Christian freedoms

[Soyeong]

Yes. To use phrases like "fancy dancing" is not nice, not pleasant to have to read.
Having admitted that unpleasantness I would add - It is also insulting to me, to have someone blatently ignore clear exposition
so lightly. You are sensative when demeaning comes your way with such unpleasant accusations.
I think you do not realize though, how YOU come across as similarly rude in another way with some of your brush offs which can be quite inadaquate.

In fact a number of times what you wrote insulted my intellegience to be frank.
I like to keep the peace and will apologize for the demeaning phrase "fancy dancing."
But if I do take the long time to examine your reply and I notice something simply TOO superfiscial, I will probably
say such an argument comes across to me very much like my saying something not flattering about your response. ie. "fancy dancing"

You are free to insult me, to be demeaning to me, and to accuse me of whatever you like, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest because I know that it is all false. I usually just ignore this because I prefer to address the argument rather than attack the person. When I explain why I disagree with your position, then that is not insulting you, or ignoring your exposition, or rude, or brushing you off, or insulting your intelligence, though the reality is that you are brushing off what I've said when you ignore the major problems that I've raised with your position. I do appreciate the time that you take to reply to me.

That's right. I am waiting for you to tell me something I that I don't know. Though much more could be said about this for sure.

In Romans 7:2-3, it is not speaking about all of God's law, but about one of God's laws that applies only when someone is married that no longer applies after her husband dies, which applies again if she were to get married again. I agree that there is a logical progression from what Paul was saying in Romans 7:1-3 to what he said in verse 4, however, there is no logical progression from Romans 7:2-3 to your interpretation of verse 4. The woman would have to have been set free from all of God's laws after the death of her husband in order for it to logically progress to your interpretation of verse 4, however, she was not set free from any of God's laws.

Hold it. Yes, the she there was under obligation to keep the Law of Moses. And under that obligation her UTTER FAILURE God INTENDED to manifest TO her. There's no argument that the LAW was given to EXPOSE the NATURE of SIN. In fact SIN in the flesh is the power to activate the BREAKING of the law of God, bearing fruit unto death.

Romans 7:1-3 does not say anything about her having an utter failure to keep her obligation to the Mosaic Law or about God intending to manifest that failure to her, but rather it speaks about her being bound to a law that would cause her to commit adultery if she lived with another man while her husband still lived. While there is logical progression from what Paul said in Romans 7:1-3 to verse 4, no point was the woman set free from needing to obey any of God's law, so there is nothing that logically progresses to your interpretation verse 4 that in the same way we have been set free from all of God's laws and are now free to do what it reveals to be sin.

Romans 7:5 - For when we were in the flesh, the passions for sins, which acted through the law, operated in our members to bear fruit to death.

Now if you end up brushing this aside, understand that that comes across to ME like an insult to my intelligence.
Please read it again. For when we were in the flesh, the passions for sins, WHICH ACTED THROUGH THE LAW, operated in our members to bear fruit to death.

The delimma is of hopelessness not hopefulness. She is under a terrible marriage situation.
It was NOT a happy marriage. This is the revelation now revealed to the Apostle Paul. And we should submit to it.

I'm not brushing aside this verse or insulting your intelligence, rather I think that is is worth considering whether this verse is referring to the Law of God or the law of sin. Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so it would be absurd to interpret this verse as referring to the Law of God as though Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather this verse matches Paul's description of the law of sin.

Paul did not say anything about her being in a terrible marriage situation or about it not being a happy marriage, but just spoke about a law that would make a woman an adulterous if she lived with another man while her husband was still alive.

You are not, I think, understanding Paul's analogy. This sentence CONTRADICTS what we were just told -
For the married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living; but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband. (v.2)

While Paul says if the man husband dies she is DISCHARGED from the law of her husband,
you are saying something true in one sense but totally CONTRADICTORY to how Paul is laying out the analogy.

the married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living;
In Paul's teaching analogy it is while her husband is LIVING . . . she is bound.
In his teaching analogy when he DIES she is DISCHARGED
but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband. (v.2)

In Romans 7:1, Paul said that he was speak to those who know the law, and according to the law, a woman who gets married again after the death of her first husband is still required to refrain from committing adultery, which does not contradict a woman being set free from that aspect of the law after her first husband dies. What I'm saying is not contradictory to how Paul is laying out the analogy, but is only contradictory to your misinterpretation of his analogy.

