Under the law??

[pat34lee]

This is why there are those who are much better qualified to judge on these topics. It stuns me when people who don't know Greek and have no clue about how textual criticism works goes and makes judgments about things that are over their heads. This is pretty clear-cut in favor of the reading. All of the important and weighty texts favor the reading, and it is supported by various text families. You can't just declare something spurious because you don't like what it says!

Better qualified like you? I don't think so. You have your own bias and it affects your conclusions.

Assume for the moment that you are correct in this matter; that we are not "under the law". Paul's writings showed that he kept all the laws still. No one who charged him with teaching against the law was able to convict him. The other apostles never taught against the law, and they accepted him.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Paul's writings showed that he kept all the laws still.

Galatians 2:14 (NIV)
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Galatians 2:19-21 (NIV)
For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

Galatians 3:2-3 (NIV)
Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Galatians 3:11 (NIV)
Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”

Galatians 3:24-25 (NIV)
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Galatians 4:9-11 (NIV)
But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Paul kept the law? On what basis do you hold that view from Paul's own writings? Can you show a single place where Paul said that he kept the Torah?

 

[yedida]

Better qualified like you? I don't think so. You have your own bias and it affects your conclusions.

Assume for the moment that you are correct in this matter; that we are not "under the law". Paul's writings showed that he kept all the laws still. No one who charged him with teaching against the law was able to convict him. The other apostles never taught against the law, and they accepted him.

As far as the languages go, Yonah is far more qualified than the average Jane or Joe to translate them. It doesn't matter a hill of beans to him whether Paul was Torah observant or not, whether he was accepted by the others or seen as a liar and false apostle - none of that is going to have anything to do with how he understands the reading of the Greek writings. His faith is not on the line no matter what he thinks the Greek is saying.
Yonah is too interested in the correct grammatical usage of language to insert his own biases to make a word or a line slant one in direction or another, especially since he's not a Christian and his faith is not at stake regardless of the rendering of the Greek texts.
We are blessed to have such a person on this forum. He has taught us much and kept many of us from running with wrong information based on other teacher's wrong interpretations of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

 

[TanteBelle]

"under the law" = "under the authority of the law" = "subject to the law"

The way I read Paul is that he states a lot of obvious facts! To me, under the law means under the penalty of the torah. In the law means in harmony with the torah. This is how my Pa explained it to me; It's like driving down a road in a 60 zone. Now you can look at that sign and say, that sign was put there for my protection. That is a good and holy sign, I'm going to do 60! That is someone walking according to the law and being in the law; in harmony with the law. Or, it can be like the person who sees the sign and says, 60? There are no other cars, why can't I do 100? Because he is now in rebellion to that law, he is under the law; under the penalty of breaking the law.

Or as he also put it. The torah is a car driving down the road of life. Either get in the car and go with it, or you can go under it and get squashed!

 

[yonah_mishael]

No, she is exactly right. Most bible versions that carry the phrase are at least honest enough to put in parentheses to mark where it was added. It is the same type of added interpretation as that where the Messiah supposedly declared all foods clean.

I would say, versions like the NIV, which comment on dubious/uncertain text, use footnotes to comment on a verse's inclusion. There is no footnote in the NIV on this verse. The NIV does not use parentheses to mark words as questionable. It always uses the footnote system. Parentheses are used in the NIV as we would naturally use them in English — as a punctuation technique, the purpose of which is to represent that the line would naturally interrupt the flow of the main sentence, yet the words add details that should be supplied for the sake of the reader.

It is unfortunate that some have misunderstood the parentheses in several verses of the NIV (and other modern versions) as if it were throwing doubt on the words in the verse. It should never be read that way. Any words within the parentheses are there on purpose and come from the text from which they were translating — and textual variation is marked in the footnotes.

(I comment on this now, since it didn't even dawn on me until I was re-reading this thread that people were actually coming to that conclusion.)

 

[visionary]

Romans 3:19 - Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty.

This verse speaks of those who are 'under the law', people that when the law speaks to them, their mouths are stopped because they are guilty. Could this be speaking of those who are walking in obedience to God's law? NOT... Impossible!

EVERYONE at some point in their life has sinned.

1John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Therefore it makes perfect sense that those who are 'under the law' are those who have sinned. They are guilty.

 

[yonah_mishael]

The way I read Paul is that he states a lot of obvious facts! To me, under the law means under the penalty of the torah. In the law means in harmony with the torah. This is how my Pa explained it to me; It's like driving down a road in a 60 zone. Now you can look at that sign and say, that sign was put there for my protection. That is a good and holy sign, I'm going to do 60! That is someone walking according to the law and being in the law; in harmony with the law. Or, it can be like the person who sees the sign and says, 60? There are no other cars, why can't I do 100? Because he is now in rebellion to that law, he is under the law; under the penalty of breaking the law.

