Originally posted by Obsidian
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Problems
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostYou speak as if the knowledge of sin was good. In 3:20, Paul had used this point as another negative statement against following the law. Again 7:7 doesn't say that it was good to know what sin is. People miss the manner by which Paul was trying to counter the audience's use of 'law' as a negative attribute to denounce Jews. Paul was showing that the law itself had been created as something good. But the end result, due to the flesh, was that the law brought wrath (Rom 4:15). And in 7:8 the teaching on 'sin' led them to sin; certainly this was not desirable. Yet you are seeking the law.
In any case, regardless of whether having knowledge of sin is a good or bad thing, we have it, and we need to decide what to do with it. Paul says that being under the law doesn't mean we are to sin, so we should still apply the knowledge that the law gives about sin to how we should conduct our lives.
The point of 3:31 is often missed. Paul has just said (in 3:9-30) that their justification was not by the law ... and more specifically he mentioned that gentiles were not in the jurisdiction of the law (3:19). "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." In the context of the discussion "those under the law" were Jews. The law didn't extend to anyone else.
So in verses 3:9-30 Paul is making the point that we are justified by faith apart from the law, but he didn't want anyone to misunderstand him as saying that the law has no role in the Christian life, so he added verse 31 to say that our faith upholds the law by leading us to obey it. It's the same point he's making here:
Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
You can't just focus on verse 8-9 about being saved by grace through faith apart from works and ignore that good works that God has instructed to do come right back in in verse 10 and are part of what it means to be a new creation in Christ. Our faith leads us to obey God.
Any sense of "being released from the law" would simply be due to the confusion of gentiles having joined the Messianic sect of Judaism. Many Jews were saying "you have to follow the pre-Messianic ways." Paul says "no, you are released from any of the old laws, despite joining Judaism in this new sect. We have to remember that Jews had their lineage and religion; gentiles had their lineages and religions. There was not really a solid conceptualization of what it meant to be a gentile who followed the Christ. These gentiles were tweeners -- caught between two cultural systems.
According to Ephesians 2:11-22 Gentiles "were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world", but are now "no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members". Gentiles have been joined with Israel and are now part of God's chosen people and a holy nation, so what God once said to the Israelites now applies to Gentiles as well.
Why? because people corrupted the law and made it their goal instead of following God. The situation addressed in Rom 7 was apparently that part of the gentile audience had first experienced their Christian walk among Jewish followers of Christ, meeting in synagogues in Rome. A complex progression of events led the gentiles back to concern whether they could be made 'right' by following the law. Paul is arguing against this -- while still maintaining an apologetic for the pre-Messianic Jews. As such Paul was saying "there were good reasons behind the law and the law itself was good for its purpose" and then he also was warning them that attempts to follow the law would only promote a sense of condemnation.
This answer is straightforward in Paul's discussion. The Jewish laws were something followed by the flesh. So if gentiles were going to now try to follow God by the laws, they would thus be attempting to follow God by their flesh.
Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.
The law is spiritual and was always intended to be followed by faith in a way that built a relationship between God and his people, not something that was meant to be followed by the flesh. It is the mind that is set on flesh is hostile to God and does not submit to God's law. God has always disdained a outward obedience to the law while their hearts were far from him, so following the law by the flesh leads to a legalistic perversion of the law. The role of the Spirit is to lead us into obedience to God's law:
Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
You are missing Paul's whole argument here. Paul was speaking against the desire (or presumed need) to follow the law and, hence, the flesh when seeking to follow God. If you are seeking the law, you are following a path that Paul said doesn't work, that is "the mind is set on flesh [and] is hostile to God." The law was something that had become the unnatural focus of Jews by the first century -- and was what Paul was trying to stop happening to the Christ-sect of Judaism.
