Examining the Argument against bondage to the Law In my view, you can't sort out the issue of Pacifism vs Self-Defence, until you first sort out what Paul really said about the Law. Here are the two opposing sets of scriptures that seem to support one extreme or the other as to Law versus Grace: -------------------------------------------- Here is the Recap of the basic Protestant argument: So what's wrong with this picture? It seems like a straightforward summary of the Christian position. It appears to explain in a tidy manner facts like Paul's leniency on the Sabbath keeping, and the apparent switch to Sunday by early Christians. The Beginning of the Sabbath Controversy The Sabbath controversy begins with Jesus Himself. The Sabbath was considered the jewel of the Ten Commandments. It was the proud centerpiece and the very sign of the covenant for Israelites (Ex 31:16-17). Jewish groups actually competed over how strictly it should be kept. (Mk 3:2). When the authorities ignored John the Baptist, (Mk.2:18/Lk.7:30) Jesus seems to have deliberately provoked them by publicly ministering on the Sabbath. (Mk.2:23-28) Jesus knew the value of public controversy. Yet in all this, Jesus never actually broke the Sabbath. (Heb 4:15) In fact, His speech shows He does not teach or encourage Sabbath-breaking either (Mk 3:4). He wished to restore the Sabbath to its true purpose, (Mk.2:27) and make it an easier burden again. (Mt 11:30) He seems to say that the Sabbath will not pass away till the end of time. (Mt.5:18f) There is no real difficulty in all this. Although He angers extremists, Jesus' position on the Sabbath is moderate, in harmony with the OT and easily accommodated by Judaism at large. The problem was that the Pharisees had exaggerated the Sabbath to the neglect of more important commandments. (Mt.23:23) It had become a 'holier than thou' piece of ethnocentric acting which perpetuated racism and dishonored God. (Jn.8:49) The real difficulty and also the irony begins with Paul. This trained Pharisee was a zealous Law fanatic and a persecutor of Christians. (Phil.3:5-6) He was an accomplice in Stephen's murder for allegedly speaking against the Law (a false charge: Acts 6:13,8:1). Defecting from his own party and claiming a vision, he appoints himself Apostle to the Gentiles. He then goes far beyond Jesus and every other Apostle and says, 'The Law cannot save, (Rom. 8:3) the Law brings death, (Rom 7:10), we are dead to the Law, we are not under the Law' (Gal 5:18). He then goes on to dismiss circumcision, to make holy days irrelevant and food laws optional. Keep in mind Paul is speaking primarily to gentiles, not Jews! If Jesus provoked the Pharisees, Paul provokes Jews, Christians, Pagans, and just about everyone! Paul's tactics and the publicity they score for Christianity are hardly accidental. The Legal Dilemma Paul's statements cannot simply be explained away. Paul seems to tell us that the Law is 'done away with'. (Col.2:14-15) Then in the same breath he demands we keep the law! (Rom.3:31,6:1-2) If this weren't confusing enough, he then proceeds to pick and choose which laws to keep. (Gal.5:2,Col.2:16-17) In what sense can we be free from the law if we have to keep it anyway? What can such talk mean? By what principle are some laws retained and others dismissed? And where does Paul acquire the authority to do this? No one can just take the rest of the NT and with mere reason arrive at Paul's unique doctrines. If these questions cannot be adequately answered, Christianity must abandon Paul. Yet we can't just dismiss him as a heretic. He is after all, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Nor can we follow Paul and ignore the rest of the Bible. If we want to keep Paul, we must class his teaching as revelation, just as Paul himself claims! (Gal 1:16) But in order to assess Paul's revelation, we must correctly identify what is new in Paul, and what is common to and harmonizable with the rest of the NT. For that we must properly understand exactly what Paul actually says in detail. Past Solutions to the Problem In the past, Christian theologians made a distinction between the moral laws and ceremonial laws of the Bible. They used these categories to explain why we are still obligated to keep the Ten Commandments (the moral code), but not the sacrificial (ceremonial) laws. Later, other Christians carried this idea to its logical conclusion. The Sabbath, since it was one of the Ten Commandments, was part of the moral code and must be obeyed. More extreme groups insist not just on a strict day of rest, but on keeping the 'correct' day. This isn't just 'legalism'. Since the Sabbath is a day of remembrance, it is obviously rebellious to deliberately celebrate the 'wrong' day. (James 4:17) The OT actually singles out the Sabbath, yet not to make it lesser than the other Ten, but by underlining its solemn importance with an everlasting oath! (Ex 31:16-17) From this it is clearly unfair to just slam the Adventists for viewing the Sabbath as greatest of the Ten Commandments. The Problem with Paul Unfortunately for everyone, such a solution can't solve the Paul problem. It actually comes to a crisis with the Sabbath. Paul never separates the Ten Commandments from the other laws in his discussions, except to underline them as a symbol of the Old Covenant. (2.Cor 3) If this distinction is so important, why is it not clearly made? He also deliberately singles out the Sabbath and the Food Laws as optional, and flatly rejects circumcision entirely. (Col 2:16-17, Gal 5:2) There's a problem with this grouping too, since these laws are neither overtly ceremonial or sacrificial. In fact the common thread seems to be that these are the laws which distinguish Israelites or Jews from other nations. We can now see why protestants reject the 'Sabbath Keeper' position in search of something that can better harmonize and blend Paul with the rest of the Bible. But is the Protestant solution the best we can do?
