Paul declares the God of Israel dead!

[Pegg]

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the Torah, Jews) how that the Torah hath dominion over a man (anthropos) as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman (Israel/Jews) which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that Torah; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the Torah, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the Torah, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (KJV) Romans 7

I like the more modern rendering of this verse:

NWT :

Romans 7:1-25 Can it be that you do not know, brothers, (for I am speaking to those who know law) that the Law is master over a man as long as he lives? 2 For instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So, then, while her husband is living, she would be called an adulteress if she became another man’s. But if her husband dies, she is free from his law, so that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. 4 So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God.
5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code.
​

The mosaic law condemned wrongdoers to death. Paul shows that the Mosaic Law is not the means for humans to gain a righteous standing before Jehovah God. There was no escaping the punishment of death...and this is proved by the fact that all the faithful witnesses of old died regardless of their righteous standing. They still died because sin brings forth death for all people, and the mosaic law made this fact of life very clear.

What were Christians 'released' from? It was from the condemnation to death as specified under the mosaic law.

Christ made atonement for mankind and in doing so, he released mankind from the condemnation to death...thats why being freed or liberated from sin and condemnation is likened to death. We are no longer obligated to the requirements of the mosaic law IF we become slaves of righteousness.

 

[Simplelogic]

The Torah does two things:

It blessed those who kept it. And it cursed those who didn't. This does not make the law a curse. Man has always had the simple choice to either LOVE God by keeping it or not Love God by refusing to. The law was not a "curse" by any means, and God never required perfect obedience from man. He DID require man to be humble and to repent when we fail though. This is the true heart of the issue. Works have always been required for man to be in good standing with God. Not because it is legalistic, but because it is an accurate barometer of what our heart truly is.

1How blessed are those whose way is blameless,
Who walk in the Torah of the LORD.
2How blessed are those who observe His testimonies,
Who seek Him with all their heart.

3They also do no unrighteousness;
They walk in His ways.

4You have ordained Your precepts,
That we should keep them diligently.

5Oh that my ways may be established
To keep Your statutes!

6Then I shall not be ashamed
When I look upon all Your commandments.

7I shall give thanks to You with uprightness of heart,
When I learn Your righteous judgments. Psalm 119:1-7

Yeshua said the same thing:

If you love me, keep my commandments John 14:15

James echoes the same thing:

But the one who looks into the perfect Torah, the Torah of liberty, and perseveres,
being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing James 14:15

The Torah was never a curse. It is a perfect Torah of liberty which trains and teaches us how to love God and grow in intimacy with Him. The notion that we had to be released from this beautiful Law is not logical. It is also not found in any of the Hebrew scriptures, or the words of Yeshua.

 

[Simplelogic]

I agree that I am bound to God under the covenant established by Christ. This convenant requires our bedience to the commandments of Moses with two additional commandments added: Love God with all of our hearts. Love our neighborhood with all of our hearts.

It's through and by LOVE that we fulfill God's law to the fullest.

Please let me know if you would like scriptural references.

These were NOT new commandments. Yeshua was quoting the Torah:

You shall therefore love the LORD your God, and always keep His charge, His statutes, His ordinances, and His commandments. Deut 11:1

'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19:24

 

[Scott C.]

Paul makes it clear that is the "death of the husband" which causes the Law to be nullified.

Why do you believe that the "husband" is the Father?

 

[psychoslice]

Yes I think that Paul if there was a Paul, didn't believe in the god that most Christians believe today. I think he believed more of a oneness with all there is. We are all the Christ when self believed, and this was Pauls whole teaching.

 

[Adstar]

The Jews where bound to the Law.. Paul was likening the Law to a husband having authority over the wife. The Law is not God. God created and gave the law, God is not the law itself. So when Jesus came the power of the law was broken. When Jesus came the law ceased to curse men with death. So simple but for anti-paul activists no answer will do.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not giving a complete answer but you'd have to widen the context. Romans 6:1-2 says "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" Here the writer suggests it is sin that we die to and that we must not go on sinning (against the Law). Then further in 6 Paul talks about dying 'With Christ' and continues to 6v15 with "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!" He upholds obedience to the Law here.

