Thank God we are no longer under law then huh... or no one would be forgiven ever! Considering "looking" at a woman to lust after her is considered adultery for a man. Is it any wonder we needed the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is the only one that can sacrifice for our sins once and for all.. especially when man cannot do that for himself.
It is certainly a wonderful truth that those who have been redeemed, are no longer "under"
it...that is "under the Law" or "under the curse of the Law"; which is saying the same thing from another vantage point of what it means to be "dead to the Law" and alive to Christ. But though no longer under [the curse of] the Law, this does not mean we are without Law.
Let us all bring to mind the fact that the Law of God was not, is not revoked, destroyed or done away with. The Law of God is the express Will and Way of God, written down for the behalf of man. It is "good, holy and just"...it is the Living Oracle from God's mouth. If a man could live by it from birth to death in all aspects, not just outwardly but inwardly in perfect unison, he as a perfect unspotted man would be able to enter the Heavens where God lives, rules and reigns and never die.
Of course the problem is that none have or ever will keep the whole Law perfectly without fail..............except for, save for one man, the Holy One of Israel, the man Christ Jesus. It was his ever consistent righteous living out to the fullest extent (and even more so) of His Father's Will [Law and commandments] that earned him his right to be called Lord and become Lord of all.
We can only look to what he has accomplished on our behalf:
"as many as received him, to them gave he power (right) to become the sons of God"; and receive "the gift of God"..."the gift of righteousness".
Having said this though, we must be careful not to overstate what God's atonement provides. It certainly acts to take away our sins and transgressions, we've committed against God and his Law.
But the forgiveness of sins and the declaration that we are righteous in God's sight through the redemption that is in Christ, does not provide as in were 'diplomatic immunity' from continuing in sin.
"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!"
There are numerous passages that warn believers not to sin; and not to think that their continuing in sin will not be severely dealt with. On that note. If the (local) Ekklesia will not implement the commands that require disciplinarian action to be taken against those who are clearly continuing unrepentant in sin; and if the unrepentant believer fails to heed the
"rebukes of life" that are meant to turn them away from sin to sober living and righteousness: then after one's death, and on that One Day, where all stand to give account before the Throne of God (Judgment Seat of Christ), there will be fear and trembling for the sins yet not repented of.
So as wonderful as our having been redeemed from the curse of the Law is and the happy fact that 'we' are not under the Law, but in Christ; it is folly and dangerous in failing to be very careful with how we understand what God says in these things. If not careful, we can easily end up attaching foreign meanings to such phrases as "we are not under the Law" that act to contradict, undermine and overthrow the actual and precise meaning scripture gives for such terminology.
Now, to apply this to the above post:
Thank God we are no longer under law then huh... or no one would be forgiven ever! Considering "looking" at a woman to lust after her is considered adultery for a man. Is it any wonder we needed the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is the only one that can sacrifice for our sins once and for all.. especially when man cannot do that for himself.
If by
"Thank God we are no longer under law then huh... or no one would be forgiven ever!"
, you mean "Whatever 'legal' requirement the scriptures imposes upon us to keep God's commandments and not transgress against them; we are thankfully not under any 'real' obligation to do so", I would argue that
not being under the Law, does
not mean you are free to transgress God's Law; nor that we will be held liable for transgressing against the commands of God.
GRACE NOT TO SIN
Grace is not a license to sin. There is not teaching found in the Word of God that promises freedom to break God's Law, absent of earning and suffering the consequences of doing so. Again, we have not been granted any kind of spiritual diplomatic immunity from transgressing the Law. The scriptures warn of those who will arise within the Ekklesia, and teach a strange concept of the grace of God. What the effect is, is that these "ungodly men" end up
"turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness". What that translates into is what is being promoted by those who isolate phrases concerning not being 'under' the Law. What is being asserted is that there is no consequence to fear before God if you fail and even flat out completely ignore the prohibitions against doing (committing) what God commands not to do.
So though the scriptures clearly forbid and warn a husband not to commit treachery against
"the wife of his youth" (by putting her away and divorcing her, in order to marry another - perhaps for a 'newer younger model'). Yet according to the teaching that interprets the 'we are not under the Law' (to mean something that it does not): such husbands are (bottom line) free to do the very thing these scriptures plainly declare God forbids to do.
And further, according to this aberrant 'we are not under the Law' interpretive teaching, a wife who either was treacherously abandoned, put away and divorced by her husband; or else she
"treacherously" departed and divorced her first lawful husband: she too is lead to believe she need not fear the sober words of scripture which forbids, condemns and warns against doing so - in particular, marrying another while her husband is alive.
There is such a thing as
"the error of the wicked", false teachings which believers are not immune from being
"led astray" into swallowing and following. Peter warned his listeners of this danger. It is up to each of us who are sincerely seeking after God to be alert to the dangers we have been duly warned of by Christ, the apostles and the prophets of old to watch out for.