Paul's various meanings for 'the Law' Paul uses the word 'law' with several different meanings. Whenever Paul uses the term 'the law' we must carefully identify what he is talking about, because it is not always readily obvious. While a lawyer might have no difficulty following Paul as he switches meanings four times in a single sentence, he often leaves ordinary readers bewildered as they try to pick up the thread of his arguments. We need to pause now and assess what we have here. These five laws of Paul are not subdivisions of the Law of God, i.e., the Ten Commandments, or moral vs. ceremonial. That is not relevant here. Paul is going in an entirely different direction. He is speaking of additional laws outside of and beyond the Torah. These 'laws' were never overtly spoken of before, yet according to Paul they are integral to salvation and essential to his explanation of it. Let's look at them again: (1) The Law of God: This is the covenant of Moses, including and consisting of all the commandments. This law is good, holy and spiritual (Rom.7:12,14). One could in theory live by the law, (Rom.10:5) yet this law only exposes and arouses sin, and cannot save, but instead finds us all guilty. (Rom 3:20, 7:9-10, 8:3, 3:19) Its true purpose is to act as our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. (Gal 3:24) (2) The Law of the Mind: This law is the light in all people (John1:9), enabling us to recognize and delight in the Law of God even without a written law. (Rom.2:14,7:22) Paul may also have been inspired here by Jesus adding the word 'mind' to one of the great commandments. (Luke 10:27) (3) The Law of the Flesh: This law is independent of the mind. It is a 'law' in the sense of a motivating force, and identified with fleshly desire. (Rom 7:23) When we surrender to this power, and break the commandments, we serve and come under bondage to the Law of Sin. (Rom.7:25,6:6,16) (4) The Law of Sin: This law has power over those who break the Law of God. In the OT this could be identified or associated with the 'curses' of the Law, or the punishments for lawbreaking, as opposed to the Commandments as such. Being under the law of sin means being under a death sentence. (Rom 6:21) (5) The Law of the Spirit of Life: This law supersedes the Old Covenant, redeeming us from the curse of the law, and places us under grace. (Gal 3:13, Rom.6:14) We are assured that when led by the Spirit, we are keeping the Law of God. (Rom.8:4) Sorting out Paul's Laws Which of Paul's laws refer to the written commandments of the OT? Well, the laws of the flesh and mind are obviously not the written law. The law of the Spirit of Life, refers to the New Covenant and NT gift of the Spirit, and in the OT it is only a future promise. (Jer.31:31-33,Joel.2:28-32,Ezek.11:19) This leaves us with 1 and 4. But Paul does not divide the Law into 'moral' and 'ceremonial': The Law of God for Paul is the entire Torah. It includes commandments for all mankind (Rom.3:9) as well as punishments for lawbreaking (Rom 7:10), and it also includes the covenant with Israel along with promises and curses regarding national disobedience, i.e., covenant-breaking. (Rom.2:17,3:19) But the Law of God itself is not a curse, just because it contains punishments for sin. It is a delight. (Rom.7:22) . The Law of Sin is that part of the law which only becomes active and has authority when the commandments and covenants are broken. These are the written punishments criminals receive, and also the curse Israel has fallen under. (Lev.26:14-45,Deut.28:15-68). A Covenant with Death The Law of God is by no means bondage, but once serious commandments are broken, the written punishments and curses become a bondage into death. The law can't save lawbreakers - it sends them into exile or it kills them! To fall under the curse is simple, but the Law itself provides no means to get back from curse to blessing. The law gives what must be done, (Deut.30:1-3) but not the power to do it. (Rom.8:3) Paul on Christian Bondage and Freedom We must take careful note of Paul's talk about bondage and freedom from law, covenant and sin. The reader can be excused for getting the false impression that we are no longer 'bound' by the law in the sense that we have to obey it. Yet Paul clearly thinks we are 'bound' to control our moral behaviour, (Gal 5:19-21) and we are even expected to bring 'every thought into captivity'! (2 Cor 10:5) When