So you're explanation -

Is true in one sense but irrelavant to the Apostle's teaching and the God inspired wisdom of how God's apostle is analogizing.
Your pointing out that NO ONE married or unmarried, with living or dead spouse should commit adultery, is being used
to DIRECTLY CONTRADICT Paul's God inspired teaching.

but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband. (v.2)

Now the careful New Testament reader has to come to a decision.
Should he believe that in Paul's teaching - but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband ?
OR should he believe Soyeng's explanation that she is STILL BOUND to the law of her husband even though he is dead?

I'm sorry. I am going to side with the Apostle Paul. And as seemingly valid your point seems, I reject it -
" then she would still be required by God's law to refrain from committing adultery, "

It is a misuse and misunderstanding of the revelation given to the New Covenant apostle.
You are SO enamored by the Mosaic Law that you cannot hear what Paul is teaching.
This was the problem of the Judaizers in the first century and why they hounded the genuine Christian apostles.

A woman is bound by the law of her husband for as long as she has a husband. She was not bound by it before she had a husband or after her husband dies until she has a husband, and this is in accordance with the law, which Paul was not contradicting because he said he was speaking to people who know the law, but rather he was using an example from the law to illustrate his point. In Romans 7:22, Paul delighted in obeying the Mosaic Law, so he was more enamored with it than I am.

You are wrong about there being no leading up to the conclusion of Romans 7:4.
" SO THEN " demonstrates quite clearly the logical progression from the previous verse 2.
Stop fighting against it!

Verse 2b - but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband.
Verse 3b - but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.
Verse 4 - So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God.

And you have the audacity to sit there with a straight face and try to teach me that there is no logical connection leading
to the conclusion of verse 4 ?

You are actually attempting to teach that Paul's "SO THEN" is wrong and illegitimate.
SO THEN, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ [my emphasis]

Have you no fear of God? Do you see how you are teaching people that God's apostle is wrong?

I didn't deny that there is a logical progression from verses 2-3 to verse 4, but rather I denied that there is a logical progression to your interpretation of verse 4. I do have fear of God. I am saying that Paul is wrong, but that your interpretation of him is wrong.

That is true. I know this aleady.
Pointing this out does NOTHING to excuse your flatly contradicting the Bible about the conclusion of 7:4 following 7:2.
Your insight into 7:22-23 is welcomed. But what you say about 7:22-23 DOES NOT rescue your grevious error of
trying to BREAK the validity of the connection of verse 4 to verse 2.

This is bribing your conscience.
This is silencing your conscience on unbelief of Romans 7:2-4 by instead pointing to your belief in verses 22-23.
I will not join you in this bribing of the conscience.

I connected Romans 7:22-23 with verse 6 because it speaks about being free from a law that held us captive and verse 23 says that it is the law of sin that held Paul captive. You are ignoring this as the absurdity of thinking that Paul was being held captive by and wanting to be set free from a law that he delighted in obeying. Paul said that God's law is good and that he wanted to do what is good, but that the law of sin was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so we need to be free from the law of sin in order to be free to do the good of obeying God's law, not the other way around. This has nothing to do with bribing or conscience, but is simply looking at how Paul spoke about the Law of God and the law of sin.

That particular verse 6 the phrase "oldness of letter" informs us that HERE the law from which there is DISCHARGE from is the WRITTEN law - the commandments delivered at Mt. Sinai.

But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter. (v. 6)

In the immediately following sentence Paul takes away any ground for assuming that this being DISCHARGED means the Law of God
is not divine, or not [edited] from God, or not [edited] to be held in high esteem. The LAW is not sin. The LAW exposes and illuminates us to the existence of the sin nature.

