Paul Enforces Animal Husbandry Law

HARK! said:

(CLV) 1Co 9:8
Not according to man am I speaking these things. Or is the law not also saying these things?

According to who then?

The what? The law? What law?

(CLV) 1Co 9:9
For in the law of Moses it is written: "You shall not muzzle the threshing ox." Not for oxen is the care of God!

So Paul is quoting YHWH's authoritative word?

Where did he get this, in a vision after Yahshua ascended?


(CLV) Dt 25:4
You shall not muzzle a bull when it threshes.

The TORAH?!?

(CLV) 1Co 9:10
Or is He undoubtedly saying it because of us? Because of us, for it was written that the plower ought to be plowing in expectation, and the thresher to partake of his expectation.

Wait! What's this? Paul is not only quoting of the 613; but he's applying it in a way that is deeper than what is actually written. HE'S SAYING IT BECAUSE OF US? We actually have to listen to YHWH's Torah?!? Where is he getting this? Was it written on his heart?

(CLV) 1Co 9:11
If, in expectation, we sow the spiritual in you, is it a great thing if we shall reap of your fleshly things?

Fleshly things? That sounds like works of the law.

(CLV) 1Co 9:12
If others are partaking of this right from you, are not rather we? Nevertheless we do not use this right, but we are forgoing all, lest we may be giving any hindrance to the evangel of Christ.

Wait a minute! Is Paul saying that if we don't obey YHWH's law, at even a deeper level than it is written; and actually do works of the Law; that the evangel of Messiah may be hindered?

That sounds awfully legalistic. So many have told me that I didn't have to do a thing except lay back and enjoy the grace.

Click to expand...

You know, one thing that seems very clear is that the dietary laws that God told the Jews to follow would keep them safe from creatures carrying diseases and makes more sense now. They do not seem like "you shall not enjoy this food" but more "stay away from this sort of food so that you remain healthy." Not saying we need to follow them, but that in those days they did not have any means to keep animal food sources disease free. So best stay away. Makes sense and makes God appear loving and not restrictive.

Dkh587 said:

I’m not sure why you keep insisting on the law of God and the law of Moses being 2 different things - they are the same. Paul is not teaching in opposition to the Law of Moses & the Prophets - if he were, that would make him a false teacher, and worthy of death.

you refuse to acknowledge that God’s law is the same as Moses’ law, when God and many prophets and kings have acknowledged it...

If God’s law is the law of Messiah, then the law of Moses is also the law of Messiah, because the law of Moses is the law of God (as you have already been shown with an overwhelming amount of scriptures)

it would help your argument if you could actually show scriptures to verify your doctrines - most of what you’ve posted is conjecture and opinion.

Click to expand...

The scripture is 1 Cor 9 which contrasts the law with God law/Christ law. Paul is not under the law yet he is under the law of Christ thus they are different. I'm not sure how much clearer that can be and this is also the immediate context of the OP. May I suggest, as the OP suggests, there is the surface component of the law which is limited as well as the deeper meanings which are extend beyond covenants. When Paul address the law he refers to these surface components and when he expresses freedom from the law but under the law of Christ he expresses the deeper meanings. Just like the aforementioned ox not being muzzled. Paul doesn't care what you do with your ox and if you think he does you've missed the point.

Classic example of course is the sacrificial system, it points to Christ and we no longer have to spill the blood of animals as per the letter of the law but instead look to what the law points to, namely Christ. Let's take another example, the Sabbath, it's controversial but there is no need for it be. The surface components point to a system around a day of rest but it's deeper meaning points to Christ (just like the sacrafice) and just like the sacrificial system the day of the sabbath is limited but what it points to, namely Christ, gives us a greater rest and fulfills the sabbath and goes beyond it. A day cannot give us the rest of God just as a bull, lamb or goat cannot redeem us. It is only Christ that gives us these things not a day or an animal. But it doesn't stop there it is a part of the entire law, the mixing of grains or threads, the dietary system or the tabernacle... all point to systems under Christ (his law) and their requirements are no longer about the practice of the letter of the old.

Abstractly I know you agree, except for some reason where the sacrificial system no longer is practiced according to the letter of the law this doesn't apply to the sabbath or dietary laws (or others) which is illogical, counter-gospel and carries a pagan mindset.

HARK! said:

Under the law....What do you think that means?

Let's take a good look at this.

Paul is the only person in scripture to use this terminology; so we'll have to rely solely on Paul's writings to define it.

(CLV) Ro 3:19
Now we are aware that, whatever the law is saying, it is speaking to those under the law,

So if the law isn't speaking to you; you are not under the law. Who might this include?

that every mouth may be barred, and the entire world may become subject to the just verdict of God,

This looks like the law is speaking to everyone. Verdict? Verdict for what? I'll figure that out later. I think I have a new study ahead of me. Let's move on.



(CLV) Ro 6:14
For Sin shall not be lording it over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.

What is sin?

Sin is transgression of the law.

So if sin is lording over you; then you are under the law. If you are sinning; then you are under the law, unless you are under grace.

So based on Romans 3:19 we can see that everyone in the world who has sinned will become subject to the just verdict of YHWH, in the absence of grace. So under the law means under YHWH's verdict for sin.

(CLV) Ro 6:15
What then? Should we be sinning, seeing that we are not under law,(under YHWH's Verdict for sin) but under grace? May it not be coming to that!

So even though YHWH, has shown us grace; after we broke his laws; he still doesn't want us to break his laws.