Can you try to examine the possibility that God's holy, righteous, and good law for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good is a good thing? It is truly bizarre trying to convince other Christians that obedience to the God they follow is good. All throughout the OT, God was wanting His people to obey him by faith, yet now so many Christians have flipped it around and think that obedience to God is a bad thing. It's true that following God's commands legalistically when our heart is far from Him is bad, but that doesn't mean that following the law as God intended it by faith and by the leading of the Spirit is also bad."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by Soyeong View PostApparently God thought it was good for us to have knowledge of sin or else He wouldn't have given it to us. The reason why reverse psychology works is that there is something in us that wants to rebel at being told what to do. So as you say, the law is good, but the problem is that when it comes in contact with our sin nature, our sin nature causes us to increase our rebellion. This is one of the things that holds us captive in 7:6 that we died to so that we can be free to obey the holy, righteous, and good law by walking in the Spirit.
In any case, regardless of whether having knowledge of sin is a good or bad thing, we have it, and we need to decide what to do with it. Paul says that being under the law doesn't mean we are to sin, so we should still apply the knowledge that the law gives about sin to how we should conduct our lives. (i.e. the instruction book on 'how to sin' )
I suggest that 'sin' is not defined for Christians, because Christians are not under the law. But if you like sin (and being subject to wrath-- Rom 4:15), then go ahead and focus on the law.
You are to die to the law. What does that mean? It means you no longer have a relationship with the law. I don't see what part of that verse isn't so obvious.
We are all born under the law and God will hold the whole world accountable to it, so Paul is talking about a point that God is making to everyone: We all fall short of God's holy, righteous, and good standard and so no one by works will be justified in His sight.
So in verses 3:9-30 Paul is making the point that we are justified by faith apart from the law, but he didn't want anyone to misunderstand him as saying that the law has no role in the Christian life, so he added verse 31 to say that our faith upholds the law by leading us to obey it. It's the same point he's making here:
Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
You can't just focus on verse 8-9 about being saved by grace through faith apart from works and ignore that good works that God has instructed to do come right back in in verse 10 and are part of what it means to be a new creation in Christ. Our faith leads us to obey God.
The mention of "whole world held accountable" was showing that Jews TOO were going to be found guilty -- and their guilt, specifically, was because of THEIR violation of the law. Paul was saying that Jews who proclaimed the law did not have a benefit of righteousness by that law. No instead... they would be found guilty of it. Note that gentiles were already assumed, under first century Jewish doctrine, to be unrighteous; Paul now was showing Jews automatically would be found unrighteous because of THEIR law.
It is more subtle but 'good works' was the action of followers of Christ contrasted against actions of those seeking to follow the law.
You have good company in misunderstanding 3:31. The only reason Paul added this point was that gentiles would not hold unlimited contempt against the law; the gentiles were supposed to recognize that the law (i.e. the scriptures ) prophesied of the coming of Christ -- and hence the scriptures deserved some appreciation -- but not so far as to take on a law written for Jews. You really have to add many unwarranted words ( i.e. "by leading us to obey it" ) to come to your conclusion. (Nor does your suggested interpretation seem to fit within any reasonable context established in the preceding verses.)
God did not give the law to Moses and the Israelites so that they could become justified by keeping it. If any of them were justified, then they were justified by faith, like Abraham and David (Romans 4:1-8), so they would have been justified by faith before the law was given to them. So the law was given them in part to instruct them about how to live rightly. Trying to become justified by keeping the law is a perversion of the law, and it was this that Paul was telling Gentiles not to do. But you must not mistake a criticism of a perversion of the law as a criticism of the holy, righteous, and good law itself.
You are right that PART OF the problem was that Jewish laws represented a distorted augmentation of the Law of Moses.
According to Ephesians 2:11-22 Gentiles "were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world", but are now "no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members". Gentiles have been joined with Israel and are now part of God's chosen people and a holy nation, so what God once said to the Israelites now applies to Gentiles as well.
The correct solution to bad Christianity is not no Christianity, but rather it is good Christianity. Similarly, the correct solution to following a law that has been corrupted into legalism is to follow the law in the way God intended it to be followed, not to disregard it. Paul argued against keeping the law in order be justified, but he never argued against keeping the law by faith and through the leading of the Spirit. If they tried to keep the law in order to be justified, then because we have all fallen short, they would fail to become justified and would fall under its condemnation.
