The Torah is Still Binding and We Must Obey It

[Magenta]

You think that. I am a child of the devil for standing firm that we should obey what God has commanded in accordance with Christ's example? You're being absurd.

You are a child of the devil because you lie and lie and lie some more and are a false accuser as well.
You do not keep the Sabbath as they did in OT. It s not possible, but you lie about it. You constantly
chirp about how we should walk as Christ did while you lie at every turn. What a hypocrite you are.
Nobody has 613 laws written on their hearts, either. Just another one of your gross misrepresentations.

 

[Soyeong]

“We do not need to die to God's instructions for how to live unto him in order to live unto him, “

It’s a just a circle with you back to this you want this imposed on people

“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 before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:19-20‬ ‭KJV‬‬

It’s really not going to affect anyone else but you though

If you choose to bear a yoke you can’t bear I hope it works out for you I don’t belong to God through a broken covenant that was meant to hold people guilty of sin I belong to God by the purchase of Jesus Christ precious blood poured out in the gospel for remission of sins

In Roman 7, Paul said that Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, and that he delighted in obeying it, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which was workin within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

I completely agree that we are not justified by obeying works of the law and I have never suggested otherwise. If you agree that it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is and that we should repent from doing what God has revealed to be sin, then you should agree that we should obey the Mosaic Law. Jesus set a sinless example for how to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and in Matthew 11:28-30, he referred to this yoke as be light and his burden being easy, moreover, by saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Mosaic Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls, yet you refuse to walk in it.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts. The way to belong to God is not by refusing to obey what He has commanded, but just the opposite, in 1 John 3:10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Mosaic Law are not children of God.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus 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 Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, in Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through his ministry and through the cross while return to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he accomplished.

 

[Johann]

Paul’s Dual Purpose
Why is Romans 7 so difficult to understand? Why is it so debated? Why does the evidence seem to push in different directions? Because of Paul’s dual purpose in this passage.

The life of fruitful obedience to God, he explains, comes as we die to our old husband, the law, which was a threatening master over us, and we marry a new husband, the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 1–4). The law can only expose and excite our sin (vv. 7–13). Although the law is “spiritual” (v. 14)—having a divine origin and nature—we are “fleshly” (v. 14), intrinsically incapable of keeping God’s good law. So God in Christ has to take from our hands the external written code—the law book—and put into our hearts his Spirit, who empowers the powerless to live the fruitful life of love to which the law points (vv. 5–6).

That is Paul’s main point in Romans 7. His purpose in light of that is to simultaneously (1) defend himself against the misconception that he dismisses and denigrates God’s law, and (2) help the believers in Rome see that they’re fleshly by nature and, therefore, can’t successfully serve God in the “oldness of the letter” (v. 6). But defending yourself while pointing the finger at others rarely ends well (see Romans 2!), so Paul defends himself while pointing the finger at himself as the problem.

Paul simultaneously defends himself against a misplaced charge and confesses his profound incapacity to obey God’s law. That, in large part, explains why Romans 7 has a mixture of positive and negative statements.

The element of self-defense continues into verses 14–25. Take verse 22 for example, where Paul uses a verb that appears nowhere else in biblical Greek (sunēdomai). Our first question shouldn’t be, “Is this the experience of a Christian or a non-Christian?” but “Why this verb in this context?” It makes sense when we realize Paul comes to his own defense (as also in vv. 7, 11, 14, 16), since it was a verb often used to express a strong sympathy of outlook with another person: “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner person” (cf. NASB; HCSB). The phrase personifies God’s law as someone Paul strongly agrees with. The law is, after all, God’s personal voice (v. 7). Paul is saying, “I’m not taking sides against the law. I’m fully, joyfully in agreement with the law.”

Two Keys to Unlock Verse 14
Everything in verses 14–25 stands under the banner of verse 14: “We know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, having been sold under sin” (literal translation). Paul confesses what he is intrinsically like, in contrast to what the law is intrinsically like.