What then shall we say? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! But I did not know sin except through the law; for neither did I know coveting, except the law had said, “You shall not covet.” v. 7)

To be sure, latter Paul DOES teach the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has FREED us from that law of the sinning nature in fallen man (ie, the old bound wife).

There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death. (Rom. 8:1,2)

You see, the utter failure to keep the divine and holy law of God leads to both condemnation before a righteous God AND WRETCHED
SELF-CONDEMNATION - "But I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and making me a captive to the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:23,24)

YES - there is Christ freeing the sinner from the law of sin in his members.
YES - there is Christ dying to DISCHARGE the sinner from the Law of God's written demands.

Your question is "Why don't you see the freedom in verse 6 as freedom from the law of sin?"
My reply to you is that verse 6 is about one kind of freedom - from the oldness of the letter of the commandments,
and Romans 8:1,2 is about another kind of related freedom - from the law of sin in the fallen body making us feel WRETCHED.

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me FROM THE BODY OF THIS DEATH?
Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! (7:24)

In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul equated the Law of God with the Law of the Spirit of Life by contrasting them both with the law of sin and death, so the Law of the Spirit free us from the law of sin and death, but we are not set free from both the Law of the Spirit of Life and the law of sin and death.

This is exactly the WRONG verse to go to to deny that Romans 7:6 is referring to discharging from the law of God given through Moses.

Second Corinthians 3:6 is confirmation that the new testament ministers are NOT ministering the written Law of God from Mt, Sinai.
They are ministering the living Person of the Spirit of divine life - Christ the resurrected Savior, the new husband, the one to whom
man may NOW [edited] be JOINED to - organically. That is that HE may live again this time IN those joined to Him.

And for length's sake, I stop here with Romans 8:3,4 - For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

This living perfect righteous One is JOINED to the saved in the innermost human spirit as "one spirit" for an organic blending of living.
But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. (1 Cor. 6:17)

It is living by setting the mind and whole being on Him, the indwelling Righteousness.
This bears fruit to God.This allows the righteous requirement of the law to be fullfilled in us who WALK by the mingled spirit.

This is the GRACE that we must not nullify. This is Christ living in us through our faith in what HE can do.

You are interpreting 2 Corinthians 3:6 as confirming that the New Covenant does not follow God's law, however, you are interpreting that verse in a way that contradicts many other verses that say the opposite, so you are ignoring this major flaw in your position. For example, in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to His law.

 

[Soyeong]

The prophecy is about God putting HIMSELF as a living Person INTO men.
Man's mind and heart are living things. And God is in Christ to impart HIMSELF "organically" into man's being.

In Jeremiah 31:33, it directly states that God will put the Torah in mind and write it on our hearts. God revealed Himself through the Torah, so you could argue that Jeremiah 31:33 is the equivalent of God putting Himself as a living Person into men, though that does not negate what the verse directly states.

For clarification of the prophecy you should consult the VOLUMINOUS explanation of the whole New Testament.
Yes, the prophet does say "cause you to walk in My statutes, and My ordinances you shall keep and do."

In clearer light of the New Testament it means the Son of God LIVING in you will be the indwelling One mingled with you.
He alone is absolute for the will of the Father.

"I will also give you a new heart," that is Jesus, the living Person - your new heart.
"and a new spirit I will put within you;" that too is the Lord Jesus who is the Spirit - the life giving Spirit that He became in resurrection. (1 Cor. 15;45)

and I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
The Triune God will dispense the living Person of the Son into man's inner being.

And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and My ordinances you shall keep and do.
This correponds to Romans 8:4 - That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

"The Spirit has a role in leading us to obey God's law" you write.
The Spirit enables us to walk by another Person who has been dispensed into us.
This is the grace that is with the regenerated person's human spirit.

Again, you could argue that the Spirit having the role of leading us to obey God's law is the equivalent of the Spirit enabling us to walk by another Person who has been dispensed into us, but that does not negate that according to Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law.

I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness is through law, then Christ has died for nothing. (Gal. 2:20,21)

How does Paul NOT nullify the powerful grace of God? He lives Christ rather than attempts to be a Law keeper.
The enabling grace is adaquate and powerful IF he will not nullify this One.
This One as grace is with the spirits of the saints.

