"THE LORD'S DAY IS THE SABBATH DAY NOT SUNDAY ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: You certainly have no understanding of the scriptures and this is genuine proof right here. The "body of Christ" in Romans 7 is not in reference to the Church here it is a reference to Christs death on the cross paying the price for our sins so that we through faith can walk in newness of life.Read the scripture contexts already provided in Romans 6:1-23 which is talking about baptism being symbolic of Christ death and us dying to the old man of sin and walking in newness of life without sin (obedience to Gods law). We die, that is our man of sin, with Christ on the cross, so that we are now free from sin, so we can walk in newness of life and be married to another (Christ). Romans 7:4 We are dead to the (condemnation of the) law by the body of Christ can be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God." Fruit to God is not now being free to disobey Gods law. Fruit to God is a reference of to being obedient to Gods law (see Romans 13:8-10). Romans 7:1-25 talks no where about being married to Gods law it is about being married to the old man of sin and death and walking in newness of life with Christ.

Your response here...

WOW! That was a bit off the charts 3rdAngel. So "the body of Christ" is not a reference to the church. Ooookay, I'm listening, but I'm not sure if I'm listening to an Adventist. My bad, I thought I was, so let's get right down to the real nitty-gritty then. It may help me and any of our readers make more sense of your post. You say “We through faith…” but you deny the “WE” is the church. Who is this “WE” if not the church? Is it “You” and a small, select band of “true" Christians that excludes the “at large” or traditional church?

The only thing that is off is your understanding of Romans 7 as already proven in post # 3043 linked; post # 3044 linked; post # 3045 linked from the scriptures and scripture contexts why your understanding of Romans 7 is not biblical. Please respond to the linked posts and all the scripture that is provided there that is in disagreement with you. If you cannot what is your argument for disregarding Gods 10 commandments that give us a knowledge of what sin is when broken? You have none. Romans 7:4 says "Why, my brothers, you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God. As posted earlier this is not a reference to the Church but Christs death for our sins. The same arguments are being made in the scripture context if Romans 6:1-23 where it is written (using baptism as the metaphor) "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin." (please read Romans 6:1-22). Are you following? I suggest you read Romans 6. The whole chapter buries your interpretation of a single scripture you promote in Romans 7.

SUNDAY SCHOLAR COMMENTARIES ON "THE BODY OF CHRIST" NOT BEING THE CHURCH IN ROMANS 7:4

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
By the body of Christ - Which was slain for you. No reference to the mystical Body, the Church, (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10; Eph.; Col. is to be sought here. The word “body” is used, instead of “death,” probably to remind the readers that the Lord “took our nature upon Him” expressly in view of His death.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
By the body of Christ - That is, by his body crucified; or in other words, by his death; compare Ephesians 2:15, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity," etc. that is, by his death. Colossians 1:22, "in the body of his flesh through death," etc. Colossians 2:14; 1 Peter 2:24, "who bare our sins in his own body on the tree." The sense, is, therefore, that by the death of Christ as an atoning sacrifice; by his suffering for us what would be sufficient to meet the demands of the Law

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
By the body of Christ—i.e., by the death of the human body of Christ upon the cross. The Christian, as the last chapter has shown, is so united to Christ that whatever has happened to his Master has happened also to him. Christ was put to death upon the cross; he therefore has also been put to death with Him. But why put to death to the Law? Probably all that is meant is simply that the Christian died, and therefore all the relations contracted before that death came to an end. At the same time he entered upon new relations corresponding to his new and risen state.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
By the body of Christ—through His slain body. The apostle here departs from his usual word "died," using the more expressive phrase "were slain," to make it clear that he meant their being "crucified with Christ" (as expressed in Ro 6:3-6, and Ga 2:20). that ye should be married to another, even to him that is—"was." raised from the dead—to the intent.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
By the body of Christ - ; not by Christ, as the body or substance of the ceremonial law; see Colossians 2:17; since that is not singly designed, but the whole law of Moses; but by "the body of Christ", is either meant Christ himself

Meyer's NT Commentary
By the body of Christ - was put to death. The conception of the participation of believers (as respects their inner life and its moral self-consciousness) in the death of their Lord, according to which the putting to death of their Master included their own putting to death, is justly assumed by Paul, after ch. 6, as something present to the consciousness of his readers, and therefore views deviating from this (e. g. that διὰ τ. σώμ. τ. Χ. applies to the atoning sacrificial death, which did away the dominion of the law) are to be rejected as here irrelevant, and not in keeping with the proper sense of ἐθανατ.

Benson Commentary
By the body of Christ — By the offering up of Christ’s body on the cross; that is, by the merit of his death, by which it evidently appears, that there is no other way of making reconciliation for sin, or of obtaining deliverance from wrath but by that; his death and sufferings having now accomplished the design of the law, and abrogated its authority; and it, therefore, expiring with him.

Bengel's Gnomen
By the body of Christ - A great mystery. In the expiation [atonement] for sin, why is it that mention generally is made of the body, rather than of the soul of Christ? Ans. The theatre and workshop of sin is our flesh; and for this, it is the holy flesh of the Son of God, which is the remedy.

.....

Look friend.. the WOW here is you not me. All the above Sunday scholars here are in disagreement with your interpretation of Romans 7:4 "By the body of Christ" being a reference to the Church and are agreeing with what I have already posted to you. This should be a helpful warning for you to help you give up your false teachings and to help you come back to God and His Word. If we continue in our sins and unbelief according to the scriptures we will be lost (see Hebrews 10:26-31; Matthew 7:13-23)

Take Care.

