God Disqualified Christians From Participating in the Mosaic Law Covenant

Doran · Sep 27, 2023

SabbathBlessings said:
No, the Ten Commandments came from God, started in His holy Temple Rev 11:19 which the earthy template was pattered after Heb 8:1-5. as it is what defines sin Romans 7:7 and Lucifer sinned from the beginning, meaning he broke God’s eternal law. This is what separated him from God and humans from God,Isa 59:2 those who overcome through faith in Jesus Rev 14:12 and keeping God’s commandments with be reconciled Rev 22:14-15 sadly its a remnant Rev 12:17 despite the invitation being open to all.

There is nothing more in the Ten Commandments written by God alone Exo 32:16 Exo 31:18 Exo 34:28, Deut 4:13 Deut 5:22

Are there more laws than the Ten- yes, of course, there are many other sub-laws to God’s Ten, but the Ten are on a different foundation and honestly its sad how many people argue against obeying God, which is what it is when we say the Ten Commandments vanished when no such scripture exists. Jesus is incapable of lying, so we should believe His warning. Mat 5:19-30

Anyway, we don’t have to agree, truly trying to help, this will get sorted out soon enough.

Heb 8:1-5 is teaching that the earthly ark was patterned after the heavenly sanctuary (temple). The ark was but a microcosom of God's majestic sanctuary.

Also, Rev 11:19, assuming it's talking about a literal ark, doesn't tell us when the ark of the covenant made it into heaven. Perhaps it's referring to the lost earthly ark, and it's lost because God "raptured" it and took it to heaven sometime during Israel's checquered history of apostasy. The passage doesn't say the ark was always in heaven. However, we do know for certain that Moses was the first one to write the Ten Words that he received by God. Logically speaking, it's better to go with what is known, rather than by what isn't.

When you talk about "sub laws", are these laws qualitatively different from the Ten?

Or when God commanded the disciples to "listen to Jesus", would you classify that command as a "sub command" -- a command that is inferor to the ten in the Decalogue"?

Doran · Sep 27, 2023

SabbathBlessings said:
There is nothing more in the Ten Commandments written by God alone Exo 32:16 Exo 31:18 Exo 34:28, Deut 4:13 Deut 5:22

Click to expand...

But there are far more commandments inspired by God alone (2Tim 3:16). Are the inspired commandments inferior to the ones written by the finger of God? Less authoritative?

HIM · Sep 27, 2023

Doran said:
Would the Book of the Covenant be the covenant? If not, why not? But if so, what is its content?

As was said Of is not it.

GDL said:
Work out this wording and see if you think it's not speaking of the Law of Christ:

BNT 1 Corinthians 9:21 τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἔννομος Χριστοῦ, ἵνα κερδάνω τοὺς ἀνόμους·

I do see the textual variant:

BYZ 1 Corinthians 9:21 τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεῷ1 ἀλλ᾽ ἔννομος χριστῷ,2 ἵνα κερδήσω3 ἀνόμους.

I did not see that because the Alexandrian is not inspired so I do not look at it much. Thinking God had us in the dark until it's finding is a hard pill to swallow. Being that is a subjective comment let's bypass that debate ok.
Genitive or Dative case matters not.

Subject to the jurisdiction of Christ
Subject to the jurisdiction to Christ or Subject to the jurisdiction by Christ.

Let's stick with the Genitive for argument's sake.
I think you know the why for the translation, "subject to the jurisdiction of Christ". But maybe we should shoten it and go with "lawful or legal of Christ". Either way though He is the instrument of our righteousness. But then that is what the Dative case puts forth huh?

HIM · Sep 27, 2023

LW97Nils said:
Exactly. We also must keep in mind the Mosaic Law was less strict.

Moses = love your brother
Christ = love your enemy AND your brother

The covenant is the subject not the mosaic law

HIM · Sep 27, 2023

Doran said:
But there are far more commandments inspired by God alone (2Tim 3:16). Are the inspired commandments inferior to the ones written by the finger of God? Less authoritative?

The Subject tis the covenant. That which God gave at Horeb as Moses shared in His understanding.

HIM · Sep 27, 2023

Doran said:
Wrong again! It's used twice. See Gal 6:2. And if you're going to play the numbers game, the phrase "ten commandments' is never used in the NT. (Kinda weird since the Ten are considered to be the cat's meow to God's law.) So...there is that! That puts the Law of Christ up 2-zip.

