UNDER THE LAW!

[not under law]

You would do well to go and read these chapters, before speculating on what Paul meant by these terms.

Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 3
Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 7
Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 8
Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 9

Romans is my favourite book of Paul's. I wouldn't call our opinions on these sites speculating, just our understanding through reading scripture

 

[HARK!]

Romans is my favourite book of Paul's. I wouldn't call our opinions on these sites speculating, just our understanding through reading scripture

It might help your understanding, if you read a literal translation. I'll contrast the translation that you posted, with what the Greek text actually reads, word for word.

Righteousness of obeying the law handed down at Sanai


The Law of Righteousness (Ch 9)
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works

Or righteousnes of obeying the law

31 Yet Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, into a law of righteousness does not outstrip." 32 Wherefore? Seeing that it is not out of faith, but as out of law works, they stumble on the stumbling stone, 33 according as it is written: Lo! I am laying in Zion a Stumbling Stone and a Snare Rock, And the one believing on Him shall not be disgraced."

You see, out of the context of what Paul was actually saying, Law of Righteousness might sound like a good thing. It's a law; and it mentions righteousness; right? However as we can see when we look at a literal translation; this is not the case. The Law of righteousness is devoid of faith. It will trip you up. It's a trap.

Follow the link for chapter 9, and start back at verse 30, or even read before that, back where Paul sets the stage with Abaraham.

Then follow the link at the end of chapter 9, to the first part of chapter 10. (Remember Romans was written as a letter. The were no chapters when it was written. It was written as a whole.)

Then you will see that the nations had surpassed the non-believing Jews; because the non-believing Jews lacked faith.

Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 9

I pray this helps.

Shalom

 

[not under law]

It might help your understanding, if you read a literal translation. I'll contrast the translation that you posted, with what the Greek text actually reads, word for word.




31 Yet Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, into a law of righteousness does not outstrip." 32 Wherefore? Seeing that it is not out of faith, but as out of law works, they stumble on the stumbling stone, 33 according as it is written: Lo! I am laying in Zion a Stumbling Stone and a Snare Rock, And the one believing on Him shall not be disgraced."

You see, out of the context of what Paul was actually saying, Law of Righteousness might sound like a good thing. It's a law; and it mentions righteousness; right? However as we can see when we look at a literal translation; this is not the case. The Law of righteousness is devoid of faith. It will trip you up. It's a trap.

Follow the link for chapter 9, and start back at verse 30, or even read before that, back where Paul sets the stage with Abaraham.

Then follow the link at the end of chapter 9, to the first part of chapter 10. (Remember Romans was written as a letter. The were no chapters when it was written. It was written as a whole.)

Then you will see that the nations had surpassed the non-believing Jews; because the non-believing Jews lacked faith.

Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 9

I pray this helps.

Shalom

You will have to forgive me, but the English translations are good enough for me. I will quote the KJV though, that's very reputable:

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law

Officially, Righteousness of obeying the law, or law of righteousness existed under the old covenant, so did faith. So it was not one or the other:
And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.’ Deut6:25
You are right, Paul wrote one letter, not divided into chapters. In chapter 10 he wrote:
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believeth verse4

So I'm not sure of your understanding that a law of righteousness is devoid of faith, for both existed under the old covenant-officially

 

[Saint Steven]

That is my point.

Paul mentions at least 8 categories of law in his letter to the Romans alone.

The Law of Faith (Ch 3)
A Different Law (Ch 7)
The Law of My Mind (Ch 7)
The Law of Sin (Sin's Law) (Ch 7)
God's Law (Ch 7)
The Spirit's Law of Life (Ch 8)
The Law of Sin and Death (Ch 8)
The Law of Righteousness (Ch 9)

What is the heading for this list?
Where's the glue? These all look like separate thoughts to me. And the second one is ridiculous. A different law? Like what? - lol

They all include the word law, but that does not make them law categories. More like "the law of gravity", "the law of diminishing returns", etc.

 

[HARK!]