 

[Kenny]

I am in wholehearted agreement with @Kenny. We are dead to the law and alive to love.

I also agree that love of God is not separate to obedience to God's law. Of course, I don't agree that Adventist Law is God's Law, and I don't mix and match the two.

So what what was that Law again? You know, the big one. Was it obedience?? In a way, I suppose, but we mustn't put the cart before the horse.

Oh yes, here it is:

​

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ 'LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. ' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.​

And here it isn't:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ 'OBEY the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. ' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself."​

Can you spot the difference? Of course you can, but let me illustrate for those who cannot.

I am a soldier in the army and my commanding officer has just told me to drop and give him 50. I obey and do my pushups, using all my heart, soul and mind to complete my task as quickly and faithfully as possible.

Does this mean I love my commanding officer?

Of course not. It simply means that I am good at following orders. But God doesn't want someone who simply follows orders. He wants those who love him wholeheartedly. If he simply wanted a people who could follow orders, he would have made us automatons. This is why LOVE come 1st. Now when we LOVE God we will follow his orders, at least as best we can.

Now that we understand LOVE comes before OBEDIENCE, we can straighten out what you see as conflict.

When Paul says we are DEAD to the Law, it means the Law is nullified. As you may recall, there were many instances in our Old Testament, where the Jews simply went "through the motions". They kept the Sabbath, they gave a tenth, even of their spices...you know, the whole shebang. But their hearts weren't in it. More ceremony and more law did not make them more loving, either to their God or to each other. In fact, it appeared that for many of them, it only made them pompous, even to loving the technicalities the law sometimes brought over the love in which it was given. Even now, the illusion that one "keeps the law" can give Christians a prideful feeling of spiritual superiority; a ladder or perch to assess your position amongst other Christians. No longer is it a matter of how much you love or humble yourself, but how much you keep the law while appearing to be humble.​

In any event, I'm sure that's no one here on this forum. Yeah, it's probably just those ancients back in the day.

But let's address your theory that Sabbath keeping is God's law.

It's not, at least not for the vast majority of Christians. It can be for those who place themselves under the law, but not for us to whom the law is dead.

If the law is dead to us, then the law has no power over us. Does this make us lawless?

Of course not.

We follow Christ and his commandments. We died to the law just as surely as the law died to us. Why would I obey a dead law, when I have a living Christ?

In my book, Christ is sufficient for my salvation or he is not. I can add my own good "works", but that is adding to my reward, not my salvation. Quite simply there is no salvation under the law, and yes, that includes Sabbaths.. Keeping Sabbaths will not save, but keeping Jesus will.

So beautifully expressed.

 

[3rdAngel]

So beautifully expressed.

According to the scriptures, teachings that promote sin and lawlessness are not something that is beautiful in Gods eyes as they lead many into sin and unbelief and turn many away from God and His Word. All those who knowingly continue in unrepentant sin and unbelief do not enter into Gods kingdom according to the scriptures in Hebrews 10:26-31.

 

[Oeste]

I will have to prepare for work shortly so I will not have an opportunity to reply to everything you've written, but I will try to reply to something that seems to genuinely perplex you:

Then how can you say you are dead to the law when love and obedience to Gods law are not separate from each other (e.g. Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:8-10)?

This seems to be the crux of the problem, as the question appears anchored in Adventist beliefs.

That’s easy. Paul gives the example of a marriage contract. We were married to the law. But Christ died for our sins. Since he died for our sins we are dead to the law, and since the law is also dead to us we are free to marry Christ. Christ claims us as his bride so we are dead to the law.

Paul gives an excellent example of the woman whose husband has died. Once the husband dies, she cannot be considered sinful if she marries a second husband.

The church, or followers of Christ, is that woman. When Christ died our marriage to the Law died with it. All those in Christ were now free to marry another, even our risen Savior, and just as you cannot claim the woman sins and is an adulteress because she has taken a second husband, you cannot claim we are sinful and lawless because we have taken Christ as our groom. The first husband is dead to the woman and our first marriage to the Law is dead to us.

The Law did nothing but arouse our passion 3rdAngel, It pointed to our sin and death because it is the law of sin and death.

Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Romans 7​

Do you see the section in BOLD?

Claiming to be married to Christ while still claiming we are married to the Law is nothing but SPIRITUAL ADULTERY. Only when the first husband DIES are we free to wed another. You argue that we can still be married to our old husband while taking Christ as our new groom.

If you are NOT arguing this, then tell us how we can be married to the law and Christ at the same time. Please read the scripture above before replying. From my perspective, you would have us perform spiritual adultery for the sake of doctrine.

When Christ died, the Law died with him, at least for all those who believe in Christ. We are not lawless or spiritual adulterers, we are simply married to Christ. Why? Because our old spouse died and Christ was willing to take us (all those who believe in Him) as his bride.

Our new law, which you call “lawlessness” is Christ. He gave us NEW laws, laws that "sum up" all the Old laws, but did not include a 7thd Day Sabbath, because He is our Sabbath. All the Sabbaths before were just preparation for the Sabbath offered by Chris.