There are two points to note, which will unlock the verse for us. The first key is that the statement “I am fleshly” is temporally constrained by the statement “we know that the law is spiritual.” It becomes clear when we rewrite it like this: “We (you Christians in Rome, and I the apostle Paul) know that the law is spiritual, but I (Paul) am fleshly.” Which Paul is speaking in the second part of the sentence? Is it Paul the Pharisee or Paul the apostle? The answer is clear—it’s Paul the apostle—unless we want to play conjuring tricks with language. Clearly the “I” of the second part of the sentence is part of the “we” of the first part.

It’s true that the Greek present tense can be used in a “dramatic” way to refer to past time. But to raise that point with respect to Romans 7 is a red herring, since the statement of verse 14a locates the present tense of verse 14b at the time Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome. Paul, the author of Romans, refers to himself here when he says “I.”

Continue--

 

[jamessb]

“We do not need to die to God's instructions for how to live unto him in order to live unto him, “

It’s a just a circle with you back to this you want this imposed on people

“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 before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:19-20‬ ‭KJV‬‬

It’s really not going to affect anyone else but you though

If you choose to bear a yoke you can’t bear I hope it works out for you I don’t belong to God through a broken covenant that was meant to hold people guilty of sin I belong to God by the purchase of Jesus Christ precious blood poured out in the gospel for remission of sins

GREAT POST!!!

 

[Johann]

But how do we make sense of the Christian Paul saying, “I am fleshly, sold under sin”? That brings us to the second key, which is realizing that “sold under sin” doesn’t qualify Paul, but qualifies his condition of fleshliness. Paul literally says, “I am fleshly, having been sold under sin.” He does not say, “I am fleshly and sold under sin.” Interpreters typically read into the verse an “and” that’s not there. Having been sold under sin (by the transgression of Adam), we’ve become fleshly people.

There’s a vital distinction here. Being a slave is fundamentally an issue of personal identity—“Who am I?” (or better, “Whose am I?”). Being fleshly is fundamentally an issue of personal capacity—“What am I?” (or “What am I like?”). Paul isn’t saying he’s a slave of sin and contradicting what he just said about the believer’s freedom in chapter 6. We now have freedom through union with Christ in his death and resurrection (6:1–10), but our bodies don’t yet share Christ’s risen life (6:11). So there’s still a slavery in our bodily members (7:23) as we await the redemption of our bodies (8:23). That’s what it means to be fleshly.

This is the painful reality—our bodily condition hasn’t yet caught up with who we now are in Christ. We’re no longer “in the flesh,” where we reported to slavemaster sin (7:5). However, now that we report to King Jesus we do so as those who are still “fleshly” people (7:14). We have new identities but not new innate capacities! We remain irreparably (but not irredeemably) impaired people.

The Christian’s Radical Inability
Like a computer virus, sin has entered inside the system (“living in me,” vv. 17, 20), where it has impaired all operations (my bodily “members,” v. 23) from functioning according to their original design (carrying out God’s good law, vv. 16, 18, 19, 21). This radical, systemic impairment results in an inability to accomplish the good (vv. 15, 18, 19). It means we have a radical moral disability. We’re incapacitated (vv. 18, 23). The pure, holy goodness of the law is beyond our reach. Because he is fleshly, the good Paul wants to do he does not do.

Three quick points to note. First, this is a Christian’s confession of a human condition. The Christian perceives it (note the verbs of perception in vv. 14, 18, 21, 23), but we all have it.

Second, there’s a connection between 6:12 (“the desires of the body”), 6:19 (“the weakness of the flesh”), 7:7 (“you shall not desire/covet”), and the fleshly/bodily sin of 7:14–25. In other words, Paul isn’t giving us headline news of disgraceful misconduct, but sharing his personal awareness of the power of indwelling sin, experienced as sinful desire. This sinful desire is with us till the day we die.

Christ is a fountain of abundant life. Knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of faith.


Third, Paul dramatizes the dynamic of sin within to underline his intrinsic powerlessness in the face of it. Paul doesn’t yet have in view the Spirit’s enabling, because he wants us to first grasp our own profound inability. This makes us both appreciate, and also depend on, God’s power in Christ (8:1–4). And it means that I never possess spiritual life as a quality or property that I can claim as mine. Rather, by the Spirit, I participate in the risen life of Christ, whose Spirit produces the fruit of Christ in me. That love that God enabled me to show yesterday to my unlovely neighbor? That was Christ’s love at work in and through me.

