Thinking about a passage in Romans 7

[MarkH]

Interesting what people focus on. The big idea of my post was that Galatians gives focus and clarity to Romans and the smaller segments of scripture such as the Acts passage. You (generic you) will certainly take what you want and leave the rest; biases are powerful stuff.

Is everybody offended yet?

 

[Mark C]

In other words, both sides interpret it according to their presuppositions, reading their pre-existing opinion into the text, while genuinely believing that they are just reading the text and believing what it says in plain language.

Except, speaking first-hand, my "pre-existing opinion" was what I had been taught in the Whore Church, that the "law" was "done away with." In other words, (Jer. 16:19) - the "lies inherited from our fathers."

I have come to observe that people who come to KNOW they have been lied to, and, often by hard knocks, realize the Truth, are the hardest to deceive again. Witness the COVID-1984 lockdowns and not-vaccine mRNA injections. We'll fight next time.

And, don't forget, context is everything. When I believed that "jesus did away with the law," it didn't matter (because we weren't taught) that that would have absolutely DISQUALIFIED such a 'messiah', by virtue of myriad examples, like Deuteronomy chapter 7, chapter 12, chapter 13, etc. And His own actual words in that First Public Address, in Matthew 5:17-19 confirming them.

Yes, this discussion has 'been done before.' And, as Yahushua pointed out, it's very hard for us, sans His Ruach, to convince someone who has "eyes, but does not see." I have had "knock-down, drag out" arguments with people who wanted to take the Poison Poke, or inject their kids. Many are very sick now, some dead. Others wish they had listened.

But I'm not sorry to have tried.

Finally, an observation: I have often written about the beauty of "doing radio" (or, now, podcasts, etc) where people can simply "change the dial," if they choose not to listen. Or, they can decide to tune in an try to have "ears to hear." In other words, there is "self-selection," by those at least willing to "rightly divide" and seek the Truth.

I have no idea what the numbers are. (I know, for example, as most radio hosts have heard, that only about 1% will call in, or write, to a host or topic. And I have always avoided 'TwoFacebook,' for the obvious reason.) But I do know that many who write are grateful, and that is helpful for those times we may begin to doubt.

I do not expect to 'open the eyes' of any who

genuinely [believe] that they are just reading the text and believing what it says in plain language. ...doing eisegesis...and will be highly offended by any suggestion that they are not.

They are free to tune out. And I doubt that many, if ANY, would listen to our network, for example.


But others can, at least for now, choose to "come to the Ghetto," and hear something they won't see elsewhere on BF. And I'm [sometimes, anyway... ] happy to engage them, not because I expect them to shout, "praise Yah, I see the light!" - but because others may read and find the exchange edifying. That is the point of 'midrash' -- when it's actual midrash, as opposed to mere onery-ness.

 

[Mark C]

PS> I think, without any exception I can recall, except for perhaps a few home-schooled, every single person I ever met in "Hebrew roots," or "Torah-obedient" service to Yahuah and His Risen Son Yahushua "came out" from either the Whore Church, or Whore Synagogue. Even the self-described 'atheists' were often once, and knew it, from one of those.

 

[FollowingHim]

Except, speaking first-hand, my "pre-existing opinion" was what I had been taught in the Whore Church, that the "law" was "done away with." In other words, (Jer. 16:19) - the "lies inherited from our fathers."

No @Mark C, by pre-existing opinion I am not talking about what you were taught as a child.

If I were to ask you why you follow Torah, would Acts 15 be one of the first verses you referred to to back up your belief? Or are there clearer verses that you would actually go to first, which make the case more solidly? I'm sure the latter is the case.

So you have read other passages, which appear to clearly state that Torah is timeless and therefore is something Christians should follow. This position has been reinforced by several passages and the application of logic, and has become your fundamental position. Then you have read Acts 15 in the light of this position - which you developed from other verses - and interpreted it in the light of that understanding, reading that understanding into it. And everyone else does the same.

I am not suggesting your understanding or anyone else's is either right or wrong. I am just laser focussing on one very specific passage and discussing how it is interpreted.



This is what we all do whenever we hit a disputable verse that can be interpreted multiple ways. In the same way, anyone who believes female-female sex is sinful automatically reads that into Romans 1, while everyone who believes it is not automatically interprets Romans 1 in any way but that. Anyone who believes the wine of communion is the literal blood of Jesus automatically reads every reference to it consistent with this view, while anyone who believes it is symbolic of the blood automatically reads every reference consistent with that view. And so forth.

Ultimately meaning that the things Christians tend to fight the hardest over are the things that are most disputable. "Disputable" in two senses: firstly that they create the most disputes, and secondly that they should not actually create any disputes because neither side should have held their opinion so strongly that it caused them to have an argument in the first place given their position was disputable to begin with! Humans are a funny bunch.

 

[frederick]

they must accept each man having 5 virgins as wives - because Yahushua said a parable about the bridegroom marrying 5 virgins.