The law is no longer our way, Christ is. The law is no longer our truth, Christ is. The Law no longer points us to sin nor does it arouse our passions, because we live in love through Christ. The Law no longer means our death, for Christ means our life. This is no more succinctly summed up than through the statement of Christ himself:

“I am the way, the truth and the life.”


________________________________________________________________________________________

I have to go, I'm already a bit late, but I'll respond as soon as I can. Maybe tonight if I'm not too tired.

 

[3rdAngel]

I will have to prepare for work shortly so I will not have an opportunity to reply to everything you've written, but I will try to reply to something that seems to genuinely perplex you: This seems to be the crux of the problem, as the question appears anchored in Adventist beliefs. That’s easy. Paul gives the example of a marriage contract. We were married to the law. But Christ died for our sins. Since he died for our sins we are dead to the law, and since the law is also dead to us we are free to marry Christ. Christ claims us as his bride so we are dead to the law. Paul gives an excellent example of the woman whose husband has died. Once the husband dies, she cannot be considered sinful if she marries a second husband. The church, or followers of Christ, is that woman. When Christ died our marriage to the Law died with it. All those in Christ were now free to marry another, even our risen Savior, and just as you cannot claim the woman sins and is an adulteress because she has taken a second husband, you cannot claim we are sinful and lawless because we have taken Christ as our groom. The first husband is dead to the woman and our first marriage to the Law is dead to us. The Law did nothing but arouse our passion 3rdAngel, It pointed to our sin and death because it is the law of sin and death. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Romans 7 Do you see the section in BOLD? Claiming to be married to Christ while still claiming we are married to the Law is nothing but SPIRITUAL ADULTERY. Only when the first husband DIES are we free to wed another. You argue that we can still be married to our old husband while taking Christ as our new groom. If you are NOT arguing this, then tell us how we can be married to the law and Christ at the same time. Please read the scripture above before replying. From my perspective, you would have us perform spiritual adultery for the sake of doctrine. When Christ died, the Law died with him, at least for all those who believe in Christ. We are not lawless or spiritual adulterers, we are simply married to Christ. Why? Because our old spouse died and Christ was willing to take us (all those who believe in Him) as his bride. Our new law, which you call “lawlessness” is Christ. He gave us NEW laws, laws that "sum up" all the Old laws, but did not include a 7thd Day Sabbath, because He is our Sabbath. All the Sabbaths before were just preparation for the Sabbath offered by Chris. The law is no longer our way, Christ is. The law is no longer our truth, Christ is. The Law no longer points us to sin nor does it arouse our passions, because we live in love through Christ. The Law no longer means our death, for Christ means our life. This is no more succinctly summed up than through the statement of Christ himself: “I am the way, the truth and the life.”

Sorry but I did not make those claims so if I never said those things why pretend that I did? You do know that bearing false witness against your neighbor according to the scriptures is sin right (see Exodus 20:16; 1 John 3:4 and James 2:10-11)? As already proven in the posts and the scriptures you choose not to believe and ignore. It is you that seems genuinely perplexed as already proven in the scriptures you choose not to believe and follow and close your eyes to that could be a help to you in fulfillment of Isaiah 6:9-10. Everything you have posted here has already been addressed with scripture context that is in disagreement with your teachings that you refuse to discuss and respond to. So nothing needs to be added here that has not already been address in detail through the scriptures in other posts that you refuse to respond to and ignore. According to the scriptures, teachings that promote sin and lawlessness lead many into sin and unbelief and turn many away from God and His Word. All those who knowingly continue in unrepentant sin and unbelief do not enter into Gods kingdom according to the scriptures in Hebrews 10:26-31.

 

[3rdAngel]

SUMMARY TO DATE

So 154 pages and 3066 posts to date and not a single scripture that proves Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10. Where as proven in the OP Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Matthew 15:3-9 is a warning from Jesus saying that if we follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from Gods Word to breaking the commandments of God then we are not worshiping God. This is applicable to this OP because Sunday worship is a man-made teaching and tradition that has led many away from God and His Word into breaking Gods' seventh day Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8-11. This is what makes these scriptures directly relevant to this discussion. Jesus says in these scriptures if we follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from God and His Word into breaking the commandments of God we are not worshiping God. Begs the question who are we worshiping God or man? This will be the test that will come to everyone of us.

 

[YoursTrue]

SUMMARY TO DATE

So 154 pages and 3066 posts to date and not a single scripture that proves Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10. Where as proven in the OP Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Matthew 15:3-9 is a warning from Jesus saying that if we follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from Gods Word to breaking the commandments of God then we are not worshiping God. This is applicable to this OP because Sunday worship is a man-made teaching and tradition that has led many away from God and His Word into breaking Gods' seventh day Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8-11. This is what makes these scriptures directly relevant to this discussion. Jesus says in these scriptures if we follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from God and His Word into breaking the commandments of God we are not worshiping God. Begs the question who are we worshiping God or man? This will be the test that will come to everyone of us.

It certainly seems clear to me (now) that Jesus is as he said he was: Lord of the Sabbath day. That comes after contemplation and studying.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

It certainly seems clear to me (now) that Jesus is as he said he was: Lord of the Sabbath day. That comes after contemplation and studying.

Let's also not forget,

When christ said "I come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, he was talking about atoning once for the wages of sin.

The writer of Hebrews expands on this by saying thst we may now walk in bodily before the throne and are deemed righteous.

Revelation 14.12 completes the picture by telling us who the saved are...

Patience of the saints, here are those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.