Well now; this all makes perfect sense now. Paul's writings are now aligned with the Torah (YHWH's Law). In this light he doesn't come off as a heretic for contradicting YHWH, and Yahshua, and all of the other Apostles. In this light Paul doesn't come off as a schizophrenic for contradicting himself.

I'm thankful that we had a chance to look at this together. Do you think that we need to look any further?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why Romans answers this apparent riddle you're inventing in 1 Cor 9, if the OP is a set up to talk about Romans then you should have made that clear in the OP because it seems you have forgotten the context (I don't see one reference to the context here), perhaps I suggest you set up a new thread regarding your thoughts on Romans or a more broader discussion which responsibly allows this cross referencing.

Paul directly establishes he is not under the law and he directly establishes he is under the law of Christ. I think you need to start by reconciling this in the context first before you jump books. You are trying to force a position contrary to what Paul so clearly establishes and can only do this when you jam a bunch of other verses into it outside of the context. I'm not sure why you are working so hard to do this.

Paul's words are in depth enough and he actually repeats himself quite a few times to establish his point, let's stick to the context. The thoughts in Romans have their own points that can be talked about at length but then are we talking about 1 Cor 9 or are we talking about Romans? You need to figure out what your point is because right now it's superimposing your thoughts on Romans over this passage... I'm not not interested in that kind of discussion. if it is true, then tell me why using the context.

Dkh587 said:

I’m not sure why you keep insisting on the law of God and the law of Moses being 2 different things - they are the same. Paul is not teaching in opposition to the Law of Moses & the Prophets - if he were, that would make him a false teacher, and worthy of death.

you refuse to acknowledge that God’s law is the same as Moses’ law, when God and many prophets and kings have acknowledged it...

If God’s law is the law of Messiah, then the law of Moses is also the law of Messiah, because the law of Moses is the law of God (as you have already been shown with an overwhelming amount of scriptures)

it would help your argument if you could actually show scriptures to verify your doctrines - most of what you’ve posted is conjecture and opinion.

Click to expand...

James 4:12...there is only One Lawgiver and judge. ..

The difference in the law of Moses and Christ is about their "righteous requirements "...
Law of Moses (10) ...based on your own works...
Law of Christ (Spirit )...based on Faith (wisdom & understanding )

HARK! said:

The law given to Moses is YHWH's law. Messiah's law is YHWH's law.

It was always about faith. Obedience to YHWH's law is the expression of faith.

Abraham demonstrated this.

Now can you show me one verse that states that salvation, at any time, is based on your own works?

Click to expand...

The law given through Moses was given 430years after the covenant with Abraham...Galatians 3:17...
Abraham already dead when the law was given in Sinai....

Abraham had faith...Faith is referring to our knowledge of Christ...

The law is "Not" base on Faith...Galatians 3:12...

HARK! said:

No he doesn't. That's a mistranslation.

See: εννομος G1772

Click to expand...

So is "not under the law" I speak of the translation in sufficient depth in other posts and explain the English in common translations carry the meaning well. They are adjective forms of law one to describe lawlessness and the other "law-ness" (for lack of better word). It is a word that expresses "with-law" and the other negates it so "without-law" under law and not under law express this fine. Getting hyper focused on the language of one translation is never responsible especially when it's not widely known.

HARK! said:

(CLV) Ja 2:21
Abraham, our father, was he not justified by works when offering up his son Isaac on the altar?

(CLV) Ja 2:22
You are observing that faith worked together with his works, and by works was faith perfected.

(CLV) Ja 2:23
And fulfilled was the scripture which is saying, Now "Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."

Click to expand...

The scripture you quote is all about the law of Christ (Spirit)...where faith is the requirement...the works that comes from our faith is the work of God in us...

The law of Moses is based on man's own work...Not of Faith....the works that comes from our own apart from God...

HARK! said:

(CLV) Gn 26:5
inasmuch as your father Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My instructions, My statutes and My laws.

Click to expand...

Not about the law given 430years later in Sinai....otherwise scripture would not have state that the Law was given 430years later if it was given to ABraham 430 yrs earlier...

It all about Faith..."knowing Christ "

I didn't change any words, so be careful what you accuse people of. I am merely saying the popular translations carry the meaning responsibly. I also fully accept the word in context "not under the law" or "under the law" are both individual adjectives one meaning with-law, the other without-law. But english doesn't have adjectives that support these meanings and prepositions are used to bridge the words to their corresponding head nouns such as "under the law of Christ". If you have issue with this language your argument is not with me it's with the many translations that support this language.

"Legally" I don't think captures this word either but if legally is used then it should be consistent which the CLV is not. It translates the word into "under law" and the negation as "without law" but for Christ it changes methods and says legally Christ's. For a literal translation they are pretty interpretive in this part going away from their own previously established translated "under law" which to me suggests a bias. Perhaps you should examine a wider array of translations to come to a more balanced view.

NOTE: This message did not consider the entire context and has some inaccuracies, click to see the updated version

-

HARK! said:

Sorry if I offended you; but your translation is wrong. So is the CLV; but at least the CLV acknowledges that it is two different thoughts. The CLV is not without bias. The point is that in the Greek, two different words are being used in this passage. All of them correctly translate to 'under the law' υπο νομον, except for the one concerning Messiah. εννομος or 'en nomos' could be correctly translated as 'in law'.

Now in this context, maybe everything else i said will start to make sense. If it doesn't; then I would propose that you study the Greek out for yourself.

You keep going back to the same failed argument. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

Click to expand...

No offence, I realize I misspoke (a problem with using a phone) I'll have to revisit it while on a bigger screen.