What is the heading for this list?
Where's the glue? These all look like separate thoughts to me. And the second one is ridiculous. A different law? Like what? - lol

Here it is:

23 yet I am observing a different law in my members, warring with the law of my mind, and leading me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

It doesn't sound like Torah to me.

You can find my study on it here:

Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 9

Looking back at it, I forgot how much fun I had working through that chapter.

 

[not under law]

Paul’s usage of the term ‘not under law’ is easily misunderstood, to the natural mind such a term means lawlessness, for naturally speaking that would be true. However, Paul preached a spiritual message, one given to him by no man, but rather by Christ himself.
Jesus words in the Gospels were spoken whilst the old covenant was still in operation, and Christ was faithful to the old covenant while at the same time looking forward to the new one. A person could accept and understand Jesus words without the indwelling Holy Spirit, but to accept the message of the Apostles would require understanding through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit:
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth John16:12
So we have Jesus statement to the rich young ruler for example as to what was required to inherit eternal life, and according to the old covenant we understand that. But then we have, what appears to the rational mind a contradiction, a statement from Paul the believer is not under law. To the rational mind this means lawlessness and cannot be true according to Jesus words to the rich young man. Is there a way to reconcile both?
Paul stated: The power of sin is the law 1Cor15:56. Why would he state that? He gave a personal example from his own life as to when he was a Pharisee his knowledge of the commandment: 'Thou shalt not covet' was used by sin to make him utterly sinfull, all manner of concupiscence was aroused in him through his knowledge of the commandment. So what is it about the law that could be called the power of sin? The law comes in two parts. The Holy, righteous and just words of the law, and the attached penalty for transgression of it. It is the penalty of sin that brings great fear of sin, and fear of sin, strange as it may seem brings much allurement to sin.
If this is true, how could God remove the true power of sin from your life(the penalty of sin), meaning you would not be under law, but at the same time you would not have a licence to be lawless? And how could he do this keeping what is holy, righteous and good intact? God removed a covenant based on an external law, for an external law, a written down law does not mean you in your heart want to obey it does it. He then placed the law in your innermost parts, in became an internal law, he wrote it in your mind and placed it on your heart. In your mind you instinctively know how God wants you to live and in your heart you want to live that way. In this sense you have been born again, you no longer want to live as your flesh naturally wants to live but as to how God wants you to live. The Holy Spirit dwells in you, you have been supernaturally changed, and set apart from those not born again. Because, and only because this has happened, your sins and lawless deeds will be remembered no more. You are not under righteousness of obeying the law, for you have a saviour from your sin. You cannot use this as an excuse to be lawless if you have truly been born again, for Christ dwells in you, and you in your heart want to live as he wants you to live. Therefore, the true power of sin(the penalty of sin) has been removed from your life. The born again Christians heartfelt desire to obey(for that is where the law has been placed) can now come to fruition, for what opposes obedience(sin) was weakened by Christ dying to remove its true power form a believers life. And so Paul states: Do we then nullify the law by this faith(a righteousness of faith in Christ not observing the law) not at all! Rather we uphold the law Rom3:31 For sin shall no longer be your master, for you are not under law but under grace Rom6:14 If sin is not your master, breaking the law will not be your master either, same thing, so the commandments mentioned to the rich young man by Jesus will be followed.

Not for the academic of course, but Jesus did say, little children had much of an advantage over the wise and learned(Luke10:21)

 

[Saint Steven]

Paul’s usage of the term ‘not under law’ is easily misunderstood, to the natural mind such a term means lawlessness, for naturally speaking that would be true. However, Paul preached a spiritual message, one given to him by no man, but rather by Christ himself.

Thanks for your post.

In the gospels I see a gradual deconstruction of the law. The Apostle Paul was eventually able to put this puzzle together for the early church. Who struggled through it. See Acts chapter fifteen. (the Jerusalem Council)

This deconstruction that I refer to started with the forerunner.

For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. - Matthew 11:13

This says, "... until John.", then what? This indicates an endpoint and a beginning point in reference to the books of the Prophets and the books of the Law.