If the final chapters of the bible tell us saints keep the law. those who claim we are no longer under the law and don't need to keep the sabbath...those individuals are deluding themselves.

Add to this the fact Isaiah tells us God doesn't delegate His authority to anyone...and we also know that His statutes and laws are eternal, it's impossible to ignore this biblical theme about Gods law of love. It universal and will always be the standard by which we are judged.

The reason we cannot save ourselves by trying to keep the law is because James tells us that our best efforts as sinful mortals are "nothing but filthy rags". This does not mean we should not strive to uphold the commandments...just that we are not saved by keeping commandments. We have already sinned and are therefore condemned to death. Its through our faith in the sufficiency of Christ's atoning sacrfice that we trust in the the grace extended to us and that is what saves those who have confessed their sins.

The interesting thing about the Mosaic tabernacle service on tye day of atonement...the atoning sacrifice only covered those israelites who had actually attended and confessed their sins. Those who did not do that were condemned...there sins remained unforgiven. I suppose technically these individuals could have been cast out or killed.

The law doeent save, but it does define the standard by which all are judged...and that is eternal because God is eternal and the law is a reflection of His character.

 

[metis]

SUMMARY TO DATE

So 154 pages and 3066 posts to date and not a single scripture that proves Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10. Where as proven in the OP Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Matthew 15:3-9 is a warning from Jesus saying that if we follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from Gods Word to breaking the commandments of God then we are not worshiping God. This is applicable to this OP because Sunday worship is a man-made teaching and tradition that has led many away from God and His Word into breaking Gods' seventh day Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8-11. This is what makes these scriptures directly relevant to this discussion. Jesus says in these scriptures if we follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from God and His Word into breaking the commandments of God we are not worshiping God. Begs the question who are we worshiping God or man? This will be the test that will come to everyone of us.

Christians are not under the 613 Laws of Moses but are under Jesus' Two Commandments. Thus, which day a Christian chooses to observe is their decision.

 

[3rdAngel]

Christians are not under the 613 Laws of Moses but are under Jesus' Two Commandments. Thus, which day a Christian chooses to observe is their decision.

According to the scriptures, Gods 10 commandments are Gods eternal moral laws and everyone of them are repeated in the New Covenant as Gods standard for Christian living and there purpose according to the new testament scriptures are to give us a knowledge of GOOD (moral right doing when obeyed) and EVIL (moral wrong doing when disobeyed); SIN (moral wrong doing when disobeyed) and RIGHTEOUSNESS (moral right doing when obeyed) see Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and Psalms 119:172. According to the new covenant scriptures, Gods two great commandments of love to God and man that Jesus quotes in Matthew 22:36-40 show us how to keep Gods commandments and is why Jesus says in v40 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40 is actually quoting old testament scripture from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 which summarize how to keep Gods 10 commandments see also Romans 13:8-10. So the two great commandments are not separate from obedience to Gods law they show us how to keep Gods law through love to God (first four commandments) and neighbour (second six commandments).

To suggest anything else is simply a teaching of lawlessness and disobedience and sin. Christians are not free today to go out and steal, lie, commit adultery against their neighbour. Likewise we are not free to go out and use Gods name in vain, make idols and bow down to them and break Gods Sabbath. This is the very definition of what sin is according to the scriptures (1 John 3:4) and those who knowingly commit sin according to the scriptures do not know God and are danger of the judgement still standing before God guilty of sin and death and are not even Christian, still needing to repent of their sins and seek Gods forgiveness (see 1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 3:4-10; Hebrews 10:26-31).

Sin is defined in the scriptures as breaking anyone of Gods 10 commandments (James 2:10-11). Gods Sabbath commandments in Exodus 20:8-11 is one of Gods 10 commandments that give us a knowledge of what sin is when broken. There is not a single scripture in all the bible that teaches Gods Sabbath commandment has now been abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest in honor of the resurrection of Jesus. Sunday worship is a man-made teaching and tradition that has led many away from God and His Word into breaking Gods commandments into sin and unbelief and those doing this according to the very words of Jesus are not worshiping God. Begs the question I guess, who are they worshiping; God or man? Best not follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from God and His Word to practice sin. Those who continue in sin and unbelief will lose their salvation according to the scriptures (see Mathew 7:21-23; John 3:36; Hebrews 10:26-31).

Take Care.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Christians are not under the 613 Laws of Moses but are under Jesus' Two Commandments. Thus, which day a Christian chooses to observe is their decision

Revelation 14.12 specifically tells us the opposite.

The patience of the saints...here are those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.

You know the book of Revelation was written by the "beloved" disciple John 60 years after Christ death right? Clearly the disciple closest to Christ during his ministry, even 60 years after Christs death, believed we must keep the commandments!



In Revelation, what is the distinction between those although are saints and those who are not? Also, why is this even brought up in Revelation 14? Isn't it talking about the mark of the beast in this chapter?

Wouldnt you agree that in Revelation 14, the mark of the beast is linked with those who are not saints?

To address your statement about Christ 2 "new" commandments...

Love God
Love one another

Please catalogue Ten Commandments and take note of what you will find.

First 4 = loving God (worship only God, don't take lords name in vain, keep the sabbath...)
Last 6 = loving your neighbour (not steel, not kill, not bear false witness, not covet...)