Or as he also put it. The torah is a car driving down the road of life. Either get in the car and go with it, or you can go under it and get squashed!

Don't you think his meaning is better represented by the description he composed about the tutor (παιδαγωγός) whose job was to lead the people to the Messiah?

ὥστε ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν, ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν.
That the law became our tutor unto Christ, so that we might be justified from faith. (Gal 3:24)​

The law, according to Paul, was the tutor put into effect to take care of the children, to make sure that they would learn the lessons necessary and finally come into adulthood and reach the goal of their education: the Messiah. Notice what he then says about this tutor (read: the Torah) once they had reached that goal.

ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν ἐσμεν.
But once faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor. (Gal 3:25)​

What, again, is the tutor in Paul's analogy? Who, in the analogy, put the tutor into effect? What was the purpose of the tutor? How is this spelled out in the the next chapter of Galatians?

Paul writes so very clearly that I find it hard to believe that people don't understand him. I wonder if it's a willful misunderstanding.

This "no longer under the tutor" is the same as "not under the law" — that is, the law (Torah) is no longer in charge of the life of those who believe in Jesus. Paul stated, again, that he had "died" to the law and was alive only to Christ (Gal 2:19-20).

 

[visionary]

Can we go back and sin/break that law once again?

Romans 6:15 - What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under favor? By no means.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Therefore it makes perfect sense that those who are 'under the law' are those who have sinned. They are guilty.

Thank you, visionary, for quoting Romans 3:19. It illustrates the point well.

Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ, ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ·
But we know that whatever the law (Torah) says, it speaks to those who are in the law,* so that every mouth might be silenced and all the world become guilty to God. (Rom 3:19)​

* Notice that it uses the expression ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ("in the law") rather than his regular ὑπὸ (τὸ&#957 νόμον ("under the law"). Also, the word "guilty" here is ὑπόδικος, "under-judgment."

In other words, the Torah speaks only to those who are under its authority. If you are no longer under its authority, then its death penalties cannot be counted against you. This is the whole message of Paul in Jesus – that if you are found in Christ, then no condemnation exists. You are not liable to the Torah. Your violations have been wiped out, and you are free of any consequences of your former behavior. You are not under the Torah, so its authority to condemn you to death is gone, and the restrictions that it places on you (which are nothing more than shadows of spiritual realities, he says) are out of line.

This is the essence of Paul's views of the Torah.

 

[pat34lee]

Galatians 3:11 (NIV)
Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”

Paul kept the law? On what basis do you hold that view from Paul's own writings? Can you show a single place where Paul said that he kept the Torah?

Do you think the prophet Habakkuk taught against the law? Compare Habakkuk 2:4 to Galations 3:11 above.

[bible]
ROM 3:31
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Romans 6:15
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? Elohim forbid.

1 Timothy 1:8
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Philippians 3:4-6
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Acts 21:26
Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Acts 24:14
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
[/bible]
​

 

[yonah_mishael]

Do you think the prophet Habakkuk taught against the law? Compare Habakkuk 2:4 to Galations 3:11 above.

I don't understand your problem. A righteous person will live by faithfulness.

ROM 3:31
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

How do Christians establish the law? Not by obeying it but by living according to its deeper principles - the Christ. You misinterpret Paul's intentions by saying that "we establish the Law" means "we keep the Law." He's saying that it is by FAITH that you uphold the Law, that is, the meaning of the Law, which is Jesus. It's his whole point, which has nothing to do with keeping Torah laws.

Romans 6:15
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? Elohim forbid.

So, he said that Christians should not use freedom as a cover-up for sin. We've already confirmed that.

1 Timothy 1:8
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

I never said that he said that the Torah was evil or anything other than good.

Philippians 3:4-6
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

He used the keep the Torah, before he was a Christian. Still looking for some indication from Paul that he taught his followers to keep the Torah.

Acts 21:26
Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Acts 24:14
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

I'll pass on commenting on Acts. I'm looking for Paul's own words on this.

 

[visionary]

Thank you, visionary, for quoting Romans 3:19. It illustrates the point well.

Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ, ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ·
But we know that whatever the law (Torah) says, it speaks to those who are in the law,* so that every mouth might be silenced and all the world become guilty to God. (Rom 3:19)​

* Notice that it uses the expression ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ("in the law") rather than his regular ὑπὸ (τὸ&#957 νόμον ("under the law"). Also, the word "guilty" here is ὑπόδικος, "under-judgment."