While we do not earn our righteousness as a wage as the result of first obeying God's law, becoming righteous is becoming someone who practices righteousness in obedience to God's law. Christ lived in obedience to God's law, so that is also the way that we live when he is living in us.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen. (Gal. 6:18)
Compare:
The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you. (2 Tim. 4:22)

Paul as our pioneer and example would NOT be found in his own righteousness which was out of the law keeping,
but in the righteousness of FAITH that Christ in him could do everything pleasing to the Father.

And be found in Him, not having my own righteousness which is out of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is out of God and based on faith, (Philippians 3:9)

And at the conclusion of this letter as with Galatians, he points us as his final point to Christ as GRACE with man's regenerated spirit.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. (Phil. 4:23)

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he wold tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing Jesus is the goal of the law. In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God because it was not based on knowing Him, so the failed to attain righteousness because they pursued the law as though righteousness were the result of our works in order to establish their own instead of pursuing the law as though righteousness were by faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. So Philippians 3:8-9 should not be interpreted as saying that we just need to know Christ and have faith while God's law is rubbish, but rather Paul had been in the same situation as those in Romans 9:30-10:4, where he had been obeying the law while not being focused on knowing Christ through faith, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law, and that is what he counted as rubbish.

We need to come up to date with what the SAME God tells us in the new covenant era. Mainly that NO commandment could give divine
life to man.

Is then the law against the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteousness would have indeed been of law. (Gal. 3:21)

Do not rebel. Do not murmer. Submit to God's revelation that there was no commandment that could give Himself to man as divine life.
For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteousness would have indeed been of law. (Gal. 3:21)

This we have to take even if it perplexes us.
It is like the Apostle John having the boldness to say no man has EVER seen God. And that we must forget the apparent
seeings of God in the Old Testament. They have all been nullified by Jesus Christ DECLARING the reality of God to the world.

No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (John 1:18)

AMEN! No one has ever seen God. But Jesus has declared God.
AMEN! No commandment was given that could give life.

We should submit humbly to the New Testament revelation and not murmer against it clinging to certain Old Testament sayings.

God's word should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying God's word, especially when the NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT thousand of times in order to support what they were saying and to show that they hadn't departed from it. Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy three times to defeat the temptations of Satan, so he affirmed its authority, and it would be absurd to think that he was disagreeing with it.

There are many verses in both the OT and the NT that say that obedience to God's law brings life, so Galatians 3:21 should be interpreted in a way that is in accordance with them rather than a way that contradicts them. For example, in Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that obedience to God's commandments is the way to enter eternal life. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus said that obedience to the greatest two commandments is the way to inherit eternal life. In Hebrews 5:9, Jesus has become a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him. In Revelation 22:14, those who obeyed God's commandments are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life. In Romans 2:6-7, those who persist in doing good will be given eternal life. In Romans 6:19-23, no longer presenting ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin is contrasted with now presenting ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God, so while we do not earn eternal life by obeying God's law, living in obedience to it is itself the content of His gift of eternal life.

It means that the LAW was a neccessary child conductor LEADING man to a greater reality - FAITH and GRACE.

You are saying "No, we are STILL under the law. We are still under this child-conductor."
You are saying "The law was leading us to the law was leading us to the law was leading us to the law. That's all Jesus is for."

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teasing him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness by setting God's law before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. God's law does not lead us to a greater reality of faith and grace, but rather living in obedience to it is the way to have faith and the way that God is gracious to us. God's law leads us to Christ because it is His instructions for how to know him, which again is eternal life (John 17:3), but does not lead us to Christ so that we can reject everything he taught and go back to living in sin. Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor.

Galatians 3:10 does not say all who BREAK the law are under a curse. But it says all who are under the law PERIOD are under a curse.

For as many as are of the works of law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things written in the book of the law to do them.” (3:10)

he New Testmament is clear. While being under the GUARDIAN of the law, men were as slaves.