From the above I think any logical person would recognize that the claim we are not under the law is a bad doctrine from very poor theology...the biggest hint something is wrong should be the disciple John writing about the law-keeping saints who are saved at the second coming 60 years after the resurrection!

LEts also consider Deut 6.4&5, Numbers 15.32-40 and Leviticus 19.18. These are the passages Christ was quoting from in the new commandment (you knew this right?)

Deuteronomy 6.5

"And you shall love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength"

I also urge to read verses 6-19 of that chapter in Deuteronomy. Christ wasn't making new commandments, he was quoting from the Shemah (Jewish confession of faith) which had been known for centuries...at least back to Moses!

Wikepedia gives us further insight into the Shema

the Talmud points out that subtle references to the Ten Commandments can be found in the three portions. As the Ten Commandments were removed from daily prayer in the Mishnaic period (70–200 CE), the Shema is seen as an opportunity to commemorate the Ten Commandments.​

So contrary to what you have been taught, Christ wasnt making up two new commandments in Matthew 22:37...he quoted from the already-known and practised Shema in Deuteronomy 6.5, the Jewish confession of faith!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Revelation 14.12 specifically tells us the opposite.

The patience of the saints...here are those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.

So does this mean you keep the 613? You dont' eat shrimp? You dont' mow your lawn on Saturday? You make sure your wool suits don't have linen button holes?

 

[YoursTrue]

So does this mean you keep the 613? You dont' eat shrimp? You dont' mow your lawn on Saturday? You make sure your wool suits don't have linen button holes?

Year after year the sacrifices were to be made at the temple by the high priest until, of course, it was destroyed by the Roman armies and if I recall, many, many Jews were also killed by the Romans during that siege. Now of course, many Jews do observe the Day of Atonement, recognizing sin.

 

[Oeste]

You certainly have no understanding of the scriptures and this is genuine proof right here. The "body of Christ" in Romans 7 is not in reference to the Church here it is a reference to Christs death on the cross paying the price for our sins so that we through faith can walk in newness of life.

While the "body of Christ" can certainly refer to Christ's death on the cross, your heretical view that it doesn't apply to the Church is simply not supported by scripture, and is laid waste by Romans 7 itself, along with many other verses in scripture.

I noticed you did not answer my query and for good reason. So let me ask again.

Who is the "OUR" and who is the "WE" that is highlighted in bold in your statement above? Is it not the church???

Since you've told us there is not a reference to the Church in Romans 7, can you tell us exactly who it is that you believe the apostle Paul is talking to?

Now, before we go into your erroneous read of the Commentaries, let's walk together to discuss your read of scripture. From the book of Romans:

7 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives?​

Paul mentions “you” in verse 1.

• Who is this “you” if not the individual believer who comprises the church? I believe we can AGREE on this, correct? It is the brother and sisters of the church.
• If you believe this "you" refers to others, outside of the church, please explain your rationale to our dear readers.

Let's continue our reading by moving on to verse 2:

2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.​

Can we say this married woman has nothing to do with the body of her husband? Or perhaps, that the body of the husband has nothing to do with the body of the wife?

Well, that's essentially what you've told us, isn't it?

You told us the body of Christ in Romans 7 has nothing to do with the church! In fact, you even doubled down. claiming several "Sunday School" commentators agreed with you! We'll get to that in a moment.

At this point, I see my evangelical friends know exactly where I'm going with this and have already left to meet us there. But you my friend, have booked the walking tour. So let's continue our attempt to "reason together".

Now WHY would the body of the HUSBAND have something to do with the body of the WIFE? Well, because scripture tells us they are BOUND, just like it says in red, verse 2, above.

Now, this married woman, is she free to take another husband? OF COURSE NOT! If she takes another husband, no matter how nice, how pleasant, how God-fearing or how righteous this new potential suitor might be, she is still BOUND to her first husband, just as her husband is BOUND to her.

At verse 3, Paul jumps ALL OVER any notion that the bride is able to take another husband. If she does, she is called an ADULTRESS.

But wait! What else does verse 3 tell us?

...But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.​

So WHEN is the wife free? ONLY when the husband dies. Once the husband DIES, she is released and free to marry another.

Do you understand what Paul is stating here? He specifically tells us that when the HUSBAND dies, the wife is free. That is not only a "reference to the wife" but is in fact a "reference to the church". The whole point Paul is making here is to show that husband and wife are inextricably linked as long as one or the other is ALIVE. When the husband dies, the wife is free. When the wife dies, the husband is free. But PAUL chose not to give us an example of the WIFE dying. Instead he gives us a specific example of the HUSBAND dying.

WHY?

Is it to tell his listeners that when a wife dies, they are free to remarry?

NO!

His audience already knows this, a bit too well some might say. Paul is using both the woman and husband to present an analogy. WHAT IS IT?

To show us the wife is "lawless", ready to take on lover after lover, because her first husband has died?

NO!

Perhaps to tell us the first husband isn't really dead, but she's just pretending this is so?

NO!

To tell us the wife was never really married or "true" to her original husband?

NO!

Perhaps to tell us her first marriage was retroactively "abolished" when the first husband died?

NO!

To tell us the wife had been married "since the 7th day of creation"?

NO!

These are all things YOU have told us 3rd Angel. You claim WE are lawless, that certain commandments are in full force and effect, that we are still married to our first husband, and that our first husband never died at all. In fact, you negate everything Paul tells us, and tell us we were a child bride, married off to a commandment less than 24 hours after Eve's creation!