Then in the Sermon on the Mount we see Christ referring to the law as hearsay. He makes six "You have heard that it was said... But I tell you..." statements that replace the law with his own commands.

Jesus then goes on to challenge the law and deconstruct it in many ways. There were many examples of what appeared to be Sabbath violation by himself, his disciples and those he was healing. Who were being commanded to commit what appeared to be and were understood as violations of the Sabbath law. A man healed was commanded to take up his bed and walk. The gospel account then informs us, "The day on which this took place was a Sabbath". Same thing for a blind man that was healed.

At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, - John 5:9

Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. - John 9:14

There are numerous other examples. If Jesus was teaching support for the law, why would he do such things? One of the most basic violations of Sabbath law is to work on the Sabbath day of rest. When Jesus is questioned about his work on the Sabbath, how does he respond?

In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” - John 5:17

All of this is only the tip of the iceberg. Exceedingly more under the surface.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Apostle Paul had a reputation as well.
Someone earlier on this thread had mentioned this passage below as proof that Paul was upholding the law. And verse 24 seems to indicate that. But look at the reputation of Paul as stated in verse 21. What did Paul teach about circumcision and about the law? We have the epistles to confirm all this. You can't toss out the book of Galatians based on one verse in Acts. (Acts 21:24)

Nor can you dismiss Paul's strong corrective declarations about it.
"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? ... After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?" - Galatians 3:1-3

Acts 21:20-25
When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

 

[Dkh587]

Thanks for your post.

In the gospels I see a gradual deconstruction of the law. The Apostle Paul was eventually able to put this puzzle together for the early church. Who struggled through it. See Acts chapter fifteen. (the Jerusalem Council)

This deconstruction that I refer to started with the forerunner.

For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. - Matthew 11:13

This says, "... until John.", then what? This indicates an endpoint and a beginning point in reference to the books of the Prophets and the books of the Law.

Then in the Sermon on the Mount we see Christ referring to the law as hearsay. He makes six "You have heard that it was said... But I tell you..." statements that replace the law with his own commands.

Jesus then goes on to challenge the law and deconstruct it in many ways. There were many examples of what appeared to be Sabbath violation by himself, his disciples and those he was healing. Who were being commanded to commit what appeared to be and were understood as violations of the Sabbath law. A man healed was commanded to take up his bed and walk. The gospel account then informs us, "The day on which this took place was a Sabbath". Same thing for a blind man that was healed.

At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, - John 5:9

Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. - John 9:14

There are numerous other examples. If Jesus was teaching support for the law, why would he do such things? One of the most basic violations of Sabbath law is to work on the Sabbath day of rest. When Jesus is questioned about his work on the Sabbath, how does he respond?

In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” - John 5:17

All of this is only the tip of the iceberg. Exceedingly more under the surface.

The Messiah was doing things to break their manmade commandments. For example, spitting into the dirt and making mud and healing the man’s blindness was a direct violation of Pharisee law, because they taught that spitting on the Sabbath was a violation of the Sabbath, because you’re making mud, thus not keeping the Sabbath holy.

He was teaching a proper, balanced understanding of the Torah. Take adultery for instance - he’s not saying the law of adultery is done away with - he’s teaching that if you lust after a married woman in your heart, you’ve committed adultery already.

The physical action is a result of the desire of the heart.

eye for an eye has its place, but it’s not a commandment for every single situation. They were misapplying commandments, and not teaching a correct, full, and proper understanding.

They even tried to forbid the Messiah from healing on the Sabbath.

Luke 13:10-17

And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.

And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.

And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

The Master then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?

And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

it is not a transgression of the Law of God to heal on the Sabbath - it IS a transgression of Pharisee law To heal, spit, and carry a sleeping mat on the Sabbath.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Messiah was doing things to break their manmade commandments. For example, spitting into the dirt and making mud and healing the man’s blindness was a direct violation of Pharisee law, because they taught that spitting on the Sabbath was a violation of the Sabbath, because you’re making mud, thus not keeping the Sabbath holy.