With a widening context and increasing effort the letter takes on more dimensions. Following through with further reading it becomes clear Paul isn't teaching anything new but revisiting the concept of 'Circumcision' of the 'Heart' which is alluded to in Deuteronomy 10v16. In Romans 8:12 he says "Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it." In other words there remains an obligation for them to the Law, but it is not about the physical actions they do. The actions must lead to results. Circumcision of heart is not a new teaching and is a goal of the Law, but his line of argument continues and takes the familiar into unfamiliar territory in chapter 9 when he comments on the 'Stumbling stone' of Zion. It relates to his interpretation of the Kingdom of God and how it will become a reality, but the idea seems to be that now the Law is no longer on paper but has to move onto the tablets of the heart, a kind of harmonization with Matthew's comments about Jeremiah 34.

So it doesn't appear to be a rejection of Torah.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes I think that Paul if there was a Paul, didn't believe in the god that most Christians believe today. I think he believed more of a oneness with all there is. We are all the Christ when self believed, and this was Pauls whole teaching.

Well, if you can't prove it with Scripture it's sort of just a theory. Ironically, many people seem to think Paul was adding more theism to Jesus, not the other way around.

 

[psychoslice]

Whatever, it doesn't matter, as ,long as it all becomes a part of you, that all that matters.

 

[Desert Snake]

The Jews where bound to the Law.. Paul was likening the Law to a husband having authority over the wife. The Law is not God. God created and gave the law, God is not the law itself. So when Jesus came the power of the law was broken. When Jesus came the law ceased to curse men with death. So simple but for anti-paul activists no answer will do.

Right, we have to examine the verses in context. They 'match' the other Scripture more if we take this approach to the terms used. Elsewhere in the Epistles we get all sorts of references to the father, so there wasn't some conspiracy against the Deity of the Hebraic belief, if there had been, why not just state as such openly? Granted, Jesus is called G-d in the NT, even the creator, however this is not necessarily an indication of some sort of 'replacement' Deity, it seems like another expression of the same Deity. People seem to forget that Paul was Jewish, he may have been trying to fit these beliefs (he was a convert remember) into a pre-existing framework of understanding in the text as well. Although this seems a bit 'obvious', it indicates other possible manners in interpreting certain verses. The Christians at the time seemed to have no problem with the Deity status of Jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

Whatever, it doesn't matter, as ,long as it all becomes a part of you, that all that matters.

I'm not an adherent of Scripture by default, I am pretty cynical in general regarding many aspects of religious text.

 

[psychoslice]

Well that nice, its a great start.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you agree with Paul or not?

You're interpolating words that Paul did not write, and the word changes are quite significant. Offhand I don't think that the word Torah appears in the New Testament. It's a Hebrew word, of course, that refers to a more specific set of books than the Greek nomos, which Paul uses with many different shades of meaning: the Hebrew law - sometimes the Torah specifically, the laws of nature (sometimes with Greek philosophical overtones), the 'law' of theological truth that he's creating. Obviously not all of these usages of nomos are of the same theological importance, which is a matter of additional interpretation.

Further, you've inserted 'Torah' into translations where it doesn't appear, inserting your [obviously] biased interpretation, forcing a reading that isn't there.

 

[Desert Snake]

...........nevermind.

 

[Adstar]

Right, we have to examine the verses in context. They 'match' the other Scripture more if we take this approach to the terms used. Elsewhere in the Epistles we get all sorts of references to the father, so there wasn't some conspiracy against the Deity of the Hebraic belief, if there had been, why not just state as such openly? Granted, Jesus is called G-d in the NT, even the creator, however this is not necessarily an indication of some sort of 'replacement' Deity, it seems like another expression of the same Deity. People seem to forget that Paul was Jewish, he may have been trying to fit these beliefs (he was a convert remember) into a pre-existing framework of understanding in the text as well. Although this seems a bit 'obvious', it indicates other possible manners in interpreting certain verses. The Christians at the time seemed to have no problem with the Deity status of Jesus.

I have no problem with Jesus being God, Jesus and the Father are One.
God haf many titles in the OT. God was the Creator in the OT and the Creator in the NT. Christianity is not a different religion to Torah Judaisim but a progression of it to it's next stage or Revelation. but Jews usually have rejected that claim as Christians have usually rejected the claim of muhammed and the quran as the final progression of the revealed religion of the God of Abraham <- another title.

 

[psychoslice]

So its got to be your way, mmm ???.