Continue--

 

[Soyeong]

“For the law was given by Moses,

but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

In John 1:17, there is no "but" in the Greek, rather John 1:16 says grace upon grace, so it is speaking about one example of grace being added upon another. In Psalms 119:29, he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law and in Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, so grace and truth came through Jesus because he spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example.

“And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept…..

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭10:3-5, 11-12‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Indeed, divorce is not good, but is permitted. Separating from someone without giving them a writ of divorce means that they are still married, so if you separating from someone in order to get married to another is committing adultery. which is in accordance with the Mosaic Law.

 

[Magenta]

Paul’s Dual Purpose
Why is Romans 7 so difficult to understand? Why is it so debated? Why does the evidence seem to push in different directions? Because of Paul’s dual purpose in this passage.

The life of fruitful obedience to God, he explains, comes as we die to our old husband, the law, which was a threatening master over us, and we marry a new husband, the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 1–4). The law can only expose and excite our sin (vv. 7–13). Although the law is “spiritual” (v. 14)—having a divine origin and nature—we are “fleshly” (v. 14), intrinsically incapable of keeping God’s good law. So God in Christ has to take from our hands the external written code—the law book—and put into our hearts his Spirit, who empowers the powerless to live the fruitful life of love to which the law points (vv. 5–6).

That is Paul’s main point in Romans 7. His purpose in light of that is to simultaneously (1) defend himself against the misconception that he dismisses and denigrates God’s law, and (2) help the believers in Rome see that they’re fleshly by nature and, therefore, can’t successfully serve God in the “oldness of the letter” (v. 6). But defending yourself while pointing the finger at others rarely ends well (see Romans 2!), so Paul defends himself while pointing the finger at himself as the problem.

Paul simultaneously defends himself against a misplaced charge and confesses his profound incapacity to obey God’s law. That, in large part, explains why Romans 7 has a mixture of positive and negative statements.

The element of self-defense continues into verses 14–25. Take verse 22 for example, where Paul uses a verb that appears nowhere else in biblical Greek (sunēdomai). Our first question shouldn’t be, “Is this the experience of a Christian or a non-Christian?” but “Why this verb in this context?” It makes sense when we realize Paul comes to his own defense (as also in vv. 7, 11, 14, 16), since it was a verb often used to express a strong sympathy of outlook with another person: “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner person” (cf. NASB; HCSB). The phrase personifies God’s law as someone Paul strongly agrees with. The law is, after all, God’s personal voice (v. 7). Paul is saying, “I’m not taking sides against the law. I’m fully, joyfully in agreement with the law.”

Two Keys to Unlock Verse 14
Everything in verses 14–25 stands under the banner of verse 14: “We know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, having been sold under sin” (literal translation). Paul confesses what he is intrinsically like, in contrast to what the law is intrinsically like.

There are two points to note, which will unlock the verse for us. The first key is that the statement “I am fleshly” is temporally constrained by the statement “we know that the law is spiritual.” It becomes clear when we rewrite it like this: “We (you Christians in Rome, and I the apostle Paul) know that the law is spiritual, but I (Paul) am fleshly.” Which Paul is speaking in the second part of the sentence? Is it Paul the Pharisee or Paul the apostle? The answer is clear—it’s Paul the apostle—unless we want to play conjuring tricks with language. Clearly the “I” of the second part of the sentence is part of the “we” of the first part.

It’s true that the Greek present tense can be used in a “dramatic” way to refer to past time. But to raise that point with respect to Romans 7 is a red herring, since the statement of verse 14a locates the present tense of verse 14b at the time Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome. Paul, the author of Romans, refers to himself here when he says “I.”

Continue--

Who wrote this? I do not see a source given.

 

[jamessb]

Paul’s Dual Purpose
Why is Romans 7 so difficult to understand? Why is it so debated? Why does the evidence seem to push in different directions? Because of Paul’s dual purpose in this passage.