He was teaching a proper, balanced understanding of the Torah. Take adultery for instance - he’s not saying the law of adultery is done away with - he’s teaching that if you lust after a married woman in your heart, you’ve committed adultery already.

The physical action is a result of the desire of the heart.

eye for an eye has its place, but it’s not a commandment for every single situation. They were misapplying commandments, and not teaching a correct, full, and proper understanding.

They even tried to forbid the Messiah from healing on the Sabbath.

Luke 13:10-17


it is not a transgression of the Law of God to heal on the Sabbath - it IS a transgression of Pharisee law To heal, spit, and carry a sleeping mat on the Sabbath.

So, are you claiming that we are under the law?
I suppose you will say that "under the law" means under the CONDEMNATION of the law?
If so, why would anyone WANT to be under the law?

Galatians 4:21
Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

 

[Dkh587]

So, are you claiming that we are under the law?
I suppose you will say that "under the law" means under the CONDEMNATION of the law?
If so, why would anyone WANT to be under the law?

Galatians 4:21
Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

The phrase “under the law” and “under law” were used a few different ways. At one point, Paul even teaches that the whole world is “under the law” - Romans 3:19

It doesn’t mean the same thing every time.

galatians 4:21, for example, is in reference to being under Pharisee/Oral law. The word “the” is not even there - it says “under law”.

Pharisee/Oral law = a manmade way to righteousness. They taught righteousness based on their own laws and commandments, not based on God’s law.

That is why Paul references Abraham and Sarah trying to bring about God’s promise in their own way.

Seeking righteousness through manmade law is like Abraham and Sarah trying to bring about the promise themselves. He was warning them seeking righteousness through obedience to the oral/Pharisee law

Romans 10:1-4

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

For Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

God gives his spirit to those who obey him - Acts of the Apostles 5:32

Obeying God’s law and obeying Pharisee law are mutually exclusive. You can’t obey both.

 

[not under law]

The phrase “under the law” and “under law” were used a few different ways. At one point, Paul even teaches that the whole world is “under the law” - Romans 3:19

It doesn’t mean the same thing every time.

galatians 4:21, for example, is in reference to being under Pharisee/Oral law. The word “the” is not even there - it says “under law”.

Pharisee/Oral law = a manmade way to righteousness. They taught righteousness based on their own laws and commandments, not based on God’s law.

That is why Paul references Abraham and Sarah trying to bring about God’s promise in their own way.

Seeking righteousness through manmade law is like Abraham and Sarah trying to bring about the promise themselves. He was warning them seeking righteousness through obedience to the oral/Pharisee law

God gives his spirit to those who obey him - Acts of the Apostles 5:32

Why would sin not be your master if you are not under Pharisee/oral law for example?(rom6:14)

 

[Dkh587]

Why would sin not be your master if you are not under Pharisee/oral law for example?(rom6:14)

If you will read my post again, I said that the phrase “under the law” is used different ways. Romans 6:14 is not in reference to Pharisee law.

Romans 6:14 is directly connected to 6:15, which is why it begins with “for”.

Romans 6:14-15

Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

 

[not under law]

If you will read my post again, I said that the phrase “under the law” is used different ways. Romans 6:14 is not in reference to Pharisee law.

Paul states:
For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace Rom6:14

Which law could, or would this specifically refer to? The Pharisees of Jesus day, who did not know God could perfectly obey what many would term the legalistic law, as could Saul the Pharisee. It was the moral law that was the problem for obedience. So sin was not the master of even people who did not know God where the non moral law was concerned. Pauls reference in Rom6:14 therefore had primarily to concern the moral law.
Paul said that when he was a Pharisee, through his knowledge of the commandment: Thou shalt not covet, all manner of concupiscence was aroused in him and he became utterly sinfull. He also said: The power of sin is the law 1Cor15:56
Anyone could be under law in relation to legalistic law and would not have to be condemned if they obeyed it, the moral law is different, for no one faultlessly obeys that law​

 

[Saint Steven]

galatians 4:21, for example, is in reference to being under Pharisee/Oral law. The word “the” is not even there - it says “under law”.