But not in 1 Corinthians 9. So please flame somewhere else.

Doran · Sep 27, 2023

HIM said:
As was said Of is not it.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're getting at here. You just made a pretty cryptic statement. Are you saying the Book of the Covenant isn't the covenant? If so, would your same reasoning also apply to the Tablets of the Covenant?

What do you think Moses read to the people from the Book of the Covenant?

And when the altar was built and they offered sacrifices on it (Ex 24:4b=26, 8), what do you think that was all about if Moses and the people weren't ratifying the covenant?

Can you can tell me PRECISELY, with chapter and verse validation, what the contents of the Old Covenant is. and what the contents of the First Covenant is if you think this latter covenant isn't synonymous with the former?

Finally, do you think God made multiple covenants with Moses and the people?

GDL · Sep 27, 2023

HIM said:
As was said Of is not it.

I did not see that because the Alexandrian is not inspired so I do not look at it much. Thinking God had us in the dark until it's finding is a hard pill to swallow. Being that is a subjective comment let's bypass that debate ok.
Genitive or Dative case matters not.

Subject to the jurisdiction of Christ
Subject to the jurisdiction to Christ or Subject to the jurisdiction by Christ.

Let's stick with the Genitive for argument's sake.
I think you know the why for the translation, "subject to the jurisdiction of Christ". But maybe we should shoten it and go with "lawful or legal of Christ". Either way though He is the instrument of our righteousness. But then that is what the Dative case puts forth huh?

Might get into this tomorrow.

Can you see why several of the English translations are going with Law of Christ? Do you think they're wrong?

I don't see this as an "instrument of our righteousness" matter. Context is clearly how one functions in life, as you're picking up with some of the lexical attempts at defining it in jurisdictional language.

Doran · Sep 27, 2023

HIM said:
But not in 1 Corinthians 9. So please flame somewhere else.

Why not 1Cor 9:21? To be under the law, means to be in subjection to, or under the authority of. So, you're too good to be in subjection to your Lord and Savior? I think the Lord himself said somewhere,

"Why do you call me , 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? (Of course, these words would not apply to anyone if they never called him "Lord".)

And didn't God the Father command Christ's disciples to listen to his Son (Mat 17:5)?

And didn't the Lord himself teach that the wise man hears his words and puts them into practice, but the foolish do not to their own detriment (Mat 7:24-27)?

And didn't Jesus teach that all who are truly his disciples will hold to his teaching and that they will then know the truth and the truth will set them free (Jn 8:31)?

And didn't the writer of Hebrews tell us that in these last days, the Father has spoken through His Son (Heb 1:2)?

And didn't Jesus himself teach that ALL authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him (Mat 28:18-20)? And if this is true, why would any professing Christian balk at the idea of subjecting him or herself fully to their Lord's law? Who has more authority than Christ: Moses by whom the Law came. perhaps?

Didn't Jesus command that we take his yoke and learn from him because his yoke is easy and his burden is light (Mat 11:29-30), (especially compared to the Law which is a yoke of slavery and bondage (Gal 5:1))?

And didn't the apostle teach that we must continue in the teaching (doctrine) of Christ (2Jn 9)?

And didn't Paul teach that in all things whatever we do, we are working for the Lord...that's ultimately it's the Lord we serve (Col 3:23-24)?

And didn't the writer of Hebrews teach that the Son is the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him (Heb 5:8-9)? Has the son specifically commanded anyone directly or indirectly,through his apostles, to keep the sabbath? Or directly or indirectly to obey the Ten Commandments?

Didn't even Moses warn us that God would raise up a prophet like himself and that we must listen to Him or God will require it of us (Deut 18:15)?

And didn't Isaiah speak to the coming of the Messiah's law (Isa 42:4, 21)?

And Is it not Jesus' own words that will judge the entire world on the last day (Jn 12:48)?

I am truly perplexed how you could be so dismissive of Christ's law.

SabbathBlessings · Sep 28, 2023

Doran said:
But there are far more commandments inspired by God alone (2Tim 3:16). Are the inspired commandments inferior to the ones written by the finger of God? Less authoritative?

I never said only the Ten Commandments are inspired by God, never thought that either. If you do not see the significance between God writing verses man writing, inside the ark verses outside, I can't help you.

HIM · Sep 28, 2023

Doran said:
Why not 1Cor 9:21?

