gives knowledge of sin. Here is one place where I made that argument. Please address it - don't dance away from it by providing other material, that while perhaps correct, does not squarely address the actual content of my argument in post here:

Did all the laws end at the cross- Part 2

 

[HIM]

It does not say the law of Christ it says, lawful to Christ. Or mind you subject to the jurisdiction of or to Christ as the BDAG Lexicon puts forth in regards to the Greek word ennomos. The BDAG is the go to for understanding the Ancient Greek.

The ABP Bible translates it correctly. As does Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, the English Majority Text Version, the Literal Standard version, and Modern Literal Version to name a few. As you go about to find all the translations that agree with what you have put forth mind you please what was shared from the BDAG.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 9:21 states: (I became) "to the ones without law as without law, not being without (the) law of God but under (the) law of Christ." (Nestle text)
Koine Greek was the common Greek spoken during the NT.

You must of missed as I did that the BDAG agrees with your preference of the Alexandrian text which uses the genitive case. I do not. But that is neither here nor there when we consider how the word is to be understood grammatically as laid forth in
The BDAG as shared above.

 

[Clare73]

It does not say the law of Christ it says, lawful to Christ.

Not in the Nestle Greek text.

 

[Clare73]

Well I do not agree with that, and believe I have never posted anything that suggests that, this side of the cross, love is expressed through obedience to the 10 commandments, or any other element of the Law of Moses.

As well you should not agree with that.
It's not about "love being expressed through obedience to God's law."
That's getting it backwards, as usual

It's about God's law "and any other commandment there may be" being expressed through love.
(Romans 13:8-10),
it's about the Holy Spirit writing the law on the heart, which Holy Spirit-wrought love is why loving is now the fullness of the law,
it's about love now governing the heart because the law has now been written on it, and one no longer needs an external code to know know how to obey the law, for Holy Spirit love gives them to know these things.

 

[HIM]

Edit

 

[expos4ever]

I want to address a form of evasion that I believe some are engaging in. When challenged, they will respond with material, often a lot of it, that effectively avoids dealing with the challenge.

Let me be more concrete with an example:

I (who believe the 10 no longer apply) have argued that Romans 3:20 - that declares that the law gives knowledge of sin - describes what was true before the cross. Central to my argument is that right after verse 20, we get this:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed....

My point is that the "but now" clearly indicates a transition from what was the case to what is now the case

When someone responds to this argument, they must, repeat must, at least in order to be credible, be able to complete this sentence:

"Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>."

Do you see what I mean? Unless the respondent can complete this sentence, they are evading the challenge I have posed.

This works both ways. And I have risen to this challenge with respect to Romans 3:31 by posting variations of this:

The establishment of the Law in verse 31 need not entail believing the law remains in force because to "establish the law" can plausibly entail endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan without committing to the position that the Law remains in force.

Arguments need to be engaged in their own terms. Often posters will provide arguments that may have their own merits but that do not actually deal with the specifics of the text they have been challenged with.

 

[Clare73]

I want to address a form of evasion that I believe some are engaging in.

You're much too kind in your appellation of it.

When challenged, they will respond with material, often a lot of it, that effectively avoids dealing with the challenge.

Let me be more concrete with an example:

I (who believe the 10 no longer apply) have argued that Romans 3:20 - that declares that the law gives knowledge of sin - describes what was true before the cross. Central to my argument is that right after verse 20, we get this:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed....

My point is that the "but now" clearly indicates a transition from what was the case to what is now the case

When someone responds to this argument, they must, repeat must, at least in order to be credible, be able to complete this sentence:

"Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>."

Do you see what I mean? Unless the respondent can complete this sentence, they are evading the challenge I have posed.

This works both ways. And I have risen to this challenge with respect to Romans 3:31 by posting variations of this:

The establishment of the Law in verse 31 need not entail believing the law remains in force because to "establish the law" can plausibly entail endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan without committing to the position that the Law remains in force.

Arguments need to be engaged in their own terms. Often posters will provide arguments that may have their own merits but that do not actually deal with the specifics of the text they have been challenged with.

Welcome to the determined strategy to obfuscate the Scriptures without ever directly addressing them.
Welcome to dodge and repeated non-responsiveness, ad infinitum.
You're wasting your time trying to inform it, for it is not based in ignorance, which can be corrected by informing.

 

[HIM]

Not in the Nestle Greek text.

Already covered.

It does not say the law of Christ it says, lawful to Christ. Or mind you subject to the jurisdiction of or to Christ as the BDAG Lexicon puts forth in regards to the Greek word ennomos. The BDAG is the go to for understanding the Ancient Greek.