The life of fruitful obedience to God, he explains, comes as we die to our old husband, the law, which was a threatening master over us, and we marry a new husband, the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 1–4). The law can only expose and excite our sin (vv. 7–13). Although the law is “spiritual” (v. 14)—having a divine origin and nature—we are “fleshly” (v. 14), intrinsically incapable of keeping God’s good law. So God in Christ has to take from our hands the external written code—the law book—and put into our hearts his Spirit, who empowers the powerless to live the fruitful life of love to which the law points (vv. 5–6).

That is Paul’s main point in Romans 7. His purpose in light of that is to simultaneously (1) defend himself against the misconception that he dismisses and denigrates God’s law, and (2) help the believers in Rome see that they’re fleshly by nature and, therefore, can’t successfully serve God in the “oldness of the letter” (v. 6). But defending yourself while pointing the finger at others rarely ends well (see Romans 2!), so Paul defends himself while pointing the finger at himself as the problem.

Paul simultaneously defends himself against a misplaced charge and confesses his profound incapacity to obey God’s law. That, in large part, explains why Romans 7 has a mixture of positive and negative statements.

The element of self-defense continues into verses 14–25. Take verse 22 for example, where Paul uses a verb that appears nowhere else in biblical Greek (sunēdomai). Our first question shouldn’t be, “Is this the experience of a Christian or a non-Christian?” but “Why this verb in this context?” It makes sense when we realize Paul comes to his own defense (as also in vv. 7, 11, 14, 16), since it was a verb often used to express a strong sympathy of outlook with another person: “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner person” (cf. NASB; HCSB). The phrase personifies God’s law as someone Paul strongly agrees with. The law is, after all, God’s personal voice (v. 7). Paul is saying, “I’m not taking sides against the law. I’m fully, joyfully in agreement with the law.”

Two Keys to Unlock Verse 14
Everything in verses 14–25 stands under the banner of verse 14: “We know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, having been sold under sin” (literal translation). Paul confesses what he is intrinsically like, in contrast to what the law is intrinsically like.

There are two points to note, which will unlock the verse for us. The first key is that the statement “I am fleshly” is temporally constrained by the statement “we know that the law is spiritual.” It becomes clear when we rewrite it like this: “We (you Christians in Rome, and I the apostle Paul) know that the law is spiritual, but I (Paul) am fleshly.” Which Paul is speaking in the second part of the sentence? Is it Paul the Pharisee or Paul the apostle? The answer is clear—it’s Paul the apostle—unless we want to play conjuring tricks with language. Clearly the “I” of the second part of the sentence is part of the “we” of the first part.

It’s true that the Greek present tense can be used in a “dramatic” way to refer to past time. But to raise that point with respect to Romans 7 is a red herring, since the statement of verse 14a locates the present tense of verse 14b at the time Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome. Paul, the author of Romans, refers to himself here when he says “I.”

Continue--

THANKS for posting this!!!

 

[Johann]

1. Romans 7 and Faith
Faith means going outside ourselves (there’s no innate good within us, 7:18) and fleeing to Christ, not only for justification but for every blessing of God’s grace. There’s no fruitfulness apart from him (7:4). As Martin Luther put it, “All our good is outside of us, and that good is Christ.” Or, as John Calvin wrote, “Since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other” (Institutes 2.16.19). Relying on the law involves self-reliance (cf. Phil. 3:9). It’s a dead end. Christ, meanwhile, is a fountain of abundant life.

Knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of faith.

2. Romans 7 and Hope
Salvation in Christ is resurrection life. We participate now in the resurrection life of Christ (6:1–11), but we still await the resurrection of the dead, when our bodies will be raised to be like his glorious body (Phil 3:21). So the life of hope is lived amid profound bodily weakness (Rom 4:18–25; 6:12, 19; 7:14–25; 8:10–11, 23–25). That weakness is physical, but it’s also moral.

Knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of hope.

3. Romans 7 and Love
Either we can use the law in pride to distance ourselves from others (2:1–16), or God will use the law in our lives to show us that we’re just like Adam, the prototypical sinner (7:7–13), and as helpless as the lowliest person we’ll ever meet (7:14–25).

You can only love people when down on their level (12:16), so knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of love.