I am truly perplexed how you could be so dismissive of Christ's law.

I am not. 1 Corinthians 9: 21 doesn’t say it. Why add what is not.

Leaf473 · Sep 28, 2023

If a person believes that more than ten commandments apply to us today, an edifying thing to do would be to post the actual scriptures. What would be the benefit? All scripture is beneficial for teaching. I'm sure learning would take place

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Timothy 3:16 - New American Standard Bible

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;

www.biblegateway.com

Doran · Sep 28, 2023

SabbathBlessings said:
I never said only the Ten Commandments are inspired by God, never thought that either. If you do not see the significance between God writing verses man writing, inside the ark verses outside, I can't help you.

For the record, then, you're on board with the inspired text in 2Tim 3:16? In other words whatever the perceived or real "significance" to the Ten are, you do agree there's no qualitative difference between those inspired words and the rest of scripture which is as equally inspired, correct?

P.S. Have you figured out yet what the rest of the content of the OC is besides the Ten that you have said is "included" in the covenant?

SabbathBlessings · Sep 28, 2023

Doran said:
For the record, then, you're on board with the inspired text in 2Tim 3:16? In other words whatever the perceived or real "significance" to the Ten are, you do agree there's no qualitative difference between those inspired words and the rest of scripture which is as equally inspired, correct?

Sorry, if you do not see the significance of God not having man write His moral and eternal law but loving us enough to personally write it Himself. You might not see it, but I do and others do as well.

This 'handwriting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages.
—JOHN WESLEY, Sermons on Several Occasions, 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222.

Doran said:
P.S. Have you figured out yet what the rest of the content of the OC is besides the Ten that you have said is "included" in the covenant?

Yes, its a safe bet to follow everything Jesus taught and did for our example. 1 John 2:6.

Many think He only died for our sins, or died so we can be free from His law, but that would make His sacrifice in vain Heb 10:26

He not only died to give us a second chance because that's how much He loves us, but He also lived to be our perfect example to follow, showing us how we should live. Follow the Lamb! The apostles and His followers all did this as well.

Doran · Sep 28, 2023

HIM said:
I am not. 1 Corinthians 9: 21 doesn’t say it. Why add what is not.

It says it in my interlinear. Besides that Paul is making a contrast between not being "under (or without} the law"...BUT (the contrast!) "under the law to Christ" as the KJV reads. So...Paul is most definitely making a contrast between "law" and the the "law of the Christ.:

And every single passage I cited for you in my last post strongly supports the interpretation "but under the law of Christ'? Even the prophet spoke of the coming law of the Messiah -- referring to it as "his law". Not God's law. Not the law of Moses. Not the Ten -- but HIS law. Are we to believe the two prophecies were never fulfilled? Really? Or if the prophet meant by "his law" the "Torah, as the Jews would have naturally understood that term, why didn't God just inspire him to plainly state that?

Leaf473 · Sep 28, 2023

Follow everything Jesus did? No.

Bible Gateway passage: John 7:10 - New King James Version

The Heavenly Scholar - But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

www.biblegateway.com

Doran · Sep 28, 2023

SabbathBlessings said:
Sorry, if you do not see the significance of God not having man write His moral and eternal law but loving us enough to personally write it Himself. You might not see it, but I do and others do as well.

This 'handwriting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages.
—JOHN WESLEY, Sermons on Several Occasions, 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222.

Yes, its a safe bet to follow everything Jesus taught and did for our example. 1 John 2:6.

Many think He only died for our sins, or died so we can be free from His law, but that would make His sacrifice in vain Heb 10:26

He not only came to give us a second chance because that's how much He loves us, but He also lived to be our perfect example to follow, showing us how we should live. Follow the Lamb! The apostles and His followers all did this as well.

Go back and read my questions. I didn't ask you about Col 2:14. You are deflecting and equivocating again. Why can't you give me a straight and simple answer to my questions? Here are the questions again:

For the record, then, you're on board with the inspired text in 2Tim 3:16? In other words whatever the perceived or real "significance" to the Ten are, you do agree there's no qualitative difference between those inspired words and the rest of scripture which is as equally inspired, correct?

I will come back and address 1Jn 2:6 later.