According to Deuteronomy 27-28, relying in God's law is the way to be blessed and not relying on it is the way to be cursed, so you should not interpret Galatian 3:10 as quoting from Deuteronomy 27-28 in order to support a point that is arguing against Deuteronomy 27-28 by saying that relying on God's law is the way to be cursed and refusing to obey it is the way to be blessed. Rather, those who rely on works of the law are under a curse for not relying on the Law of God because they are doing that instead of relying on the Law of God. A guardian is a protector, not a slave master.

At no time since the you and I have been conversing have I EVER said Christ freed us to commit sins.
The "no condemnation" is related to Paul's conclusion in the previous chapter that he felt WRETCHED because of the body of sin.

Of course Christ's death is our justification from the eternal condemnation of God.
Now He gave Himself also to redeem us from the curse of the law.

Christ has redeemed us out of the curse of the law, having become a curse on our behalf; because it is written, “Cursed is everyone hanging on a tree”;

He BOUGHT man out from under the curse of the law by REDEMPTION.
He DELIVERS man from the overpowering of the sin nature by His stronger power.

To REDEEM us from the law He had to pay the price that law demanded on our behalf.
To FREE us from sin He has to be the indwelling MORE STRONG law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

It is by the Torah that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so my position that we should obey the Torah is the position that we should refrain from sin, while your position against obeying the Torah is the position that we are free to do what God has revealed to be sin. In Romans 8:1, it says that there is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ, and in 1 John 2:6, it says that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, in Romans 8:1 is only speaking about there being no condemnation for those who are walking in obedience to the Torah. In Deuteronomy 28, it describes the blessing of living in obedience to the Torah and the curse for refusing to live in obedience to it, so being set free from the curse of the Torah is being set free to enjoy the blessing of living in obedience to it. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from God's law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20).

At no time have I at least EVER argued that any FREEDOM in Christ is for further sinning.
Freedom is that Christ may live in us being as we are grafted into a healthy true vine which flows His life into
man that we may bear fruit to God.

You mention LAW ten times for any NT passages teaching about GRACE.

I don't think you grasp the conflict and contrast in the Bible between LAW and GRACE.
This contrast cannot be erased whether you like it or not.

For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:16,17)

The CONTRAST is there and you cannot sweep it away.
LIving Christ is VERSES law keeping in the NT no matter how much you refer back to Deutoronomy.

The position that we should not go on further sinning is the position that we should live in obedience to the Torah. The Torah is God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him, so we can't bear fruit for Him by refusing to obey the Torah.

Righteousness is not in conflict with graciousness, but rather those have always been compatible character traits of the same God that He expressed throughout both the OT and the NT. For example, in Psalms 119:29, he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he might know Him and Israel too. In Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God, he was a righteous man, and he walked with God, so God was gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way in obedience to His law and was righteous because he obeyed through faith. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so God graciously teaching us to obey His law is the content of His gift of salvation.

In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth. In John 1:16-17, it is not making a contrast, but rather it says grace upon grace, so one example of grace is being added upon another. Grace and truth came through Jesus because he spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey God's law by word and by example.

Of course to live Christ is to fulfill the just requiremment of the law. Thanks to Christ the indwelling Spirit of life for that.
What you don't want to admit that "living in the flesh" and "setting the mind on the flesh" INCLUDES striving in the old nature to
be a Law keeper.

Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, those who call themselves Jews and are not, but lie — behold, I will cause them to come and fall prostrate before your feet and to know that I have loved you. (Rev. 3:9)


Did you get that? Not a synagogue of great law keepers adhering faithfully to Deuteronomy.

In Romans 8:4-7, it contrasts those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's law, so those who walk in the flesh are not also those who submit it. The old nature is the one that lived in sin, not the one that lived in obedience to God. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against God's law while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that are in accordance with it.

In Revelation 3:9, it is not speaking about Jews who are living in obedience to God's law, but about those who say that they are Jews when they are not, so you're blatantly taking that out of context. Do you affirm or deny that Deuteronomy is God's word? Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were, and he never criticized them for obeying it, but he did criticize them for not obeying it (Mark 7:6-9) or for not obeying it correctly (Matthew 23:23), so he was calling them to have a higher level of obedience to it.