Now Paul specifically states our 1st Husband is dead to us. This is because our new Husband, Christ, has redeemed us, something our 1st husband couldn't do. There is no salvation under the law. In fact, the law simply aroused everything in us that the Spirit would not, because the law only pointed us to sin. It was never sufficient to cover or quelch the sin itself. More on this later.

Paul tells us something totally different from what you've told us 3rd Angel. He tells us not that our 1st marriage is abolished, but he does tell us it is of no affect. He does not tell us salvation comes from the law, but from grace. He does not tell us we are "lawless" but under the laws of Christ. He does not tell us we are married to the law, but to Christ, and that this is only possible because we, the wife, still live, but the original "husband", the law, is dead to us, and we to him, otherwise Christ could NEVER take his church for bride unless he wanted to take her in spiritual adultery!

In short, there are a lot of things you tell us that scripture doesn't.

Instead, Paul sets us up for something, and that is VERSE 4! Let's continue:

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ,..."​

Wait! WHO died?

Who is the YOU that Paul, through inspiration, tells us "...ALSO died to the law through the body of Christ"?

Also, can you tell us HOW they died? If you're not sure HOW they died, see 7:4, above.

Now the question of WHO and HOW they died is something quite a few of our readers are hoping you can respond to. Who is this YOU that died if not the church?

And How did "they" die, whoever "they" are, if not through the body of Christ?

My Christian brothers and sisters are waiting at the next stop, jumping up and down to give an answer, but I'm confident we don't need to, and that you can provide a reasonable, well thought out response as to why you think the body of Christ at Romans 7 is not referring to the church.

Perhaps you believe that to give reference to the church is to somehow deny any reference to Christ? I don't know anyone who believes that, but if you do, let our readers know.

Now don't get me wrong, and don't confuse my fellow evangelicals with others who claim they and they alone are the "true" Christians who comprise the Christian church. Believe me, there are enough of them, running amok amongst the threads, even on this very forum.

****Sidebar question***, and this has NOTHING to do with you 3rd Angel, I just see an opportunity with some of our readers:​

​

Did we, the church, stay dead?​

​

Well, if Jesus rose as a "spirit creature" then we most certainly did! Paul's analogy to the BODY of Christ would make that clear. If only Christ's SPIRIT rose, there was no chance for the Church, who died through the BODY of Christ, to rise with it. The church disappeared when Jesus's body turned to gas or whatever you think became of Christs' body. But since the "body of Christ" rose physically, the church is still alive and Paul analogy still works. In other words, the analogy is not broken for the sake of your doctrine. ****​

Also, 3rd Angel, please remember there were many in Israel who sought to keep the commandments, but were not Christians. We can talk about them, and the fruit they would inevitably produce, later. Our walk is almost through.

Romans 7:4: “…that you might belong to another," ...​

How can this "you" belong to another, through the death of the other, if this "you", as you claim, has been and is still married to her original husband "since the 7th day of creation"?

Perhaps this is a question best ignored or avoided? Let us know by your response!

​

Romans 7:4 "...to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God."​

Well now, "Him who was raised from the dead" is Jesus Christ himself, is it not? How does Jesus become a groom if the woman still belongs to another? He can't take a bride, can he, unless the first husband has died, something your doctrine, but not scripture, makes untenable.

So what happens when a righteous person marries and has relations with a woman who is already married?

Yeah, I can see why some would claim "there's no reference to the church" in the "body of Christ" at Romans 7. From their perspective, the woman is still "married", even to this very day, and Christ would be an adulterer if he takes this woman to bride.

Thank you for the walk. I'll await your reasoned response.


(Continuing with Romans 7...)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Year after year the sacrifices were to be made at the temple by the high priest until, of course, it was destroyed by the Roman armies and if I recall, many, many Jews were also killed by the Romans during that siege. Now of course, many Jews do observe the Day of Atonement, recognizing sin.

I'm not sure what your post was about. It certainly did not address anything in the quote of me that you used.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure what your post was about. It certainly did not address anything in the quote of me that you used.

You replied in a comment "So does this mean you keep the 613? You dont' eat shrimp? You dont' mow your lawn on Saturday? You make sure your wool suits don't have linen button holes?"
So the 613 laws cannot be kept. Then or now even by those professing to want to keep the laws of Moses. There is no temple to offer sacrifices for breaking or disobeying the law given to the Jews via Moses. That is about which I commented.

 

[Oeste]

Continuing with Romans 7..

5For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death.​

Well, this is a bummer, isn't it?

All the law did was arouse a certain type of passion, and yet you claim we should follow the law!

Earlier, in my prior post, I mentioned that the law could point out but not cover or quelch our sin, and here it is. We need Christ to do this.

Question:

1. Since the law serves to arouses SINFUL but not GODLY passions, of what advantage is it to a Christian to pursue the law?​

​

2. What is the "fruit for death" that Christians can expect to sprout and bear when they pursue the law?​

​

3. What kind of seeds can Christians expect to sow from the "fruit of death"?​

​

4. What kind of harvest can Christians expect to reap when they harvest their "fruit of death"?​

Let's continue with our reading of scripture:

6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.​

Okay, this is much BETTER, isn't it?

By DYING to what once bound us (the law) we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code!

That sounds like Christ to me!