Paul speaks of 'bondage' in a negative sense, he doesn't mean our obligation to keep the law, but bondage to sin. (Rom.6:16-18) Yet for Paul the metaphors of bondage are as useful as those of freedom in describing Christian status. (Rom.6:15-18) Given this complex background, it is at best misleading to talk of Christians not being 'bound' by the moral law, or that somehow the Law of God is not 'binding' for us today. Along with this the modern reader naturally expects 'Law' to mean the actual laws and commands found in the OT, not some abstract philosophical or theological concept or metaphor. Yet in Paul this is not necessarily the case either. The modern meaning of 'Under the Law' Nowadays, when we say 'under the law', we mean obligated to obey it. For instance, when driving a car, we are under the traffic laws, and are expected to obey them. This is clearly what a modern person means when he says, 'We are not under the Mosaic legislation as a binding covenant.' and this is what modern readers understand by that expression. But this is not the Biblical meaning of 'under the law' ! There is an equivalent expression for this concept, 'subject to the law' (Rom.8:7) Yet the underlying Greek is totally different for these two phrases. Paul's meaning for 'Under the Law' Remarkably, the phrase 'under the law' does not occur at all in the entire Old Testament! Nor is it found in any of the gospels, or Acts, or Revelation, or the Letters of Peter, John and James. It only appears in Romans, 1st Corinthians, and Galatians. That is, it is an idiom unique to Paul, possibly originating from his Pharisee background. Since it is a technical term invented or coined by him, we must look to Paul to explain the meaning for us. Thankfully, Paul provides the definition for us in Galatians: Paul clearly says we are not under the Law, because we are no longer breaking it, since the Spirit has led us out of what the Law condemns, and into what the Law approves! Paul's whole argument here would be pointless if the Law were actually canceled or simply no longer applied to Christians. In that case, he would have just said, 'you are not under the law, because the law is no longer valid.' The converse in this passage is equally clear: We are 'under the law' in Paul's sense, when we are under the Law of Sin, having done the works of the flesh, and having committed sin. This is entirely different than the modern English phrase 'under the law'. The idea that we need not obey the commandments finds no support from Paul here. We certainly cannot arrive at Paul's meaning by applying modern idioms which are completely foreign to the text. We'll need Paul's own definition again to interpret other places where he uses the same expression. (ie.,Rom.6:14-15, 1Cor.9:20-21, Gal.3:23, 4:4-5, 21, 5:18) In Romans 3:19, 'under the law' may be okay, since the Greek actually says 'to those in the Law'. (en to nomon) The Law? or just 'a law' ? Romans 6:14-15 should read 'under a law'; (hupo nomon) the original Greek lacks 'the'. This probably means a law such as the one Paul is about to explain, the Law of Sin. 1st Corinthians 9:20-21 also seems to suffer from misunderstanding or translational bias. Here again 'the' is missing from the Greek in all three cases. Paul clearly distinguishes three kinds of people: (1). law abiding Jews, (2). those under a law (criminals), and (3). those without law (barbarians). While causing some commentators grief, this makes perfect sense given Paul's definition of 'under law' . Confusing the Law with the Covenant Paul adds to the confusion when he uses Jewish idioms to speak to gentiles in the first place, as in using the Greek word 'nomon', translated 'law'. In Paul's letters this should really be rendered 'Torah'. In any case Paul does not intend either the ancient Greek meaning or the modern civil one. For Paul 'nomon' can be the covenant, the commandments, the history of Israel, or any combination of these depending upon the emphasis or context. This idea is best covered by the Jewish word, "Torah". Even though he uses 'law' everywhere, Paul obviously knows the difference between the covenant with the Jews, and the commandments which are for everyone. How else could he have waived the Sabbath, the circumcision, and the food laws for his gentile church and kept the others? These and these only are the unique marks of the covenant. Yet these three laws alone are not the