No way.
It tells us which law. In which law is it written that Abraham had two sons? The Pharisaical law? (not)

Galatians 4:21-22
Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.

 

[Dkh587]

No way.
It tells us which law. In which law is it written that Abraham had two sons? The Pharisaical law? (not)

Galatians 4:21-22
Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.

Both the oral law, and the law of Moses/God are mentioned in the same sentence.

The issue is them(the Galatians) being tempted to convert over to the religion of the Pharisees, which is called Judaism, and seek salvation through adherence to their commandments.

Judaism = self righteousness (Romans 10:1-4). The Israelites tried to be righteous before God in their own way, not according to God’s way. This is why he brings up Abraham and Sarah.

He compares righteousness through your own way to Abraham and Sarah trying to bring the promised child in their own way.

The law of Moses/God is God’s way, not man’s way(Judaism). The law of God is not Judaism, btw.

You can’t be righteous through man’s laws(Judaism).

what Paul is essentially asking is this: you who desire to be made righteous through Judaism, Do you not read what the Law of God says?

Galatians 4:21 (Edited for emphasis)

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the oral law, do ye not hear the Law of Moses?

 

[Saint Steven]

Both the oral law, and the law of Moses/God are mentioned in the same sentence.

The issue is them(the Galatians) being tempted to convert over to the religion of the Pharisees, which is called Judaism, and seek salvation through adherence to their commandments.

Judaism = self righteousness (Romans 10:1-4). The Israelites tried to be righteous before God in their own way, not according to God’s way. This is why he brings up Abraham and Sarah.

He compares righteousness through your own way to Abraham and Sarah trying to bring the promised child in their own way.

The law of Moses/God is God’s way, not man’s way(Judaism). The law of God is not Judaism, btw.

You can’t be righteous through man’s laws(Judaism).

what Paul is essentially asking is this: you who desire to be made righteous through Judaism, Do you not read what the Law of God says?

Galatians 4:21 (Edited for emphasis)

So your answer to my previous is "Yes."
You are claiming that we are under the law.
The law that God gave to the Israelites through Moses.

I heartily disagree.

 

[Dkh587]

Paul states:
For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace Rom6:14

Which law could, or would this specifically refer to? The Pharisees of Jesus day, who did not know God could perfectly obey what many would term the legalistic law, as could Saul the Pharisee. It was the moral law that was the problem for obedience. So sin was not the master of even people who did not know God where the non moral law was concerned. Pauls reference in Rom6:14 therefore had primarily to concern the moral law.
Paul said that when he was a Pharisee, through his knowledge of the commandment: Thou shalt not covet, all manner of concupiscence was aroused in him and he became utterly sinfull. He also said: The power of sin is the law 1Cor15:56
Anyone could be under law in relation to legalistic law and would not have to be condemned if they obeyed it, the moral law is different, for no one faultlessly obeys that law​

Romans 6:14, is referring to the law of God/Moses

There is no such thing as a “moral law”. That is manmade doctrine - God only has 1 law. Obeying God’s law is moral. Disobeying it is immoral.

Obeying God’s commandments is doing “what is right” in the eyes of God:

Deuteronomy 6:17-19

Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of Yahweh your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.

And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of Yahweh: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which Yahweh sware unto thy fathers, to cast out all thine enemies from before thee, as Yahweh hath spoken.

 

[Dkh587]

So your answer to my previous is "Yes."
You are claiming that we are under the law.
The law that God gave to the Israelites through Moses.

I heartily disagree.

Under the law in which way? That phrase is used a few different ways...

 

[not under law]

Romans 6:14, is referring to the law of God/Moses

The law was given as one whole law, agreed, but even Paul referred to the ''legalistic law''

So you accept the Christian is not under law in regard to the law handed down at Sanai. Then we agree