So the law once bound us but does so no more. We have been released (no mention of a partial release here) from the law (no equivocation or prevarication over which law) so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit (the Spirit of grace and love) and not in the old way (championed by 3rd Angel) of the written code. That sound likes the commandments to me, unless of course, the commandments weren't written.

Now compare the fruit of death with the fruit of the Spirit. The fruit of death arouses sinful passions whereas the fruit of the Spirit arouses love.

Which Spirit would you prefer to have roused in you? Now before anyone answers, I have one final question on this:


The fruit of death is available to Christians under the Law.
The fruit of the Spirit is available to Christian under Christ.

Can we, as Christians expect to tend, nurture, and produce BOTH fruits under the same tree?​

What kind of fruit are Christians expected to sow?​

What kind of harvest can Christians expect if they sow both?​

When might they expect to stop producing this "fruit of death" if, as 3rd Angel claims, the law is forever?​

I'll await any reasoned response.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You replied in a comment "So does this mean you keep the 613? You dont' eat shrimp? You dont' mow your lawn on Saturday? You make sure your wool suits don't have linen button holes?"

Yes, I was asking him that since his comment seemed to indicate it, but that would be highly unusual for a Christian. You response neither answered for him, or for yourself.

So the 613 laws cannot be kept. Then or now even by those professing to want to keep the laws of Moses. There is no temple to offer sacrifices for breaking or disobeying the law given to the Jews via Moses. That is about which I commented.

Nonsense. Which of the 613 commandments do you think can't be kept? People keep them all the time.

As for the laws regarding sacrifice in the Temple, Hosea pretty much taught us that when there is no temple, our prayers substitute for sacrifice. Have you ever wondered why Daniel prayed three times a day? It is because each of those prayers was one of the three daily sacrifices in the temple. Hosea 14:2 "so will we render as bullocks (sacrifices) the offering of our lips (prayers)."

I think you need to read what God said about the commandments, which is that they are easy to follow:
Deuteronomy 30
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

 

[Oeste]

Have a great New Years everybody!

I pray 2024 will be a good year for all. I have a full day tomorrow (at work, right after church and lunch unfortunately) but will get back as soon as I can.

~ Oeste

 

[3rdAngel]

While the "body of Christ" can certainly refer to Christ's death on the cross, your heretical view that it doesn't apply to the Church is simply not supported by scripture, and is laid waste by Romans 7 itself, along with many other verses in scripture.

I noticed you did not answer my query and for good reason. So let me ask again.

Who is the "OUR" and who is the "WE" that is highlighted in bold in your statement above? Is it not the church???

Since you've told us there is not a reference to the Church in Romans 7, can you tell us exactly who it is that you believe the apostle Paul is talking to?

Now, before we go into your erroneous read of the Commentaries, let's walk together to discuss your read of scripture. From the book of Romans:

7 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives?

Paul mentions “you” in verse 1.

• Who is this “you” if not the individual believer who comprises the church? I believe we can AGREE on this, correct? It is the brother and sisters of the church.
• If you believe this "you" refers to others, outside of the church, please explain your rationale to our dear readers.

Let's continue our reading by moving on to verse 2:

2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

Can we say this married woman has nothing to do with the body of her husband? Or perhaps, that the body of the husband has nothing to do with the body of the wife?

Well, that's essentially what you've told us, isn't it?

You told us the body of Christ in Romans 7 has nothing to do with the church! In fact, you even doubled down. claiming several "Sunday School" commentators agreed with you! We'll get to that in a moment.

At this point, I see my evangelical friends know exactly where I'm going with this and have already left to meet us there. But you my friend, have booked the walking tour. So let's continue our attempt to "reason together".

Now WHY would the body of the HUSBAND have something to do with the body of the WIFE? Well, because scripture tells us they are BOUND, just like it says in red, verse 2, above.

Now, this married woman, is she free to take another husband? OF COURSE NOT! If she takes another husband, no matter how nice, how pleasant, how God-fearing or how righteous this new potential suitor might be, she is still BOUND to her first husband, just as her husband is BOUND to her.

At verse 3, Paul jumps ALL OVER any notion that the bride is able to take another husband. If she does, she is called an ADULTRESS.

But wait! What else does verse 3 tell us?

...But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

So WHEN is the wife free? ONLY when the husband dies. Once the husband DIES, she is released and free to marry another.

Do you understand what Paul is stating here? He specifically tells us that when the HUSBAND dies, the wife is free. That is not only a "reference to the wife" but is in fact a "reference to the church". The whole point Paul is making here is to show that husband and wife are inextricably linked as long as one or the other is ALIVE. When the husband dies, the wife is free. When the wife dies, the husband is free. But PAUL chose not to give us an example of the WIFE dying. Instead he gives us a specific example of the HUSBAND dying.

WHY?

Is it to tell his listeners that when a wife dies, they are free to remarry?

NO!

His audience already knows this, a bit too well some might say. Paul is using both the woman and husband to present an analogy. WHAT IS IT?

To show us the wife is "lawless", ready to take on lover after lover, because her first husband has died?

NO!

Perhaps to tell us the first husband isn't really dead, but she's just pretending this is so?

NO!

To tell us the wife was never really married or "true" to her original husband?

NO!

Perhaps to tell us her first marriage was retroactively "abolished" when the first husband died?

NO!

To tell us the wife had been married "since the 7th day of creation"?

NO!