Note that if you violate a South African law while you are in Egypt, I am going to declare you guilty -- This is the equivalence to saying Christians are under Jewish law.
This answer is straightforward in Paul's discussion. The Jewish laws were something followed by the flesh. So if gentiles were going to now try to follow God by the laws, they would thus be attempting to follow God by their flesh.
Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.
The law is spiritual and was always intended to be followed by faith in a way that built a relationship between God and his people, not something that was meant to be followed by the flesh. It is the mind that is set on flesh is hostile to God and does not submit to God's law. God has always disdained a outward obedience to the law while their hearts were far from him, so following the law by the flesh leads to a legalistic perversion of the law. The role of the Spirit is to lead us into obedience to God's law:
Rom 7:14 is a weak verse to use for your argument until you identify exactly what Paul was arguing about in Rom 7.
Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
I think such proposal ultimately reflects what has happened in Christianity through Christ. But I have not examined this verse in great detail. I don't know if you have examined this carefully.
In essence it seems that God was looking ahead when Christ would come and some people would recognize they had followed the law instead of God. The solution was that God would make it easy to follow Him -- without having the problems generated by the law.
All this is to say that you have not seemed to give an explanation to undo what I understand about this verse.
Paul didn't say that the mind set of flesh desired to obey God's law, but that it was hostile to God and didn't submit to God's law.
Can you try to examine the possibility that God's holy, righteous, and good law for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good is a good thing? It is truly bizarre trying to convince other Christians that obedience to the God they follow is good. All throughout the OT, God was wanting His people to obey him by faith, yet now so many Christians have flipped it around and think that obedience to God is a bad thing. It's true that following God's commands legalistically when our heart is far from Him is bad, but that doesn't mean that following the law as God intended it by faith and by the leading of the Spirit is also bad.
I agree it is truly bizarre to convince Christians to follow something that doesn't apply to them.
Trying to follow the law, as a Christian, is the same thing as trying to follow the law as a non-follower of Christ. It has the same pitfalls.
The problems of reactivation of the law are many:
People sought righteousness by doing the law-- this is a standard effect.
People judge others for not doing the law. They violate James who said that being a judge of the law doesn't make you a doer of the law. (Ja 4:11)
People become focused on legal issues instead of loving issues.
Those who seek the law have the same mindset as those at Mt. Sinai who said "we don't want to go up the mountain into God's presence. Just find out what He wants and tell us what to do."
Trust in God is commonly shown by Paul to be opposite to seeking actions in accord with the Jewish laws. If you are a Christian and you are willing to give up the benefits of the Spirit, then disregard the warning inherent in Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?Last edited by mikewhitney; 04-22-2015, 07:52 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostYeah, no. We already know why the dietary laws were commanded, namely to set apart the Jews from the Gentiles surrounding them, just like most of the other ritual purity laws. It had nothing to do with morality.
I'd say that the laws were to set God's chosen people apart so that they would be a holy nation.
Deuteronomy 7:6For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
Those verse in 1 Peter are saying that what God once said to His chosen people now includes Gentiles:
1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Mark 7:18-23
Eating does not defile someone, even if what you're eating happens to be pork, or shellfish. Under the new covenant, that which pollutes us are impure thoughts, not impure food.
If you were "listening" you would see passages like Mark 7:18-23 and realize that your understanding of the purpose of the dietary laws are majorly flawed. And there's a difference between being conformed to the image of Christ and becoming a copy of Him.
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Under the old covenant maybe.
Except the dietary laws no longer have any effect on your holiness."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoyeungSo the people were keeping God's feasts as instructed by and Paul was encouraging them not to be judged for keeping them by those who were promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostMark 7:18-23
Eating does not defile someone, even if what you're eating happens to be pork, or shellfish. Under the new covenant, that which pollutes us are impure thoughts, not impure food.