I judge that what I have been speaking about herein is one of those errors.
We are not under the Law. But what does that mean? Among other things, it means we have been delivered from the penalty the Law would have exacted upon us. And now, through Christ's work on Calvary and the gift of the Holy Spirit, we are told that we can now
"fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law" - this means also, that we are not free to violate them.
DIVORCE: 'NOT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN'
It has been said and parroted that 'divorce is not the unpardonable sin'. But neither is lying, or stealing, or bearing false witness, nor any and all other sins great and small. No sin is unpardonable...so long as it is repented of. That is all it takes and that is all that God requires of us. True or not true? Not true. It is required of the repentant to also forsake their sin:
"He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh [them] shall have mercy."
In addressing the issue of divorce. It is not possible at times to avoid being involved in it even if you are the 'innocent' party in a divorce. If your spouse has so hardened their heart due to being either bitterly implacable or indifferent to you and your pleas, what can you do? They are able in this culture to divorce you without your permission. In such a case, who can rightly judge you as a guilty party if you are not the spouse pursuing this action, and you have given no occasion to their drive them to this. The sin is on the side of the one seeking the divorce. Which, at its root, there are a myriad of sins.
That is bad enough for the one seeking the divorce. It is altogether another issue though, if or when in addition either party afterwards pursues a relationship with another other than their *lawful spouse. [*Lawful throughout refers to the laws of God, not to the civil laws men frame; which are 'legal' in nature].
The sins associated and committed in the pursuing and obtaining of a divorce is separate and different from the sins associated and committed in the process of forming an emotional and physical relationship with another person other than your lawful spouse. Before anyone who marries another other than their estranged spouse, they have to first both meet than choose to build an emotional bond with that other person. Deciding to enter into a civilly recognized 'marriage' relationship is the natural progressive outcome of entertaining thoughts that are themselves forbidden by God to allow to take root within the mind. The sin(s) of adultery is committed way before the 'knot' is ever tied in these things.
So when you touch on the fact in your post that Christ revealed there is a deeper more subtle definition to the meaning of adultery, that previously escaped the notice of the teachers of the Law, it is here that we are exposed to the fact that adultery is not merely a sin that is easily identified by an obvious unlawful act. But that it is spawned in the darkness of the heart and mind. He said:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
EXPANDED MEANING OF CHRIST'S WORDS & THE NATURE OF MAN
Side note:
Now in regards to Christ's words. I would argue that Christ is not saying that
lusting after any and all women results in the sin of adultery. The context is pointing to the fact that it is the lusting after and/or coveting of "thy neighbors wife" that is in view here.
That is not to say that if a grown man or teenage young man were lusting after an attractive mature or younger woman - and attractive
unmarried woman that they are not in violation of the prohibition against fornication. Perhaps they are. For if mental adultery is committing adultery in the eyes of God and according to his definition; then you would think it would not be improper to apply that same principle to the sin of fornication. But I am not certain of this. It may depend upon the degree and intensity which the mind of the man is focused upon certain details that shall be left well enough alone.
What I am saying is that the way man has been 'hard-wired' with reference to his natural drive, desire, plus how and why he thinks the way he does about the female form and woman as a counterpart to himself, in contrast to how females think about men; it's not always 'a given' that for a man to look with desire on a woman...an unmarried non-wife woman, is automatically sinful. To think about another man's wife is not the same as thinking about another man's daughter (as all women are daughters of some man). Though to be sure to covet and desire another man's daughter can be sin, when it is done in an inappropriate way. But lets be honest. It requires desire for a woman on the part of a man, to cause him to take the first step in initiating a relationship with her. This is so, even in the most wholesome and pure pursuits to seek out a help meet for him. [Note: In seeking to initiate a relationship, the divine mandate and order is the man must seek and obtain the permission of the woman's father to pursue her. To ignore and violate this order is also a violation of the Law of God: The 8th,
“Thou shalt not steal." The 10th,
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's [including coveting his daughters]." And the 5th,
"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." The daughter is bound to honor her father. So if she would think to marry against his will, she would be guilty of not only violating the fifth commandment; she would be violating a number of other commandments.
OPINION IF YOU WILL - BUT NOT IN MY VIEW
The laws concerning vows (Exodus 20) is not something I believe was done away with, as we can plainly understand from the NT letters, to be the case concerning the ceremonial and priestly duties prescribed under the Law. Christ was the embodiment and fulfillment of those ordinances and they were put away because Christ is all of this for us and on our behalf. In Exodus we can read how the wife and daughter are under the jurisdiction of the husband and father. He not only possesses the right but more so the responsibility to nullify any vow or promise his wife or daughter makes, which he may consider to be untenable in his judgment.
Out of Time and room.
p.progress