covenant either. A covenant is a consenting agreement or contract between parties. Expressions like The Law, The Testimony, The Ten Words, the Stone Tablets, and Mt. Sinai, are all freely used to symbolize the Covenant with Israel. This is precisely what Paul does in (2 Cor.3). The Tablets represent the covenant but they are not themselves the covenant. The covenant itself is the complete verbal agreement between God and Israel, mediated by Moses. Some Christians try to equate the Covenant with the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments with 'the law' of Paul, in an attempt to show that the Sabbath has been 'nailed to the cross' and wiped out. (pg 174) The other commandments then somehow bounce back by the authority of being restated in the NT, because they are true-for-all-time' principles, which are self-evident. The Sabbath falls through the cracks because it is merely revelatory, ceremonial and arbitrary. But this explanation is completely artificial, and has the appearance of a cheap card trick. In reality the commandments remain because they were never crossed out. There is no secret shuffle. Paul has been misunderstood by Luther and the Protestants, and there is no hint of such magical thinking in the rest of the NT.
None of that long discourse is really going to matter when they drop the big one. Here's a law....the law of diminishing returns......too much bullshit plus answering your own long post with a carbon copy....... well, you get my drift.
Wrong, illiterate or lazy person. The post was broken in half to part 1 and part 2. No posts or material was duplicated. If you had bothered to read it, you'd see it is a concise and cogent argument which demolishes Protestantism in less than a thousand words. I suppose it was over optimistic to imagine anyone here could focus their attention for more than five or six short paragraphs.
The Sabbath is actually a mini-covenant itself, made with creation (Gen. 2:3). This is the rest Jesus attained for us, and which we hope to enter in His wake (Heb. 4). When we celebrate Sunday - the "Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10) - we express our recognition of Jesus' lordship over the sabbath and all laws. We take part in the covenant he sealed with his blood (1 Cor. 11:25), the covenant of the Spirit mediated by Christ (2 Cor 3:6) - not the law as it was mediated by Moses. It is only because of this "New Covenant" God made with the world, that the old one can be thought of as obsolete (Heb. 8:3; Eph. 2:15). The record of our sins is nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), and with it, any demands that the law could make to blackmail us into obedience. It doesn't have that power anymore (Rom. 8:1). What it does have the power to do, is to convict us of our sins - it safeguards the difference between right and wrong and teaches it like a schoolteacher (Gal. 3:19-24). Without Christ, we are "still in our sins" (1 Cor. 15:17), because through the law and their own conscience, "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all" (Rom. 11:32) - and Christ is that mercy (Rom. 10:4). Einstuck, Everything you posted could just as well have come from a Protestant commentary, except for the use of the word "protestant", because it is against any interpretion of grace that makes the law irrelevant, and also against any interpretation that would have us return to a legalistic faith that can only condemn and not free. But Luther is not "Protestantism", and neither is the specific argument you set up as "the basic Protestant argument". PS. You should provide your source if you quote material that is not your own.
It is my own. I am quoting myself. I originally wrote most of this as a response and review of an anti-cult book presented by the "Church of Jesus Christ", an offshoot/branch of the PromiseKeepers. I liked the book, but many of its doctrines were skewed. Thanks for your concern, and your compliments. And thank you. I can usually tell a Christian by their openmindedness, reasonableness, and their enthusiasm to read and consider facts and arguments about the scriptures. Non-Christians have a 'hole' in this area, and no attraction to or understanding of New Testament issues.
He merely said thanks, to infer the rest is politics. Also how can Christians be open minded when their only answer is a god. Surely to be open meinded one must be prepared to entertain other options.