These are all things YOU have told us 3rd Angel. You claim WE are lawless, that certain commandments are in full force and effect, that we are still married to our first husband, and that our first husband never died at all. In fact, you negate everything Paul tells us, and tell us we were a child bride, married off to a commandment less than 24 hours after Eve's creation!

Now Paul specifically states our 1st Husband is dead to us. This is because our new Husband, Christ, has redeemed us, something our 1st husband couldn't do. There is no salvation under the law. In fact, the law simply aroused everything in us that the Spirit would not, because the law only pointed us to sin. It was never sufficient to cover or quelch the sin itself. More on this later.

Paul tells us something totally different from what you've told us 3rd Angel. He tells us not that our 1st marriage is abolished, but he does tell us it is of no affect. He does not tell us salvation comes from the law, but from grace. He does not tell us we are "lawless" but under the laws of Christ. He does not tell us we are married to the law, but to Christ, and that this is only possible because we, the wife, still live, but the original "husband", the law, is dead to us, and we to him, otherwise Christ could NEVER take his church for bride unless he wanted to take her in spiritual adultery!

In short, there are a lot of things you tell us that scripture doesn't.

Instead, Paul sets us up for something, and that is VERSE 4! Let's continue:

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ,..."

Wait! WHO died?

Who is the YOU that Paul, through inspiration, tells us "...ALSO died to the law through the body of Christ"?

Also, can you tell us HOW they died? If you're not sure HOW they died, see 7:4, above.

Now the question of WHO and HOW they died is something quite a few of our readers are hoping you can respond to. Who is this YOU that died if not the church?

And How did "they" die, whoever "they" are, if not through the body of Christ?

My Christian brothers and sisters are waiting at the next stop, jumping up and down to give an answer, but I'm confident we don't need to, and that you can provide a reasonable, well thought out response as to why you think the body of Christ at Romans 7 is not referring to the church.

Perhaps you believe that to give reference to the church is to somehow deny any reference to Christ? I don't know anyone who believes that, but if you do, let our readers know.

Now don't get me wrong, and don't confuse my fellow evangelicals with others who claim they and they alone are the "true" Christians who comprise the Christian church. Believe me, there are enough of them, running amok amongst the threads, even on this very forum.

****Sidebar question***, and this has NOTHING to do with you 3rd Angel, I just see an opportunity with some of our readers:

Did we, the church, stay dead?

Well, if Jesus rose as a "spirit creature" then we most certainly did! Paul's analogy to the BODY of Christ would make that clear. If only Christ's SPIRIT rose, there was no chance for the Church, who died through the BODY of Christ, to rise with it. The church disappeared when Jesus's body turned to gas or whatever you think became of Christs' body. But since the "body of Christ" rose physically, the church is still alive and Paul analogy still works. In other words, the analogy is not broken for the sake of your doctrine. ****

Also, 3rd Angel, please remember there were many in Israel who sought to keep the commandments, but were not Christians. We can talk about them, and the fruit they would inevitably produce, later. Our walk is almost through.

Romans 7:4: “…that you might belong to another," ...

How can this "you" belong to another, through the death of the other, if this "you", as you claim, has been and is still married to her original husband "since the 7th day of creation"?

Perhaps this is a question best ignored or avoided? Let us know by your response!

Romans 7:4 "...to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God."

Well now, "Him who was raised from the dead" is Jesus Christ himself, is it not? How does Jesus become a groom if the woman still belongs to another? He can't take a bride, can he, unless the first husband has died, something your doctrine, but not scripture, makes untenable.

So what happens when a righteous person marries and has relations with a woman who is already married?

Yeah, I can see why some would claim "there's no reference to the church" in the "body of Christ" at Romans 7. From their perspective, the woman is still "married", even to this very day, and Christ would be an adulterer if he takes this woman to bride.

Thank you for the walk. I'll await your reasoned response.


(Continuing with Romans 7...)

Nothing personal but you are just repeating yourself here again while ignoring all the scriptures including bible commentaries in the posts that have already addressed everything you have posted here in detailed scripture responses to you in post # 3058 linked; post #3059 linked; post # 3060 linked; and post # 3061 linked and no I did indeed answer all your questions with scripture that was on disagreement with your teachings of lawlessness.

Your response here was simply to ignore every post and scripture shared with you that is in disagreement with you and repeat yourself again. Look at post # 3061 for example. There is not a single Sunday keeping scholar that agrees with anything you have posted in our discussion here. They are all in disagreement with you. Does this not concern you? It should. You are all by yourself in your belief here. Yet these same Sunday keeping scholars agree with everything I have posted to you in regards to Romans 7. So I will leave you to your teaching of lawlessness for you and God to work out and we will agree to disagree. Lets talk more when you are prepared to give a detailed scripture response to all my linked posts and all the scriptures including commentaries that are in disagreement with you.

According to the scriptures though in Romans 3:19-20 it is only those who knowingly break the law that are stand before God "under the law" because they have broken the law and stand before God guilty of sin and death. (see also Hebrews 10:26-31). Receive Gods Word and be blessed. Ignoring Gods Word does not make it disappear. It becomes our judge come judgement day according to Jesus in John 12:47-48. Gods Word does not teach lawlessness. This is the very definition of sin and unbelief (see 1 John 3:4; James 2:10-11; John 3:36; Romans 14:23) and will keep all who knowingly practice it out of Gods kingdom (Hebrews 10:26-31).