Lambano
Well-Known Member
If you mean that Paul has disconnected subordination to God's/Christ's authority from Torah observance, yes. Where do you want to go with that?
Observations about the law, the Law, God's law, Christ's law - four different things
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
We've switched horses midstream on this. I was trying to get @Soyeong to define "God's law".
Which didn't happen.
[
Lambano
Well-Known Member
It must be because I did such a bang-up job defining what Paul meant.
God's law straightforwardly refers to the set of laws that God has given.
The Law of God and the Law of Christ are the same while the law is not. God is sovereign, so we are under His law.
The Torah as given by God and Jesus is God and Jesus spent his ministry teaching us to follow the Torah by word and by example, so it is contradictory to for Paul to not be under God's authority while subjecting himself to Christ's authority. In Romans 10:5-8, Paul referenced Deuteronomy 30 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to proclaiming that the Torah is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the dead for salvation.
Straightforwardly?
Do you mean the law given to Moses for the Israelites?
Or the law of human conscience that made Cain's murder of Abel wrong?
We still haven't settled on what the God's law is.
When you say the Law of God, do you mean the Pentateuch? (the books of Moses) ???
How can any of those be the "Law of Christ"? (and the law is not?)
Your answers are very confusing.
[
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Would you take the position, then, that Paul was mistaken in teaching that followers of Christ (especially Gentile ones) need not keep Torah? (At least, not the racial boundary markers such as circumcision, shabbat, and the Kosher laws)?
No, I take the position that you are mistaken in interpreting Paul in a way that turns him against following Christ's example of obedience to what God has commanded. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they teach against obeying the Torah, so either you are mistaken or Paul was a false prophet, but either way we should still obey the Torah.
Our conscience part of our fallen nature, so it is not perfect, which is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:3 that he was not justified even though he was not aware of anything against himself. So our conscience helps us to live in accordance with the Law of God, but it does not replace it, and therefore is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. Our conscience is capable of warning us when our spiritual condition is in danger, but it is not the Law of God and needs to be informed by it in order to function correctly.
In Romans 14, there are weak Christians whose conscience is not informed in a mature way, where their conscience won't let them do what they really would be free to do, so again our conscience does not replace the Law of God. Someone's conscience can be so misinformed that their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19), where both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). So the first way to destroy the work of conscience is to misinform it where you don't give it the true Law of God and the second way is to silence it when it speaks. In 1 Timothy 4:2, Paul spoke about a wounded or seared conscience, and a good indicator of this is if someone doesn't feel convicted about continuing to do what God has revealed through His law to be sin.
The Books of Moses are straightforwardly part of the set of laws that God has given. In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Christ also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses for us to follow and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). So how can the Law of Christ be something other than or contrary to anything that Christ spent his ministry teaching by word or by example?
Lambano
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but I see no way to read Galatians, Romans 14, Acts 15, and other verses and come away with saying that Paul did not teach that circumcision, sabbath observance, and the kosher laws were at best optional. The text is quite explicit about that, especially circumcision.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
I think he's taking the position that "God's law" is coterminous with Torah.
If that were true, I don't see how Paul can claim to be "not under the law" in verse 20 (which by context HAS to mean "under Torah" and still claim to not be free of God's law and under Christ's law in verse 21.
"What is this idle babbler trying to say?" - Acts 17:18 (One of my favorite verses.)
Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and I don't see how it makes sense to interpret those as speaking against following Christ. It is important to recognize that Paul can speak against obeying what God has commanded for an incorrect reason without speaking against obeying what God has commanded. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason, then according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, a Gentile who wanted to eat of the Passover lamb was required to become circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.
It is also important to recognize that Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, so it is always important discern which law he is referring to. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit of Life with the law of sin and death. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, in Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted the Book of the Law with "works of the law" and in Romans 3:31, he said that our faith upholds the Law of God in contrast with saying that "works of the law" are not of faith, so that phrase does not refer to the Law of God.
Moreover, it is also important to be careful not to mistake what Paul said in regard to following the teachings or opinions of men as being in regard to following the commandments of God. In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other based on whether or not someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God has given no command to do that.
In Romans 14:4-6, Paul spoke about those who ate or refrain from eating, so he was speaking about those who esteemed certain days for fasting as a disputable matter of opinion. In the 1st century it had become a common practice to fast twice a week and people were judging and resenting each other based on whether or not someone chose to do that even though God gave no command to do that (Luke 18:12). The Sabbath is not even mentioned in Romans 14 precisely because it had nothing to do with the topic that Paul was discussing. Paul was not suggest that we are free to break the Sabbath, or disobey God's commands against committing murder, idolatry, adultery, theft, kidnapping, rape, favoritism, or any of God's other commands just as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to things that are disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command.
What do you make of this?
Galatians 3:23-25 NIV
Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law,
locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
[
In Galatians 3:16-19, it is a general principle that a new covenant does not nullify the promises of a covenant that has already been ratified, so God's covenants are cumulative. Jesus did not come with the message to stop repenting because we are free to do what God's law reveals to be wickedness now that he has come, but rather he came with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), and which is in accordance with him being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Act 3:25-26). So Paul was not speaking about that promise being nullified.
Someone who disregard everything that their tutor or schoolmaster taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor or schoolmaster. A guardian is a protector and for example a child no longer needs a guardian to help them cross a busy street when they have been taught how to safely cross, but it would be incorrect for a child to think that no longer being under a guardian means that they can should disregard what they were taught and are free to run around in a busy street. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the law leads us to him because it was given to teach us how to have an intimate relationship with him, but it was not given to lead us to him so that we can then disregard everything that he taught and go back to being doers of wickedness.
In Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, in Christ, through faith, and children of Abraham and heirs to the promise is directly connect with living in obedience to God's law. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who are not doers of righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked. In Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith upholds God's law. In John 8:56, Jesus said that that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him.
Last edited:
Similar threads