Remember, this is the confession of the apostle Paul. When Christ called him on the Damascus road, he broke him, and he stayed a broken man. But what an abundant harvest grew from the soil of that brokenness! Only from such men and women can words of life and grace flow. Witness Romans 8, a glorious melody of assurance, comfort, and hope. Leaders of Christ’s precious flock take note: You can only tend to their needs down on your knees.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...n/#:~:text=What’s Really Going On in Romans 7

 

[Magenta]

But how do we make sense of the Christian Paul saying, “I am fleshly, sold under sin”? That brings us to the second key, which is realizing that “sold under sin” doesn’t qualify Paul, but qualifies his condition of fleshliness. Paul literally says, “I am fleshly, having been sold under sin.” He does not say, “I am fleshly and sold under sin.” Interpreters typically read into the verse an “and” that’s not there. Having been sold under sin (by the transgression of Adam), we’ve become fleshly people.

There’s a vital distinction here. Being a slave is fundamentally an issue of personal identity—“Who am I?” (or better, “Whose am I?”). Being fleshly is fundamentally an issue of personal capacity—“What am I?” (or “What am I like?”). Paul isn’t saying he’s a slave of sin and contradicting what he just said about the believer’s freedom in chapter 6. We now have freedom through union with Christ in his death and resurrection (6:1–10), but our bodies don’t yet share Christ’s risen life (6:11). So there’s still a slavery in our bodily members (7:23) as we await the redemption of our bodies (8:23). That’s what it means to be fleshly.

This is the painful reality—our bodily condition hasn’t yet caught up with who we now are in Christ. We’re no longer “in the flesh,” where we reported to slavemaster sin (7:5). However, now that we report to King Jesus we do so as those who are still “fleshly” people (7:14). We have new identities but not new innate capacities! We remain irreparably (but not irredeemably) impaired people.

The Christian’s Radical Inability
Like a computer virus, sin has entered inside the system (“living in me,” vv. 17, 20), where it has impaired all operations (my bodily “members,” v. 23) from functioning according to their original design (carrying out God’s good law, vv. 16, 18, 19, 21). This radical, systemic impairment results in an inability to accomplish the good (vv. 15, 18, 19). It means we have a radical moral disability. We’re incapacitated (vv. 18, 23). The pure, holy goodness of the law is beyond our reach. Because he is fleshly, the good Paul wants to do he does not do.

Three quick points to note. First, this is a Christian’s confession of a human condition. The Christian perceives it (note the verbs of perception in vv. 14, 18, 21, 23), but we all have it.

Second, there’s a connection between 6:12 (“the desires of the body”), 6:19 (“the weakness of the flesh”), 7:7 (“you shall not desire/covet”), and the fleshly/bodily sin of 7:14–25. In other words, Paul isn’t giving us headline news of disgraceful misconduct, but sharing his personal awareness of the power of indwelling sin, experienced as sinful desire. This sinful desire is with us till the day we die.

Christ is a fountain of abundant life. Knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of faith.

Third, Paul dramatizes the dynamic of sin within to underline his intrinsic powerlessness in the face of it. Paul doesn’t yet have in view the Spirit’s enabling, because he wants us to first grasp our own profound inability. This makes us both appreciate, and also depend on, God’s power in Christ (8:1–4). And it means that I never possess spiritual life as a quality or property that I can claim as mine. Rather, by the Spirit, I participate in the risen life of Christ, whose Spirit produces the fruit of Christ in me. That love that God enabled me to show yesterday to my unlovely neighbor? That was Christ’s love at work in and through me.

Continue--

Who wrote this? I see no source for it, either. Are you still plagiarizing?

 

[Johann]

THANKS for posting this!!!

You might disagree with the conclusion.
J.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

In Roman 7, Paul said that Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, and that he delighted in obeying it, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which was workin within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

I completely agree that we are not justified by obeying works of the law and I have never suggested otherwise. If you agree that it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is and that we should repent from doing what God has revealed to be sin, then you should agree that we should obey the Mosaic Law. Jesus set a sinless example for how to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and in Matthew 11:28-30, he referred to this yoke as be light and his burden being easy, moreover, by saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Mosaic Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls, yet you refuse to walk in it.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts. The way to belong to God is not by refusing to obey what He has commanded, but just the opposite, in 1 John 3:10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Mosaic Law are not children of God.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus 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 Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, in Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through his ministry and through the cross while return to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he accomplished.