Come on! We all know they were bridesmaids.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Peter’s vision is another example. If a Christian was born into religion - where their pastor spoon fed them that the law was nailed on the cross - and the pastor points to “rise and eat Peter - don’t call un clean what I made clean” as proof of text - then other passages like divorce and adultery are not only open to changes - but the deceived person more easily accepts it.

What was nailed to the cross, in your view?

And that’s how Christianity has become so divided. It just took a little leaven.

Matthew 13:33 ESV
He told them another parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."

 

[FollowingHim]

Peter’s vision is another example. If a Christian was born into religion - where their pastor spoon fed them that the law was nailed on the cross - and the pastor points to “rise and eat Peter - don’t call un clean what I made clean” as proof of text - then other passages like divorce and adultery are not only open to changes - but the deceived person more easily accepts it.

It is a very good example, but not for the reason you say here. You are belittling the views of those who disagree with you by describing them in childlike terminology - "born into religion", "spoon fed" - and implying that those who believe them are dumb enough to be deceived by a pastor. In so doing, you are posturing yourself as being arrogantly superior, upsetting your opponents and setting up an argument about it, thereby yourself providing the perfect illustration of why such issues trigger such strife.

Peter's vision is actually a good example because:
- Those who already believe that Christians should eat anything read it in line with their beliefs ("we know people can eat anything now, look this reinforces it as God tells Peter to eat all this stuff").
- Those who already believe that Christians should follow the food laws read it in line with their beliefs ("God is using the food laws to illustrate a point, the laws haven't changed").

The passage in question doesn't actually teach anything about the food laws, and that is accepted by everyone who takes scripture seriously, even those who believe the law no longer applies don't ultimately take that view from this passage (the fact some lazy people use it as a proof text does not change the fact that decent scholars do not), nor do people who believe the laws have remained applicable base their views on this passage either (they actually base this on core statements like Jesus saying he had not come to abolish the law). So both sides are not getting any actual theology out of it (exegesis) but are reading theology into it (eisegesis).

 

[Earth_is-]

It is a very good example, but not for the reason you say here. You are belittling the views of those who disagree with you by describing them in childlike terminology - "born into religion", "spoon fed" - and implying that those who believe them are dumb enough to be deceived by a pastor. In so doing, you are posturing yourself as being arrogantly superior, upsetting your opponents and setting up an argument about it, thereby yourself providing the perfect illustration of why such issues trigger such strife.

My comment wasn’t meant to be-little anyone. If that’s how it came out - I apologize. I include myself as someone that was deceived. We’ve all inherited lies. My animosity is against the one’s that should know better. The one’s feeding on the flock - instead of feeding the flock. They are the one’s that claim to know the scriptures - put in positions to teach - but clearly have rejected his Word. They destroy families instead of lifting them up. They go to places like Africa, and tell men they need to divorce their plural wives; which means those divorced wives may have to turn to prostitution to survive. I asked a pastor that frequently goes to Africa about this once. He told me - the man that got them in that position should be the one that continues to provide for them - so they don’t have to be involved in prostitution. Of course - I gave him the scripture that clearly shows it’s not sin to have more than one wife. He never responded back.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

The way I have come to understand it is that under the law there was no provision of restitution once one breaks the law. Only death awaited. Messiah in keeping the law and still dying, not being deserving of death, death had no hold over him therefore he conquered death. The only reason he was able to do this though was by living out Torah perfectly not breaking any commandment. Through this action he provided a second chance to those who choose to follow after him and accept him as the savior he is. We are dead to the death sentence of the law, as long as we abide in him.

Something occurred to me in reading your post, something that can only be understood through understanding biblical marriage. The way the authority structure of marriage works is the law of the higher authority always applies to those beneath that authority, with the higher authority being able only to apply additional requirements but not null the requirements of the authority above it.

Consider in regards to this if Messiah must follow and keep Torah, and Torah is of the Father, and the Father is above Messiah in authority, why would we being below Messiah not be bound by the same laws? Why is that so often overlooked?

I think a valid question would be is Messiah still bound by the law? In the sense that if he broke the law would he be put to death? And does he intentionally not break the law? If the answer is yes, why would we think that doesn't apply to us? If he broke the law, wouldn't also we being under him be put to death as well?

 

[FollowingHim]

My comment wasn’t meant to be-little anyone. If that’s how it came out - I apologize. I include myself as someone that was deceived. We’ve all inherited lies. My animosity is against the one’s that should know better.

I understand, and I share your frustration particularly with the minister-in-Africa examplet that you give. However, I want to point out something in the above statement.

Why do you characterise the view you disagree with as "lies"? This is the most negative way it could be characterised - and again, the most provocative and argumentative way it could be.

Is there room in your understanding for an honest difference of opinion on a theological matter? Or is everything truth vs lies, and everyone who disagrees with you either a lier or a person deceived by liers? Might it be possible that those who disagree with you have also studied the word with the best of intentions yet come to a different conclusion than yourself?