SabbathBlessings · Sep 28, 2023

Doran said:
Go back and read my questions. I didn't ask you about Col 2:14. You are deflecting and equivocating again. Why can't you give me a straight and simple answer to my questions? Here are the questions again:

For the record, then, you're on board with the inspired text in 2Tim 3:16? In other words whatever the perceived or real "significance" to the Ten are, you do agree there's no qualitative difference between those inspired words and the rest of scripture which is as equally inspired, correct?

I will come back and address 1Jn 2:6 later.

All scripture is inspired, but like I said previously, if you do not see the difference between the Holy Spirit writing through man and God divinely writing personally, I can't help you. There is a difference unless you think God does things without design. I don't think He does, everything He does is carefully and intelligently thought out.

HIM · Sep 28, 2023

Doran said:
It says it in my interlinear. Besides that Paul is making a contrast between not being "under (or without} the law"...BUT (the contrast!) "under the law to Christ" as the KJV reads. So...Paul is most definitely making a contrast between "law" and the the "law of the Christ.:

And every single passage I cited for you in my last post strongly supports the interpretation "but under the law of Christ'? Even the prophet spoke of the coming law of the Messiah -- referring to it as "his law". Not God's law. Not the law of Moses. Not the Ten -- but HIS law. Are we to believe the two prophecies were never fulfilled? Really? Or if the prophet meant by "his law" the "Torah, as the Jews would have naturally understood that term, why didn't God just inspire him to plainly state that?

It Doesn’t say it in the Greek. Galatians 6:2 does but not Corinthians.

GDL · Sep 28, 2023

1Cor9:21 for those who care:

We can see from the English translations I posted in #244, that translators differ on how to translate 1Cor9:21. We can see that all those I posted see or essentially see the Law of Christ in this language. I suppose the YLT may be debated to a degree.

One of the problems in translating this language is the word Paul uses is only used twice in Scripture; once in 1Cor9:21 and the other in Acts19:39 where it is seemingly best translated as "lawful or legal" assembly. In context it's speaking of a lawful or legal court.

The word we're dealing with is ennomos which is a compound of en + nomos which is literally and most simply translated "in law".

ennomos:

I don't usually use Biblehub for Strong's but I've seen that some do. Here's the Biblehub link for ennomos It doesn't tell us much more than I've already said.
For Greek word studies when I question Greek Lexicons, I normally go back to the basics; I have a Strong's reference on my system which gives me more than Biblehub and I'll look at all the uses of the word in our Text and try to harmonize a meaning as God uses the word.
1. We only have the 2 uses of the word in this case, and we've looked at Acts19:39 already. At this point I have no issue with the translation "lawful" there, but I'm not certain it is the best to use in 1Cor9:21 yet. More on this later.
2. Strongs: #1772 ennomos: legal, subject to: lawful, under law.
  1. So, from Strong's we can see "lawful" (Acts19:39) and "under law" which several English translations are using for 1Cor19:21. More on "under law" later.
Greek Lexicons (underlining & blue highlighting is mine):
1. BDAG: pert. to being in accordance with law, legal, lawful. BDAG also provides some elaboration on both verses where ennomos is used. Since it's fairly short, here's the entire reference for ennomos:
  1. [BDAG] ἔννομος
    • ἔννομος, ον (s. νόμος; Pind., Aeschyl. et al.; ins, pap, Sir prol. ln. 14; Philo, Abr. 242, Poster. Cai. 176; Jos., Ant. 19, 302; SibOr 3, 246; Just., D. 47, 4 ἔ. πολιτείαν; Ath., R. 70, 23 al.) pert. to being in accordance with law, legal, lawful. ἔ. ἐκκλησία Ac 19:39 could, acc. to the context, mean a legally convened assembly in contrast to a mob, but certain features of the word’s usage (Lucian, Deor. Conc. 14; SIG 672, 37 [II BC] ἐν τᾷ ἐννόμῳ ἐκκλησίᾳ) suggest the interpr. regular assembly in contrast to one called for a special occasion (s. IBM III/2, p. 141; WRamsay, Pauline and Other Studies3 n.d. [1906] 203-15).—Subject to law, obedient to law (Aelian, VH 2, 22 v.l.): ἔ. Χριστοῦ subject to the jurisdiction of Christ 1 Cor 9:21 as opposed to Mosaic jurisdiction (B-D-F §182, 3; Rob. 504—Proclus on Pla., Crat. p. 93, 5 P., the contrast ἔ. and ἔκνομος). The entire vs. can be rendered: ‘I identified as one outside Mosaic jurisdiction with those outside it; not, of course, being outside God’s jurisdiction, but inside Christ’s’. Fr. a purely linguistic point of view one can also transl. ἔννομος true to the law, upright, in the right (so ἔ. in Aeschyl., Suppl. 404; Pla., Rep. 4, 424e) acc. to the judgment of Christ.—CDodd, Studia Paulina (JdeZwaan Festschr.) ’53, 96-110.—M-M. EDNT. TW.
2. Friberg: ἔννομος, ον strictly within law; hence lawful, legal, according to law (AC 19.39); as a personal characteristic committed to law, obedient to law (1C 9.21)
3. Louw-Nida: ;ννομος, ον: pertaining to being under obligation imposed by law - 'subject to law, under law.' ἀλλ᾽ ἔννομος Χριστοῦ 'but subject to the law of Christ' 1 Cor 9.21. In some languages there is a difficulty involved in rendering ἔννομος by a phrase such as 'under law,' since this may be understood in a sense of 'beneath the law' or 'illegal.' A more common expression would be 'tied to the law' or 'obligated by the law.'
4. Liddel Scott: ἔν-νομος, ον, within the law, lawful, legal, Trag., etc.; ἔννομα πάσχειν to suffer lawful punishment, Thuc.2. of persons, keeping within the law, upright, Aesch, etc.:-subject to law, N.T.
5. Thayers: 1. bound to the law; bound by the law: Χριστῷ, or more correctly Χριστοῦ L T Tr WH, 1 Cor. 9:21 (cf. Buttmann, sec. 132, 23). 2. as in Greek writings from (Pindar), Aeschylus down, lawful, regular: Acts 19:39 (on which see Lightfoot in The Contemp. Rev. for 1878, p. 295; Wood, Ephesus etc., Appendix, p. 38).*
6. Gingrich: ἔννομος, ον legal, perh. regular Ac 19:39. Subject to the law, perh. true to the law 1 Cor 9:21.* [pg 67]
7. DANK: ἔννομος,ον [ἐν, νόμος] ‘within legal boundary’, legal, lawful, of a properly scheduled assembly Ac 19:39; in wordplay μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεοῦ ἀλλ’ ἐννομος Χριστοῦ not outside God’s jurisdiction but within Christ’s jurisdiction 1 Cor 9:21.

