| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 876 Registered: 5-2007 |
Please review this link and take paticular note of the listed commentarys expanding on this verse. http://bible.cc/romans/3-31.htm The thing is , I have read the commentaries and know no more than before I started. I cannot draw a conclusion from the vaguery here. I would appreciate comments on this verse. Jim02 | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10132 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jim, the context of this verse helps a lot. It follows the declaration in 3:20-21 that now a righteousness apart from the law has been manifested—a righteousness which has been foretold (witnessed) by the Law and the Prophets. It continues by stating that Jesus died as a propitiation for sin for all who believe. This verse, 31, follows all of this by stating that the reality of Jesus' atonement and fulfillment does not nullify the law because it shows that Jesus is the fulfillment and the fulfiller of all that the Law and the Prophets had testified to. Jesus verifies the purpose of the law and demonstrates that all the law foreshadowed was fulfilled in Him. The Law still stands as proof that Jesus IS the one prophesied to come! Colleen | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 473 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jim, I may be off track, but what I think is when it says God rested after creation, it was supposed to be a continued communion with man, and then sin entered and the "rest" was GONE. So 2000 years of the law and sacrifices pointed to JESUS who came to set us free from the law of death. It says the law was not abolished, but rather FULFILLED. How could it be fulfilled? Only through Jesus Christ! JESUS = SABBATH. Jesus IS Sabbath. We now live in the fulfillment of that promise of a redeemer! There is no way to "keep" the Sabbath. We have the Sabbath living IN us. The little tradition that the churches make of the 7th day are ellen white invented and following the tradition of the other protestant churches of the times. In Bible times does it say that keeping the Sabbath day was to get up and get your family ready for church and go to potluck, and take a nap and wait for the sun to set to play? I thought it says not to leave your dwelling or build a fire. Of course the Jews added countless additional rules, but God only commanded them not to work, I think, to be a shadow to point to the REST or REDEEMER that was coming to save them and us from being eternally lost. The main thing that Jesus commanded in the New Testament over and over again was LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, against such there is NO LAW. Those are the commands that He stated. The new testament speaks about the works of the flesh and lists how a fleshly person lives. The rules were nailed to the cross, the Holy Spirit came to reside in a believer's heart, and the FRUITS of that SPIRIT are evident in the way they live. Period. | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 566 Registered: 7-2008  |
Hello Jim As my own custom, I dont consult commentaries in the study of Gods word. I do sometimes consult Bible dictionaries to help define a word I dont comprehend. To me what Paul is trying to say is that our faith doesnot make the Law of God obsolete. The law of God had a purpose...to point out sin. Of course the grace of God is the solution to the sin problem. We are saved by grace thru faith. But our faith does not throw Gods law in the garbage can. Law doesnt save us, but we need it. Why else would God give it to humanity.Scripture states that the Law was added because of sin. If God is the source of the law, then we know that the Law is not evil. But if we apply the Law in a way which it was not intended to be applied, then the Law becomes a vessel of death. Christ went to Calvary to take our place, for we all deserve death due to our sin. He also took the condemnation of the Law and nailed it to the Cross. I like what Paul said in Galatians 3:23-25.... 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster The law was to lead one to Christ, the answer to the sin problem. Now that we have come to Christ, we need no tutor. We live by faith due to His death and resurrection on our behalf. The grace of God doesnot absolve believers from obedience to the will of God. But it does free us from the condemnation of the Law when we do sin. Yes .....believers do continue to sin after the new birth. Praise God for His mercy(1John 1:9) I am not sure if what i have posted helps your understanding of the text in question. Hopefully others will respond to your question and shed light upon the issue. God bless you Jim. ...Animal | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 877 Registered: 5-2007 |
This root meaning is more subtle and complex than it appears, or it is simple and being made complex. My difficulty is in that I do not understand what he means to say in the words "we establish". Establish: Validate Establish: Vindicate Establish: To make perpetual. Establish: To pay the penalty but not remove the law itself. Establish: To become the redeeming sacrifice for a law that cannot be canceled. One point was: 3:20-21 that now a righteousness apart from the law has been manifested—a righteousness which has been foretold (witnessed) by the Law and the Prophets. I admitt, I don't really know what that means. But my take is that the law SPECIFICALLY was not canceled except sacrificial systems. The reason I keep investigating is because I agree, we are not capable of keeping laws in perfection, letter of the law. So I think , I am at least half way there. I just keep getting hung up on the question of letting go of the law and establishing it at the same time. Paul suggests that the Law was canceled, but no other Apostle apparently did. Nuances are not easy to hang onto. Jim | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 899 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; I have a question for you. Are you Jewish or are you Gentile? If you are Jewish, then I can understand your confusion, because the LAW was given to Israel and only to Israel. Even so, your confusion can be easily cleared up by your reading Galatians 3:17-19 where it says that the LAW was to START 430 after Abraham (that was at Sinai) and was to continue until the Seed should come. (That's Jesus.) So now, even if you're Jewish, the LAW has been fulfilled by Jesus. (As you know, the Bible doesn't SPLIT the law into two pieces as the Seventh-day Adventist church attempts to do. So it's either all fulfilled or none of it has been. Therefore if you're Jewish and if none of it has been, you are obligated to do the whole 613 commands of the law, including the one that shows a WALL between Jew and Gentile - the law of not eating "unclean" meats. See Lev. 20:24-26. Plus you'll have to do the sacrifices and everything. If the LAW has been fulfilled, then rejoice and rest in the FULFILLMENT of the LAW, Jesus, your Savior!!!) Now if you're a Gentile, I'm mystified by your confusion. The LAW was never given to the Gentiles. (see Romans 2:14) Now that the Messiah has come as the Atonement for the human race, you, as a Gentile are GRAFTED IN along with the believing Jews, into Jesus! Jim, you need to prayerfully read the new covenant (New Testament), and see. Ask for the Holy Spirit to show you. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 900 Registered: 7-2007 |