In other words, the Torah speaks only to those who are under its authority. If you are no longer under its authority, then its death penalties cannot be counted against you. This is the whole message of Paul in Jesus – that if you are found in Christ, then no condemnation exists. You are not liable to the Torah. Your violations have been wiped out, and you are free of any consequences of your former behavior. You are not under the Torah, so its authority to condemn you to death is gone, and the restrictions that it places on you (which are nothing more than shadows of spiritual realities, he says) are out of line.

This is the essence of Paul's views of the Torah.

When are you not under God's authority?

 

[visionary]

Fact is we have two things those who are disobedient/rebellious of His Law and those who are apart from the Messiah are the ones under His law.

 

[yonah_mishael]

When are you not under God's authority?

Now you're changing the terms. We're talking about Paul's use of "under the law," not "under God." That's a completely different thing. I never said that Paul wrote that Christians were not under the authority of God.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Fact is we have two things those who are disobedient/rebellious of His Law and those who are apart from the Messiah are the ones under His law.

That's your opinion - not Paul's. Again, demonstrate through Paul's own writings that he thought that anyone should be observant of the Torah. I'd love to see it.

 

[visionary]

Now you're changing the terms. We're talking about Paul's use of "under the law," not "under God." That's a completely different thing. I never said that Paul wrote that Christians were not under the authority of God.

God's authority is found in His Laws...

 

[yonah_mishael]

God's authority is found in His Laws...

Do I really have to respond to this? We know that in the NT, Jesus and the Apostles specifically stated that there is one law: "Love." That's it. All the laws can be boiled down to LOVE GOD and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR. Anything that doesn't touch on these is not a law in the New Testament. So, let's please stay on topic.

Paul argued regarding Christians being "under the Law" (that is, under the restrictions in the Torah), and his conclusion was that Christians are not under such restrictions. Attempts to equivocate my statements into "Paul stated that Christians are not under God's authority" or anything else is to stretch the limits of credulity beyond where they have already been stretched in this thread.

 

[pat34lee]

Do I really have to respond to this? We know that in the NT, Jesus and the Apostles specifically stated that there is one law: "Love." That's it. All the laws can be boiled down to LOVE GOD and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR. Anything that doesn't touch on these is not a law in the New Testament. So, let's please stay on topic.

Paul argued regarding Christians being "under the Law" (that is, under the restrictions in the Torah), and his conclusion was that Christians are not under such restrictions. Attempts to equivocate my statements into "Paul stated that Christians are not under God's authority" or anything else is to stretch the limits of credulity beyond where they have already been stretched in this thread.

The thing Paul taught against was law as a part of salvation in any way. I saw something that explained it simply:

What was wanted by others was (in order):
repent
circumcision
learn and obey torah
you are Abraham's seed and declared righteous

Paul taught:
repent
you are Abraham's seed and declared righteous
learn and obey Torah
circumcision

The last two should come as a result of the first two, not as a requirement for them.

 

[yonah_mishael]

The thing Paul taught against was law as a part of salvation in any way. I saw something that explained it simply:

What was wanted by others was (in order):
repent
circumcision
learn and obey torah
you are Abraham's seed and declared righteous

Paul taught:
repent
you are Abraham's seed and declared righteous
learn and obey Torah
circumcision

The last two should come as a result of the first two, not as a requirement for them.

You've got it all mixed up. "Learn and obey Torah" and "circumcision" would have been on Paul's "do not do" list. He said that anyone who allowed himself to be circumcised actually fell from grace and lost Christ! (Cf. Galatians 5:2-4) I understand that you believe these things, but you do not follow Paul.

Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει. μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ ὅτι ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι. κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε.
See, I Paul tell you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who gets circumcised that he is obligated to perform the whole law. You who are calling yourselves righteous in the law have been severed from Christ, you have fallen away from grace.​

I think that MJs often get hung up on the word δικαιοῦσθε, since the translation "be justified" doesn't do it justice. The word δικαιῶ (δικαιό&#969 means "to declare right." These are people who declare that they are "righteous" based on deeds that they do. Paul said that anyone who even attempts to build up personal righteousness by deeds of the law (which is exemplified in circumcision, but which has other expressions) have fallen from grace and been severed from Christ. This is in line with what he declared in Colossians 2:11, where he stated that circumcision for a Christian is not physical but spiritual, in the cutting away of the old man, the "flesh," the "sinful nature."

I find it very strange that you would represent Paul as saying anything contrary to this.

 

[yonah_mishael]

By the way, you will notice a difference here in who is quoting Paul at length and who is referring to their own opinions without presenting anything of substance. Paul would have been shocked that his writings have been twisted to demonstrate the opposite of what he actually taught and lived by.