My observations:

ennomos is an adjective.
1. Translating very literally and most simply, which is not the best but can be beneficial to gain some basic understanding of what's being said, here's ennomos translated adjectivally and simply using "lawful" as one of its meanings:
  1. ...but [a] lawful [man] of Christ.
DANK above says there is a wordplay between the ennomos clause in 1Cor9:21 and the clause immediately preceding it which uses anomos (another adjective) and modifies it with "of God".
1. I don't know if I'd call it a wordplay, but there is a comparison or correlation of some sort going on here. So, it benefits us to see what anomos means. I'm just going to use BDAG to save time:
  1. pert. to behaving contrary to law, lawless.
  2. pert. to being without adherence to a moral code outside law, without law.
    1. a. of obligation to God, without ref. to a moral code μὴ ὢν ἄ. θεοῦ though I am not free fr. obedience to God 1 Cor 9:21c (opp. ἔννομος; on the constr. of ἄ. θεοῦ s. Mlt. 236).
    2. b. w. ref. to the Mosaic law, used of gentiles as persons who do not know it (s. 3b), w. no criticism implied (Pla., Pol. 302e [Nägeli 14]; Esth 4:17u) τοῖς ἀ. ὡς ἄ. to those without (Mosaic) law (= ‘gentiles’) 1 Cor 9:21a. W. the phrase ὡς ἄνομος vs. 21b Paul indicates empathy for those outside Mosaic tradition.
  3. pert. to violating moral standards, lawless.
  4. ὁ ἄ. the epitome of lawlessness, the lawless one
2. So, again translating very simply, using a most basic definition of these two words adjectivally; ...not being [a] lawless [man] of God but [a] lawful [man] of Christ
3. Note also that these 2 clauses are parenthetic to clarify something about Paul's behavior when he's working to gain men [for Christ]. This parenthesis explains how Paul functions when working to gain "lawless men" and his saying (most literally and simply) "to the lawless men as a lawless man (not being a lawless man of God, but a lawful man of Christ) in order to gain the lawless men".
  1. With this very basic translation in mind, and using all of the above Lexical work, we can proceed from there to either follow Paul or obliterate Paul to follow our own agenda. Here are my observations and thoughts. Conclude what you will:
    1. Paul has a freedom in Christ to live and work among all men - Jews and Gentiles - to evangelize them.
      1. This freedom includes not being under the Mosaic Law Covenant which ended when Jesus Christ ordained the New Covenant in His blood.
        