 

[FollowingHim]

Consider in regards to this if Messiah must follow and keep Torah, and Torah is of the Father, and the Father is above Messiah in authority, why would we being below messiah not be bound by the same laws? Why is that so often overlooked?

That is a very interesting thought, and I like your logical way of looking at it. But there is a core assumption that needs to be considered because it completely changes the conclusion.

Is Torah of the Father, or of the Word? Was it delivered directly by the Father, or through His Word, the Son who was with Him in the beginning and has been His conduit to interact with the world from the moment of creation?

If Torah is of the Word - the Messiah - then by your logic he did not need to keep Torah but chose to voluntarily, and has the authority to change it if he wishes.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

We are dead to the death sentence of the law

What is the death sentence of the law, as in where can I find what it is in Scripture?

 

[Earth_is-]

What was nailed to the cross, in your view?

Colossians 2:13-14
You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins.14 He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross.

In my view - it was the curse of the law we were under. Our charges - our sins - the death penalty. Through the redeeming blood of our Savior and King - those sins are nailed on the cross - wiped clean - forgotten.

But doesn’t mean we can go forth and continue in lawlessness. Instead we are to bring forth fruits of repentance and going through a life long sanctification process - through the washing of his Word - which is the Truth.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

What is the death sentence of the law, as in where can I find what it is in Scripture?

Defintion of sin (1 John 3:4) The wages of sin (Roman's 6:23) The original sin (Genesis 2:17). Sin can be summed up simply as Rebellion/Disobedience.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

That is a very interesting thought, and I like your logical way of looking at it. But there is a core assumption that needs to be considered because it completely changes the conclusion.

Is Torah of the Father, or of the Word? Was it delivered directly by the Father, or through His Word, the Son who was with Him in the beginning and has been His conduit to interact with the world from the moment of creation?

If Torah is of the Word - the Messiah - then by your logic he did not need to keep Torah but chose to voluntarily, and has the authority to change it if he wishes.

The answer lies in John 17

 

[FollowingHim]

The answer lies in John 17

Where specifically in that chapter does it specify whether the Mosaic Law is of the Father or of the Son?

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Where specifically in that chapter does it specify whether the Mosaic Law is of the Father or of the Son?

I chose not to single out any individual passage as most of the chapter is required to establish the answer.

 

[Earth_is-]

Why do you characterise the view you disagree with as "lies"? This is the most negative way it could be characterised - and again, the most provocative and argumentative way it could be.

Is there room in your understanding for an honest difference of opinion on a theological matter? Or is everything truth vs lies, and everyone who disagrees with you either a lier or a person deceived by liers? Might it be possible that those who disagree with you have also studied the word with the best of intentions yet come to a different conclusion than yourself?

What is Truth according to Scripture?

Psalm 25:5
Lead me by your truth and teach me, for you are the God who saves me.

Psalm 86:11
Teach me your ways, O LORD, that I may live according to your truth!

Psalm 119:43
And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, For I have hoped in Your ordinances.

Psalm 119:151
You are near, O LORD, and all Your commandments are true.

Paul also correlates “truth” with the Holy Scriptures:

Romans 2:8
But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

Proverbs 28:4
To reject the law is to praise the wicked; to obey the law (which is truth) is to fight them

2 Timothy 3:14-15
But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. 15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.

Similarly “Truth” is used here:

1 Timothy 4:3
3 They (the deceptive spirits mentioned from verse 1) will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth.

Once again - what is truth? How do we know what exactly is food - and what we should avoid? Is a human being food? How about a pet dog or cat? If you ask the Chinese - they consider pet dogs to be food. What about something that’s poison that can kill you? What better way is there to find out what is food and what’s not - then going to the source of truth - which is the Word of our Creator?

There’s certain things in his Truth - that’s 100% open to debate and different interpretations. Then there are other things like divorce adultery food and polygyny that are much more crystal clear. These may not be salvation issues - knowing about polygyny, divorce, adultery, and what is food and what’s not; but they are the fruit of sanctification process by the washing of his Word. And the Word does say that those that follow the truth will be blessed. And certainly - even science agrees - eating pig is not healthy for you.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

But doesn’t mean we can go forth and continue in lawlessness. Instead we are go through a life long sanctification process - through the washing of his Word - which is the Truth.

Ok yes I agree with that.

May I ask what translation you are using?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Once again - what is truth? How do we know what exactly is food - and what we should avoid? Is a human being food? How about a pet dog or cat? If you ask the Chinese - they consider pet dogs to be food. What about something that’s poison that can kill you? What better way is there to find out what is food and what’s not - then going to the source of truth - which is the Word of our Creator found in Leviticus?

There’s certain things in his Truth - that’s 100% open to debate and different interpretations. Then there are other things like divorce adultery food and polygyny that are much more crystal clear.

Is eating human flesh forbidden in the Torah?