Yeah it is good I’ve quoted that you can’t hear what it’s saying though the law had a purpose it’s this

“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 before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:19-20‬ ‭KJV‬‬

tbis doesnt make the law wrong or sinful it is telling mankind what sin is and that sin is death the law is holy righteous and good

it had its own purpose that preceded Christ it can never save anyone never remit thier sins it can only hold then guilty that’s what Hod designed Ed it to do it’s why he placed this ordination over it

“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭23:20-21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

because it’s purpose was to do what Paul’s saying

“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 before God.”

thats why it had to be ordained by that angel with that unforgiving disposition because it’s made to impart sin upon the sinners and make it known to them
So you put this guys disposition over the people

“Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.”

and what you end up with is this

“And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”
‭‭Numbers‬ ‭15:32, 35-36‬ ‭KJV‬‬

This can never save any sinner it can only make known sin and death

the good law tells man this is sin don’t do it

“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

And it shows that sin is death

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭20:10‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Your looking at the law that made everyone a sinner instead of the gospel that remits thier sins and calls then to repentance and life

 

[Johann]

1. Romans 7 and Faith
Faith means going outside ourselves (there’s no innate good within us, 7:18) and fleeing to Christ, not only for justification but for every blessing of God’s grace. There’s no fruitfulness apart from him (7:4). As Martin Luther put it, “All our good is outside of us, and that good is Christ.” Or, as John Calvin wrote, “Since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other” (Institutes 2.16.19). Relying on the law involves self-reliance (cf. Phil. 3:9). It’s a dead end. Christ, meanwhile, is a fountain of abundant life.

Knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of faith.

2. Romans 7 and Hope
Salvation in Christ is resurrection life. We participate now in the resurrection life of Christ (6:1–11), but we still await the resurrection of the dead, when our bodies will be raised to be like his glorious body (Phil 3:21). So the life of hope is lived amid profound bodily weakness (Rom 4:18–25; 6:12, 19; 7:14–25; 8:10–11, 23–25). That weakness is physical, but it’s also moral.

Knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of hope.

3. Romans 7 and Love
Either we can use the law in pride to distance ourselves from others (2:1–16), or God will use the law in our lives to show us that we’re just like Adam, the prototypical sinner (7:7–13), and as helpless as the lowliest person we’ll ever meet (7:14–25).

You can only love people when down on their level (12:16), so knowing ourselves from Romans 7 feeds the life of love.

Remember, this is the confession of the apostle Paul. When Christ called him on the Damascus road, he broke him, and he stayed a broken man. But what an abundant harvest grew from the soil of that brokenness! Only from such men and women can words of life and grace flow. Witness Romans 8, a glorious melody of assurance, comfort, and hope. Leaders of Christ’s precious flock take note: You can only tend to their needs down on your knees.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/romans-7-apostle-paul-confession/#:~:text=What’s Really Going On in Romans 7

End.
J.

 

[jamessb]

You might disagree with the conclusion.
J.

Maybe. I haven't read it all yet. So far so good!

 

[Magenta]

End.
J.

Is it necessary to keep posting huge swaths of other people's work?

Can you not put into your own words your own understanding?

 

[Johann]

Maybe. I haven't read it all yet. So far so good!

Well? What do you think?

 

[The_old_guy]

We are still obligated to obey the Torah. It was never abolished.

The Torah is part of the old covenant, and the answer to your post is "yes" and "no." Jesus instituted the new covenant. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the two covenants.

The old one is the national form of the covenant given to the nation of Israel. Jesus did away with its outward form like the sabbath day, unclean foods, bloody sacrifices, and death penalties for various offenses.

His new covenant continues the inner principles of the laws. To continue with the previous examples, the principles of worship and rest on one day in the week continue, we need cleansing from our inner uncleanness, he died as the only Sacrifice to take away our guilt, and his justice will judge all people when he returns except for his "not-guilty" verdict for his own.

 

[Soyeong]

Paul’s Dual Purpose
Why is Romans 7 so difficult to understand? Why is it so debated? Why does the evidence seem to push in different directions? Because of Paul’s dual purpose in this passage.