        Paul is quite simply not under the Mosaic Law any longer and any separation from Gentiles whether it be law or misunderstood law, or oral law tradition is simply non-existent - obsolete with the Mosaic Covenant.
        
        Paul is free to live and work among non-believing Jews and among non-believing gentiles with the goal of evangelizing them.
        
        Paul is simply living per the New Covenant in Christ wherein is this freedom.
      2. Paul's God commanded ministry in Christ is to bring the [lawless] nations to obedience of faith - Faith-Obedience to Jesus Christ (Rom1).
    2. Some translate anomos as "without law" which can lead to a conclusion that there are men or nations that God does not have under any law.
      1. I don't agree with this and I'm wary of any translation that can lead to this conclusion.
      2. If it's seen as "without Mosaic Law" then I can find some agreement but would want to explain it further.
      3. If it's seen as sinful men (lawlessness which is sin per 1John) then I can find some agreement but would want to explain it further.
      4. If it's seen as gentiles (vs. Jews which 1Cor9:20 addresses) then I can find some agreement but would want to explain it further.
    3. Just looking at the ennomos phrase itself with the preceding anomos phrase in mind:
      1. Paul can live and work among lawless men since it is his job and since he is not under Mosaic Law nor the Mosaic Covenant any longer.
      2. When Paul lives and works among lawless men to evangelize them:
        
        He cannot live as a lawless man of God.
        
        He is to live as a lawful man of Christ.
        
        So, using the basic language of the verse and bringing in the Lexical range for ennomos:
        
        Living as a lawful man of Christ is living as a lawful man of God and living as a lawful man of God is also living as a lawful man of Christ - there is no conflict between God and Christ - Christ and God must and do agree in everything.
        
        The primary jurisdiction for Paul is Christ, which is also of God.
        
        Paul is subject/obedient to law (ennomos) of Christ - Paul is not under Mosaic jurisdiction (BDAG).
        
        Paul is obedient to law (ennomos) of Christ (Friberg)
        
        Paul is subject to law (ennomos) of Christ (Louw-Nida)
        
        Paul is a man keeping within law (ennomos) of Christ (Liddell Scott)
        
        Paul is a man bound by law (ennomos) of Christ (Thayers)
        
        Paul is subject/true to law (ennomos) of Christ (Gingrich)
        
        Paul is within the jurisdiction (ennomos) of Christ (DANK)
        
        There is another resource I looked at: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT by Kittel)
        
        It defines ennomos most simply as "within law" which is what en + nomos most simply means "in law" [of Christ per 1Cor9:21].
        
        So, Paul is a man within law of Christ - within Christ's Law.
        
        If we interpret the "of" as denoting possession (Genitive of possession), then all of the above Lexically based phrases speak of Christ's Law - Christ's Jurisdiction
        
        Which is also consistent with being God's lawful man.

I have zero problem seeing the Law of Christ in 1Cor9:21 and this being consistent with its very clear reference also by Paul in Gal6:2.

I have not explained why I don't like the phrase "under Christ's Law" but I have my very technical reasons, which I'm happy to explain if anyone wants to know.

I also see 1Cor9:21 telling us that being under Christ's Law - Christ's jurisdiction - means we are not under Mosaic Law - Mosaic jurisdiction.

I also see that being within Christ's Law is being a lawful man of God, so all of Christ's commandments must be God's commandments so, this must inform us when we read about God's commandments in the New Covenant Writings.

With that said, I'm not interested in any arguments that do not address something specifically stated above, nor am I interested in any blanket statements that I do not know grammar or syntax. My Greek professors told me differently for 3 years. IOW, if you want to discuss any of this, let's please be very specific and please do not start throwing a bunch of imaginary connections to other Scriptures that supposedly refute this. Be simple, specific and make your point, please.

God Disqualified Christians From Participating in the Mosaic Law Covenant

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Friend

Friend

Friend

Friend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Friend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Friend

Well-Known Member

Similar threads