 

[Desert Snake]

I have no problem with Jesus being God, Jesus and the Father are One.
God haf many titles in the OT. God was the Creator in the OT and the Creator in the NT. Christianity is not a different religion to Torah Judaisim but a progression of it to it's next stage or Revelation. but Jews usually have rejected that claim as Christians have usually rejected the claim of muhammed and the quran as the final progression of the revealed religion of the God of Abraham <- another title.

I agree with the progression of the Covenant, however I don't think Xianity is 'from' Judaism, so much as a parallel religion utilizing Judaic belief, hence same texts, essentially. I believe that all three religions are too different at their common religious outlooks to be called 'progressions'.

 

[Simplelogic]

The Christian claim is that they are the recipients of the "New Covenant" mentioned in Jeremiah 31. Yet Jeremiah says that this "New Covenant" will be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It also says we will fully keep the Torah as part of this New Covenant.

Its not a "progression"…its a distortion.

 

[Simplelogic]

Why do you believe that the "husband" is the Father?

For a number of reasons:

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the Torah, Jews) how that theTorah hath dominion over a man (anthropos) as long as he liveth?

Paul begins by narrowing this section down to Jews who "know the Torah"

2 For the woman (Israel/Jews) which hath an husband is bound by the Torah to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the Torah of her husband.

It is clear that the husband being mentioned is the God of the Jews or Israel. The Father gave the Torah directly to Moses. Notice that when this "husband" dies, so does the Torah. If Paul were referring to Yeshua than his whole argument doesn't make sense. Paul is talking about two different husbands in this passage. I will prove this with the next verse.


3 So then if, while her husband liveth (first husband/God of Israel), she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that Torah; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man (second husband).

The woman = Israel/Jews
1st Husband= YHVH of Israel who gave the Torah
2nd Husband= Jesus who raises from the dead (without the Torah)

It is illogical to suggest that Yeshua was the first and second husband. The only legal reason for the Torah going away is because the first husband is dead and remains dead. If that husband were to come back to life then obviously the Torah would be revived with him.

 

[Simplelogic]

You're interpolating words that Paul did not write, and the word changes are quite significant. Offhand I don't think that the word Torah appears in the New Testament. It's a Hebrew word, of course, that refers to a more specific set of books than the Greek nomos, which Paul uses with many different shades of meaning: the Hebrew law - sometimes the Torah specifically, the laws of nature (sometimes with Greek philosophical overtones), the 'law' of theological truth that he's creating. Obviously not all of these usages of nomos are of the same theological importance, which is a matter of additional interpretation.

Further, you've inserted 'Torah' into translations where it doesn't appear, inserting your [obviously] biased interpretation, forcing a reading that isn't there.

Paul uses the word "nomos" in Ch 1-6 of Romans. In each time referring to the Torah.

Paul in this passage of Romans specifically addresses Jews about the Mosaic Law: "for I speak to them that know the law" (Romans 7:1.) This is obviously in reference to the Torah.

Christian scholars who agree with me:

Tischendorf -- a faithful German scholar from the 1800s (discoverer of the Sinaiticus manuscript,

Tischendorf says of Romans 7:1-6 that Paul refers to "the law in the sense it has been used all along, the Mosaic law." (Notes on Tischendorf's text of Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Ed. Jammes Robinson Boise) (1883) at 57.)

Henry Ripley-notes of Romans 7:1-6: "When we consider the apostle's habits of thought in regard to the Law, and those of the majority, at least of his earliest readers, it is most reasonable to think hehad in mind the Mosaic code." (The Epistle ... to the Romans; with notes by H.J. Ripley (edited by Henry Jones Ripley) (1857) at 72.)

Matthew Henry- Henry says Paul uses an illustration of the law of the husband to teach we are "not under a covenant of works-under the gospel of Christ, and not under the law of Moses." (Henry's commentary at Bibble-Browser Romans 7:4.)

John Locke says in his commentary:

That his discourse here, is addressed to those converts of this church, who were of the Jewish nation, is so evident, from the whole tenour of this chapter, that there needs no more but to read it with a little attention, to be convinced of it, especially ver. 1, 4, 6. (Works of John Locke (1823) Vol. 8 at 310.)

In Romans 7:5 Paul refers to the "sinful passions through the Law" very much like Paul said elsewhere in 1 Cor. 15:56 that the Law given Moses made sin to be wrought in our members. Tischendorf comments on Romans 7:5 that Paul in that verse means "the sinful passions...[are] coming into active exercise through the law" just as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:56 about the Mosaic Law. (Tischendorf, supra, at 57.)