 

[oikonomia]

In Romans 7:2-3, it is not speaking about all of God's law, but about one of God's laws that applies only when someone is married that no longer applies after her husband dies, which applies again if she were to get married again.

Not enough has been said about who the wife is. It helps to know who the wife is whose husband has died to get what God is saying through Paul.

Man was created by God to be in the position of a dependent wife to God - submissive, dependent, and obedient.
Man was CREATED initially in that position - to be a female wife in relationship to God's headship, protection, love, and care.

When Adam sinned this "wife" now (in the analogy) was "married" to the corrupted Satanified old man.
Nobody said the Bible is always easy to understand.
Again, when Adam fell under Satan's authority the "wife" towards God position was lost and instead man as this "wife" became married to the fallen nature.
Adam and all his descendents were joined as a wife to the old man of the fallen humanity - the bad husband.

Chapter 7 follows chapter 6 in which Paul said that the old man has been crucified with Christ.

Romans 6:2b-4 - We who have died to sin, how shall we still live in it?
Or are you ignorant that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
We have been buried therefore with Him through baptism into His death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we might walk in newness of life.

This is the background for Paul's continued development of this theme - the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection to the Christians
in their utter identification with Him.

This has to be brief and concise. The ground work for Paul teaching our discharge from the law and being joined to Christ is built
upon the previous chapter 6. (Though he says other things in that chapter 6 as well).

Now in chapter 7:1-6 he uses the "Two Husbands" parable reinforce this benefit of Christ's death and resurrection to believers.

Your first complaint is that the law does not refer to the law of God in general but to just one specific law.
That is wrong. I said that the position of the original created man was that of wife dependent upon Husband God.

Isaiah 54:5 says Israel's Maker was her true Husband by His original intention.

For your Maker is your Husband; / Jehovah of hosts is His name. / And the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; / He is called the God of all the earth. For Jehovah has called you, / Like a wife who has been forsaken and is grieved in spirit, / Even like a wife of one’s youth when she has been rejected, / Says your God.

Israel standing for the normal relationship of humanity to God is this - For your Maker is your Husband;
Thus according to man's original position man was to be the wife to God. As God being husband to man, man was to take
this husband as head, being dependent upon the husband.

When man fell he took ANOTHER position. That is the self assuming position of the old corrupted man.
The fallen man . . . . BECAME the husband. The fallen corrupted Satanified old man became the husband to that original
"wife' a dependent humanity on God as Head and Husband.

Fallen man became INDEPENDENT from the proper headship of God.
The analogy is the fallen man became the ugly, strong, husband to us rather than God.
No one said the Bible is always easy to understand.

All human beings have an independent "against weakness" streak deep within. We consider ourselves all, strong, not needing God, independent, not submissive to the Divine, like a liberated libertarian strong female. "Don't you DARE talk to me about being under the headship of anyone. Why should anyone be my head? " This is the ugly attitude of mankind since the fall of Adam.

Now, we see some thing of the Two Husbands in Paul's parable.
We must go on to see what is "the Law of the Old Man (Husband) ". ( bear with my capitalizations )

My next post will be dedicated to explaining this Law and of the old man (husband) - whether it is ONE law of God or the LAW of God
in general. I prefer this right now to responding point by point to every sentence of your last post.

 

[oikonomia]

So fallen man wanted to assume indepedents from his head God. Fallen man thinks this is quite good.
God the Creator has to show fallen independent humanity that he is not in a good situation in relation to God.

In order to EXPOSE the sinful, corrupted, abominable nature of independent man's condition He gave the Law of God.
Ie. "You think you are OK? Here, keep this My law."

This is the Law of the Old Man, the ugly new husband. Original created man (innocent, very good, neutral) is the wife JOINED to this
ugly husband of the Satanified nature. And NOW God has given His holy and righteous law of God to the husband to expose the ugliness of this husband and the slavery of the unfortunate wife.