The life of fruitful obedience to God, he explains, comes as we die to our old husband, the law, which was a threatening master over us, and we marry a new husband, the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 1–4). The law can only expose and excite our sin (vv. 7–13). Although the law is “spiritual” (v. 14)—having a divine origin and nature—we are “fleshly” (v. 14), intrinsically incapable of keeping God’s good law. So God in Christ has to take from our hands the external written code—the law book—and put into our hearts his Spirit, who empowers the powerless to live the fruitful life of love to which the law points (vv. 5–6).

The Bible repeatedly describes the Mosaic Covenant as being a marriage between God and Israel, so Israel got married to God, not to the law, but rather God's law was part the terms of the marriage covenant. There was no point in Romans 7:1-3 where the woman was set free from needing to obey God's law, and if she were to get married to a second husband after the death of her first, then she would still be required to obey God's law against committing adultery, so there is nothing that leads to the conclusion on Romans 7:4 that in the same way we have been set free from God's law, so that is missing Paul's point.

Moreover, that is negativing Paul's point in Romans 6:14-23, where he is making a dichotomy between being under the Law of God or being under the law of sin. He said that being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, that we are slaves to the one that we obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leas to righteousness, that we have been set free from sin in order to become slaves of righteousness, that we are not to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ. So it is insane for someone to then interpret Romans 7 as saying that we need die to God's instructions for how to do what is righteous, be set free to do what God has revealed to be sin, and this is the way to be joined to Christ and bear fruit for God. We need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

That is Paul’s main point in Romans 7. His purpose in light of that is to simultaneously (1) defend himself against the misconception that he dismisses and denigrates God’s law, and (2) help the believers in Rome see that they’re fleshly by nature and, therefore, can’t successfully serve God in the “oldness of the letter” (v. 6). But defending yourself while pointing the finger at others rarely ends well (see Romans 2!), so Paul defends himself while pointing the finger at himself as the problem.

1 Corinthian 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey it (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27), and it is abundantly clear that obedience to the way of life (Deuteronomy 30:11-16, Deuteronomy 32:46-47, Revelation 22:14, Proverbs 3:18, Proverbs 6:23, Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17, Hebrews 5:9, Romans 2:6-7, Romans 6:19-23), so what it means to follow the letter needs to be understood in a way that is in accordance with these other verses rather than a way that is contrary to them. If obeying the letter refers to correctly obeying what God has commanded and that leads to death, then that would mean that God should not be trusted and we should not follow him, so that clearly is not what obeying the letter refers to.

Paul simultaneously defends himself against a misplaced charge and confesses his profound incapacity to obey God’s law. That, in large part, explains why Romans 7 has a mixture of positive and negative statements.

The issue is that Paul is contrasting his desire to obey the Law of God with the law of sin that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do.

The element of self-defense continues into verses 14–25. Take verse 22 for example, where Paul uses a verb that appears nowhere else in biblical Greek (sunēdomai). Our first question shouldn’t be, “Is this the experience of a Christian or a non-Christian?” but “Why this verb in this context?” It makes sense when we realize Paul comes to his own defense (as also in vv. 7, 11, 14, 16), since it was a verb often used to express a strong sympathy of outlook with another person: “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner person” (cf. NASB; HCSB). The phrase personifies God’s law as someone Paul strongly agrees with. The law is, after all, God’s personal voice (v. 7). Paul is saying, “I’m not taking sides against the law. I’m fully, joyfully in agreement with the law.”

The Psalmists repeatedly stated that they loved the Mosaic Law and delighted in obeying it, so Paul was expressing a view in Romans 7:22 that was in accordance with his view that the Psalms are Scripture while anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying the Mosaic Law is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.

Two Keys to Unlock Verse 14
Everything in verses 14–25 stands under the banner of verse 14: “We know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, having been sold under sin” (literal translation). Paul confesses what he is intrinsically like, in contrast to what the law is intrinsically like.