The ABP Bible translates it correctly. As does Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, the English Majority Text Version, the Literal Standard version, and Modern Literal Version to name a few. As you go about to find all the translations that agree with what you have put forth mind you please what was shared from the BDAG.
You must of (must’ve) missed as I did that the BDAG agrees with your preference of the Alexandrian text which uses the genitive case. I do not. But that is neither here nor there when we consider how the word is to be understood grammatically as laid forth in The BDAG as shared above.

 

[expos4ever]

it's about love now governing the heart because the law has now been written on it, and one no longer needs an external code to know know how to obey the law, for Holy Spirit love gives them to know these things.

I agree. One problem that those who think we need the external code is this: they effectively eviscerate the "written on the heart" metaphor of all its meaning, flattening it into a triviality whereby we merely internalize (or memorize) the commandments.

Let me try to elaborate. The whole notion of something being "written on the heart" entails that the thing in question be "knowable" my means other than appealing to an external referent.

What the position of those who think the 10 remain in force have to buy into is the notion that all that has happened is that "words on stone tablets" have been "copy-pasted" into our brains.

That hardly honors the rich meaning we ascribe to the concept of something being written on the heart.

 

[Clare73]

I agree. One problem that those who think we need the external code is this: they effectively eviscerate the "written on the heart" metaphor of all its meaning, flattening it into a triviality whereby we merely internalize (or memorize) the commandments.
Let me try to elaborate. The whole notion of something being "written on the heart" entails that the thing in question be "knowable" my means other than appealing to an external referent.

What the position of those who think the 10 remain in force have to buy into is the notion that all that has happened is that "words on stone tablets" have been "copy-pasted" into our brains.
That hardly honors the rich meaning we ascribe to
the concept of something being written on the heart.

Correct, that is not what "written on the heart" means.
Rather, that is the strategically thought-out response to overcome NT teaching on the matter.

"Written on the heart" means Holy Spirit new-birth transformation of the heart to what is written on it.
(Philippians 2:13)

 

[expos4ever]

Therefore Gods' 10 commandments are the standard of if someone is loving God or their fellow man and also leads us to Christ when we break them that we might be forgiven through faith *Galatians 3:22-25 to be made free from sin and walk in His Spirit....

I have addressed Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7 over and over again. The reader is invited to decide which set of arguments are most convincing.

But I want to talk about Galatians 3: 22-25:

But the Scripture has confined everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian

I alway find it interesting when people elect, without warrant, to introduce qualifications to what Paul or Jesus say.

Here in Galatians, Paul says we are no longer under the law. Period. Yes, he says other things, such as the fact that we are now justified by faith. But, and this is key, how does this fact (that we are justified by faith) legitimze choosing to add a qualification, entirely unstated by Paul, to this effect:

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian......in the restricted sense that we are no longer justified by law (and the law remains in full force otherwise).

How do you defend such a move? What kind of careless writer would say we are no longer under the guardianship of the law and yet intend us to believe we need to continue to follow it? What does a guardian do, after all - it manages the behaviour of the child under guardianship! So to suggest that we still need to look to the law to govern our behavior abuses the very meaning of the term "guardian".

Yes, we are now justified by faith. Fine. But how, exactly, does this fact justify your decision to interpret "we are no longer under the guardianship of the law" as if the only issue here is how we are are "justified"?

 

[HIM]

I want to address a form of evasion that I believe some are engaging in. When challenged, they will respond with material, often a lot of it, that effectively avoids dealing with the challenge.

Let me be more concrete with an example:

I (who believe the 10 no longer apply) have argued that Romans 3:20 - that declares that the law gives knowledge of sin - describes what was true before the cross. Central to my argument is that right after verse 20, we get this:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed....

My point is that the "but now" clearly indicates a transition from what was the case to what is now the case

When someone responds to this argument, they must, repeat must, at least in order to be credible, be able to complete this sentence:

"Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>."

Do you see what I mean? Unless the respondent can complete this sentence, they are evading the challenge I have posed.

This works both ways. And I have risen to this challenge with respect to Romans 3:31 by posting variations of this:

The establishment of the Law in verse 31 need not entail believing the law remains in force because to "establish the law" can plausibly entail endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan without committing to the position that the Law remains in force.

Arguments need to be engaged in their own terms. Often posters will provide arguments that may have their own merits but that do not actually deal with the specifics of the text they have been challenged with.

The issue here regardless what camp one finds themselves in is Most are unteachable because of thinking they know something and or if one has perceived themself intelligent. And we all want the arguments to be in our own terms. Anyway….

Faith establishes the Law, validates, reinforces, upholds, maintains, causes to be steadfast, brings. This is what the Greek word histemi (establishes) brings out.