Though you in particular hate the way Paul teaches, he teaches that the Law was given for man to BREAK that he might be exposed.
You will reach for Deuteronomy and Exodus to argue - "No the Law was given for man to keep."
To come under the New Testament apostle's God inspired, God anointed teaching you are going to have
to see things now through the apostle's eyes. The Law was given for man not to keep but for man to BREAK and be exposed
that he might be healed, saved, brought BACK to the proper husband God.

You don't like that revelation at all. You dedicate much labor to refute the New Testament - the law of God was put on man by God in order the expose the hopeless nature of SIN which cannot keep the law.

God gave the law that man might break it and that, by breaking it, he might be completely exposed.
The progressive unfolding of God's plan of salvation shows that the Law was given for man to BREAK.

In this radical regard - in the progression of God's revelation in the Bible - if you try to keep the law you are wrong.
If you realize that you cannot but break the law you are right.

Is this thought biblical or not? It is biblical.

Romans 3:20b - . . . for through the law is the clear knowledge of sin.
The clear knowledge of the hopeless sin nature of fallen man is through the law of God.

Fallen man thinks he is OK. He makes excuses, reasoning, and explains away his failures.
He puts favorable terms on his trangressions and iniquities.
The law of God was to given to shut the mouths of all sinners - they have nothing more to say.
The law of God exposes all of fallen mankind.

The law was given to EXPOSE the fall to the point that Paul even says in 4:15 - For the law works out wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression.

The law was given to EXPOSE man to the point that it was ADDED to encrease man's offenses.
Romans 5:20a - And the law entered in alongside that the offense might abound;

Therefore the law was given by God in the last analysis not for man to keep, but for man to violate.
Continued below.

 

[oikonomia]

The law of the old man husband in Romans 7 is the law of God to EXPOSE the sin nature.

Romans 7:7 includes the words - But I did not know sin except through the law;

Whether you like it or not, the law of God was given to expose the HOPELESSNESS of the sin nature.
This is what the Law of the Husband (the old man) is about.

The law of God was given to the fallen man that the offense may abound. Once the offense abounds, the law exposes it as sin.
This is the law of the husband - the ugly sin infested husband to whom the original created humanity is married - enslaved in an unhappy union.

God's answer to the problem is to TERMINATE the old man. And this He does in the death of the Son of God.
The death of the Son of God is the death of the old man and the liberating of the enslaved "wife" to marry God.

So then if, while the husband is living, she is joined to another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.

So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God. (Rom. 7:3,4)

Once again, this is an extension of Paul's discussion in chapter six about what Christ's death and resurrection has done for us.

We have all heard about "Justification by Faith" as a strong teaching in the Bible.
We also need to see there is a teaching of "Justification by (co-) death with Christ."

Romans 6:7 - For he who has died is justified from sin.

Such is needed to understand discharge from the law of God by Christ's death.
And such is needed to understand being made free from sin through the co-death with Christ.

Rom. 7:3 . . . but if the husband dies, she is free from the law,

Rom. 7:4 . . . you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ

In addition the old man husband killed off that the wife may be
joined to another, the resurrected Christ bearing godly and righteous fruit to God.

made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God.

In addition the termination of the old husband allows the wife to be discharged from the law of God with its exposing and condemning function.

but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband.

 

[oikonomia]

I will take a break here. But it is critical to understand that all this power of Identification, Co-death, freedom, discharge of chapters 6,7
is only made PRACTICAL and EXPERIENCIAL by the Holy Spirit in whom we must learn to walk in chapter 8.

Where is the death of Christ? In the Spirit.
Where is the terminating power of His death? In the Spirit.

Where is the joining resurrection? In the Spirit.
Where is the co-raising in power with the Son of God? In the Spirit.

Romans chapter 8 makes all this identification and co-experience with Jesus, making His life our biography too.
is made possible by living in the Spirit as elaborated all throughout Romans 8.

In His Spirit is His death for us.
In His Spirit is His resurrection for us.
In His Spirit is the enabling to fullfill the righteous requirement of the law.
In His Spirit, walking step by step enjoying His union with us is freedom from condemnation.

Romans 6 and 7 need Romans 8 to be made experiencial.
Actually the entire subjective sanctification of Romans is made applicable by the Spirit in Romans 8.