There are two points to note, which will unlock the verse for us. The first key is that the statement “I am fleshly” is temporally constrained by the statement “we know that the law is spiritual.” It becomes clear when we rewrite it like this: “We (you Christians in Rome, and I the apostle Paul) know that the law is spiritual, but I (Paul) am fleshly.” Which Paul is speaking in the second part of the sentence? Is it Paul the Pharisee or Paul the apostle? The answer is clear—it’s Paul the apostle—unless we want to play conjuring tricks with language. Clearly the “I” of the second part of the sentence is part of the “we” of the first part.

It’s true that the Greek present tense can be used in a “dramatic” way to refer to past time. But to raise that point with respect to Romans 7 is a red herring, since the statement of verse 14a locates the present tense of verse 14b at the time Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome. Paul, the author of Romans, refers to himself here when he says “I.”

Continue--

God's law is spiritual in that it has always been intended to teach us spiritual principles that are aspect of God's nature, and that are the way to know him, while works of the flesh are contrary to God's law.

 

[Johann]

The Bible repeatedly describes the Mosaic Covenant as being a marriage between God and Israel, so Israel got married to God, not to the law, but rather God's law was part the terms of the marriage covenant. There was no point in Romans 7:1-3 where the woman was set free from needing to obey God's law, and if she were to get married to a second husband after the death of her first, then she would still be required to obey God's law against committing adultery, so there is nothing that leads to the conclusion on Romans 7:4 that in the same way we have been set free from God's law, so that is missing Paul's point.

Moreover, that is negativing Paul's point in Romans 6:14-23, where he is making a dichotomy between being under the Law of God or being under the law of sin. He said that being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, that we are slaves to the one that we obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leas to righteousness, that we have been set free from sin in order to become slaves of righteousness, that we are not to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ. So it is insane for someone to then interpret Romans 7 as saying that we need die to God's instructions for how to do what is righteous, be set free to do what God has revealed to be sin, and this is the way to be joined to Christ and bear fruit for God. We need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.



1 Corinthian 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey it (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27), and it is abundantly clear that obedience to the way of life (Deuteronomy 30:11-16, Deuteronomy 32:46-47, Revelation 22:14, Proverbs 3:18, Proverbs 6:23, Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17, Hebrews 5:9, Romans 2:6-7, Romans 6:19-23), so what it means to follow the letter needs to be understood in a way that is in accordance with these other verses rather than a way that is contrary to them. If obeying the letter refers to correctly obeying what God has commanded and that leads to death, then that would mean that God should not be trusted and we should not follow him, so that clearly is not what obeying the letter refers to.


The issue is that Paul is contrasting his desire to obey the Law of God with the law of sin that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do.


The Psalmists repeatedly stated that they loved the Mosaic Law and delighted in obeying it, so Paul was expressing a view in Romans 7:22 that was in accordance with his view that the Psalms are Scripture while anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying the Mosaic Law is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.


God's law is spiritual in that it has always been intended to teach us spiritual principles that are aspect of God's nature, and that are the way to know him, while works of the flesh are contrary to God's law.

What is your source? Unless you can type a 1000 words in a second I guess I have the right to ask you your source.
Thanks.

 

[Soyeong]

The Torah is part of the old covenant, and the answer to your post is "yes" and "no." Jesus instituted the new covenant. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the two covenants.

The old one is the national form of the covenant given to the nation of Israel. Jesus did away with its outward form like the sabbath day, unclean foods, bloody sacrifices, and death penalties for various offenses.

His new covenant continues the inner principles of the laws. To continue with the previous examples, the principles of worship and rest on one day in the week continue, we need cleansing from our inner uncleanness, he died as the only Sacrifice to take away our guilt, and his justice will judge all people when he returns except for his "not-guilty" verdict for his own.

While we are not under the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same eternal character and therefore the same eternal instructs for how to act in accordance with His character, which is why the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33) and sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience to it (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything he spent this ministry teaching.

The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant does everything that it does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), so the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10), plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator.

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law and warned against relaxing the least part of it, so by saying that Jesus did away with any part of the law, you are calling him a liar and are disregarding his warning. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it. In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are enteral, so none of them will ever be abolished. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.

It is contradictory to still follow the principles of God's law while doing away with the things that are examples of those principles. God could have commanded to rest one day of week if He had wanted His people to do that, but He commanded His people to rest on the 7th day in memorial of when He rested after Creation.