Let’s look at two things. First, how has Paul used and uses the Greek word translated establish in Romans 3:31 and throughout. It is the verb histemi as you know. It is in the present active indicative 1st person plural in verse 31. So to answer your question, ”Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>." Because We establish the law through faith is being stated as a fact in the present tense. An on going process that is indicative to us who possess the Faith in which is being spoken of.

Now for the second. Which also answers your question above. What is this Faith that establishes, maintains, brings about the law continuously?

Paul says in Romans 1:7 it is what the just live out of. And verse 1:5 states that grace is given for obedience to this faith. Which means Faith is something that needs obeyed and it is something which the just live by.

Then if we skip to 3:20-22 we see that none are justified by the law but by faith. We are not made righteous, justified through the law. We never were. As 1:17 stated the just shall live out of faith. Which is a quote from Hab. 2:4. Which means This fact was established in the old dichotomy prior to the New Covenant. Because of that fact now through Christ the righteousness of God is being manifested without the Law but through the faith OF Jesus Christ INTO all and upon all them whom believe. This Faith that manifests the righteousness of God is of Christ and we are given it. This Faith that we now have that is INTO and upon all whom believe establishes, maintains, brings about the law continuously.

God through Paul drives this home in verses 10:6-8 in Romans where he Paraphrases Deut 30:10-14 which is in the present tense also. He says, say not in your heart, who shall bring Christ down from above or up from the deep. But what saith it, the word is nigh thee in thy heart and in thy mouth. That is the Faith in which we preach.

In other words the Faith that Paul perched is the word in the heart. What is interesting about Paul quoting Deut. 30 is that in those verses we find out what Paul meant by the word in verse 8 of chapter 10. Paul in referencing Deut. 30 we see that starting in verse 10 the word that is being spoken of that is in our hearts is the commandments and statutes written in the book of the law. This is all done through Christ. Which is why Paul uses Christ in His paraphrase of Deuteronomy. And as Hebrews states God has said, He gives His law into our hearts and in our minds. Heb. 8:10; 10:16.
And in respect to the Faith that Paul preached he wrote in Galatian 2:20. We are dead nevertheless we live yet not us but Christ lives in us and the life we now live in the flesh we live by the faith OF the Son of God whom gave himself for us. For he that has been baptized into Christ have put Christ. By His stripes we have been healed.

 

[expos4ever]

The issue here regardless what camp one finds themselves in is Most are unteachable because of thinking they know something and or if one has perceived themself intelligent. And we all want the arguments to be in our own terms. Anyway….

I certainly agree that many people are unteachable. But I take issue with your last statement in that it seems to imply there is no "objective" standard of what constitutes responsible debate. But that is not really true - there is a general consensus on the principles of responsible debate. And one such principle is the one I enumerated - people should engage the arguments of others, not dance around them, drowning the reader with other material that, while perhaps valid, does not engage the argument.

 

[HIM]

I certainly agree that many people are unteachable. But I take issue with your last statement in that it seems to imply there is no "objective" standard of what constitutes responsible debate. But that is not really true - there is a general consensus on the principles of responsible debate. And one such principle is the one I enumerated - people should engage the arguments of others, not dance around them, drowning the reader with other material that, while perhaps valid, does not engage the argument.

Which is subjective on your part. In other words you have set a standard in which you perceived has not been met. Yet if the other is asked they will tell you that that they have addressed said issue and you just don’t like the answer. Anyway I don’t wish to continue in this discourse. But It was prompted by your comments. If you continue just know i won’t. I see no point in it. But if wish to address the rest of the post You responded to I am looking forward to it.
Take care.

 

[expos4ever]

So to answer your question, ”Therefore, the "but now" in verse 21 does not leave verse 20 in the past because.....<insert reasons>." Because We establish the law through faith is being stated as a fact in the present tense. An on going process that is indicative to us who possess the Faith in which is being spoken of.

I am sorry but I believe this does not work. Let's say we agree that in verse 31 the present tense is being used. So what? The very logic of the "but now" phrase certainly seems to require that the stuff that precedes the "but now" phrase lies in the past.

Look at what I believe you are effectively saying:

....but now.......the same condition applies as before - the law is in full force.

This is like saying this:

The NY York Yankees are the best team in baseball, but now the NY Yankees are the best team in baseball.

See the problem?

I agree that the present tense in verse 31 creates a challenge for me, and I hope to address it.

But it does not solve the problem posed by the "but now" phrase - no person who is thinking clearly would declare that the role of the law is to reveal sin, then use a "but now", and intend his reader to think that role was still active - the basic logic of the "but now" phrase precludes this.

I think your only hope is to argue that "now" is not meant in a temporal sense. For example, if I say "see here now, I take objection to your claim that Stars Wars is a great movie", I am using "now" in a kind of casual, throw-away sense that is not really imbued with reference to time.