If you were "listening" you would see passages like Mark 7:18-23 and realize that your understanding of the purpose of the dietary laws are majorly flawed. And there's a difference between being conformed to the image of Christ and becoming a copy of Him.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostIn fairness, seeing Mark 7:18-23 as an abrogation of dietary laws may be taking the passage out of context. The passage comes right after, and is part of, a discourse concerning ritual purity. The Pharisees were concerned with washing hands/cups so that any potential uncleanness on them would not be transmitted to their food right before consumption, an expansion of the Mosaic purity laws. In context, Jesus' statement may only be rejecting the Pharisees' expansion of purity laws, which He often does elsewhere.Last edited by robrecht; 05-04-2015, 10:36 AM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
The Kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking! Paul makes this point very clearly, even in the context of urging like-minded followers of Jesus' teaching not to present a stumbling block to those who still followed dietary restrictions as a matter of binding law.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostContext is always good, but Jesus' teaching hear is clearly expressed in more general and absolute terms so I would not reduce their meaning merely to this context alone.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostEven general and absolute terms can be bound by context (Psalm 82:6a comes to mind). I agree that Christians in general are not bound by the dietary laws, but Acts 9/15 are better foundations for arguing so IMO.Last edited by robrecht; 05-04-2015, 11:49 AM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI think you mean Acts 10, right?
Mark and Luke present complementary perspectives so it doesn't much matter to me if one is considered a better basis for an argument. I would like to understand both of their perspectives as well as possible.
I do not mean to imply that general and absolute terms CANNOT be limited by their context; I just don't think that Mark intends to do so here. Note, for example, Mark's repetition and expansion of the teaching to the disciples when they are alone and Mark's own intinterpretative gloss, that Jesus made all foods clean.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View PostThen why does it call them a shadow? Your interpretation is stupid."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostContext is always good, but Jesus' teaching here, and Mark's interpretation thereof, is so clearly expressed in more general and absolute terms that I would not reduce their meaning merely to this context alone.
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThe Kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking! Paul makes this point very clearly, even in the context of urging like-minded followers of Jesus' teaching not to present a stumbling block to those who still followed dietary restrictions as a matter of binding law.
Deuteronomy 6:25 And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’
Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
The dietary laws are part of God's instructions for having a righteous and holy conduct and the role of the Holy Spirit is to lead us in obedience to God's instructions. The Holy Spirit is not at odds with what God has commanded, so by interpreting Romans 7:14 to be about dietary laws you're making it contradict itself. The Kingdom of God involves living in obedience to Him.
The topic of Romans 14 is about disputable matters of opinion, not the commands of God, so God's dietary laws were not even discussed. Meat that had be sacrificed to idols was often sold on the market, so if someone didn't know for sure whether meat offered at community meals had been sacrifice to idols, they might be of the opinion that it was all unclean and choose to eat only vegetables (Romans 14:2). They were judging others others who did eat meat at a community meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:3). So it is these sorts of disputes about food and drink that Paul was saying that the Kingdom of God was not about."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI think you mean Acts 10, right? Mark and Luke present complementary perspectives so it doesn't much matter to me if one is considered a better basis for an argument. I would like to understand both of their perspectives as well as possible. I do not mean to imply that general and absolute terms CANNOT be limited by their context; I just don't think that Mark intends to do so here. Note, for example, Mark's repetition and expansion of the teaching to the disciples when they are alone and Mark's own intinterpretative gloss, that Jesus made all foods clean.
There is no interpretation by Mark without adding words that aren't there. Meats are being purged from the body, so this is not setting aside God's commands, especially just a few verses after Jesus criticized the Pharisees for doing the same thing.Last edited by Soyeong; 05-04-2015, 03:06 PM."Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostYes.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Acts is a completely different context.
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThe interpretive gloss is still within the context of the passage.
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostSee also Mat. 15:20, a parallel passage, where Jesus' clarification can be considered analogous to Mark's interpretive gloss.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
5 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-28-2024, 05:40 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
28 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
342 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
369 responses
17,368 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-27-2024, 01:18 PM
|
Comment