Oops, I left out the "years." What I was trying to say was that the law STARTED 430 years after Abraham and was to go until the Seed [Jesus] should come. Galatians 3:17-19 I'm SO GLAD to be grafted into the True Vine, Jesus!!!  | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1528 Registered: 6-2006  |
One thing I've learned from the formers is that when they were SDA they automatically calculated "Law = 10 Commandments", as in, any time they saw the word "law" to them it meant "10 C's". Of course it means the whole law and not just the Sabbath. I wonder if that's a common trip up when reading those verses? Leigh Anne | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 878 Registered: 5-2007 |
I do not want to ask inane questions, I don't what to rattle on. Folks I am positively trying to take hold. In my own words, I do not understand why God would make such a firm a solid case for His laws for all those centuries, die on the cross for us and then say, now the laws are ended. I knwo one of the rules of consensus here on the forum is that division of the law is unbiblical. But the only thing I see as ended is the sacrificial system itself. Why is it so many churches are trying to reestablish the 10C (albeit Sunday)? Even they argue it is still accountable. But in order to make the format of the consensus work here, we have to repudiate all the law. That is a giant step and not one I am finding easy to do without conviction. Am I stuck behind the veil? The way I read Paul, is that living by the Spirit is a new way of approach to the ever increasing reflection of Gods will which is also mirrored by the law as expressed in the 10C and other summated expressions of the law. That said, even my model does not work when I read that Paul discounted the Sabbaths, Seasons etc they were observing. And the fact that it was not specfically mentioned that gentiles were expected to observe the weekly Sabbath. Some of these hundreds of thoughts are slowly coalescing into continuity. My hope is sooner or later, I will have a firmer conviction and be able to move away from fragmentation and into an awareness that brings peace of mind and more direction. Animal, what you wrote. I am processing it. Thank You. Asurprise, not sure I agree with all you said. But I am not in a position to debate effectively. Colleen, Vs 31, I could take that in more than one way. Did Jesus vindicate the law? Bb, you make some good points and I agree, the legalistic side of the law, the letter of the law kills. What I am trying to figure out is what does God expect us to do about the Sabbath day that he hallowed at creation. It seems to me that if we are living by The Spirit for the other 9 laws as well as the arenas of love that encompass infinite scenarios, I ask myself, does God still have an origonal intention regarding the 7th day? It is said that we have our Sabbath rest in Christ every day. I grasp that Spirit. But does God set aside the Sabbath of creation? Does he not care about it anymore? Where is the countermanded order? Jim | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 904 Registered: 7-2007 |
We are not "looking" at the other nine when we live by the Spirit. To use a crude example, let's say a Poodle dog turns into a Persian cat. Now that the dog is a cat, it has no more desire to bark at the passersby. It's nature has been changed and all it wants to do in curl up in a soft warm place and wash it's whiskers. Likewise when we are "born again of the Spirit" we don't want to do things that would disappoint God. I know, I know. Adventist preachers say the same thing, but Adventists understand it differently than Christians do. To an Adventist, it's "I gotta do better" and then they make themselves a new "checklist." To a Christian it's different - he/she doesn't even think about "rules." Instead there's a very real joy inside them and an eagerness to be with the Lord. Of course a Christian gets tempted from time to time. That's called the "flesh." But the Christian's nature has been changed and he/she cannot stand to stay "fleshy." For myself, I can hardly wait until the Lord comes back! When I was an Adventist, I was like: "oh, well; He will get here when He gets here, and it will be nice to go to heaven, but meanwhile life here isn't so bad!" I was a naturally cheerful person, so I didn't notice that lack of God. Now Jim; you mentioned the Sabbath. Have you noticed that when God blessed the seventh day in Genesis 2:2,3; He blessed ONLY the seventh day. It doesn't say that He blessed the anniversaries of that day, such as the 14th, the 21st, etc. It doesn't call it a "Sabbath" there in Genesis 2:2,3, it doesn't say "and the evening and the morning were the seventh day," nor does it say that God worked on the eighth day. When God said "Remember the Sabbath day" in Exodus 20, Adventists say that proves they already had it. Yes, Israel had it. It was given to them just some weeks earlier at the giving of the manna. Read Exodus 16; particularly verses 23 and 29. The last part of the commandment in Exodus 20 says "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth..." but when the commandments were repeated to Israel in Deuteronomy 5; when it comes to the last part of the Sabbath commandment, it gives a totally different reason for Israel to keep the Sabbath. It says: "And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord you God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day." (verse 15) It's like the Lord was saying to them that because He had done these mighty things, created the earth and brought Israel out of Egypt; that they were to obey Him and acknowledge Him as God. Have you noticed that at the beginning of Deuteronomy 5, in verse 3, just before Moses repeated the 10 commandments to Israel; that he said God had made that covenant with them, not their fathers? "The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive." Another verse that explains just what that covenant is, is where Moses talking to Israel in Deuteronomy 4:13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone." I'm praying for you Jim, that the Lord would remove the veil from your eyes. | ||
| Cordurb Registered user Username: Cordurb Post Number: 10 Registered: 4-2009 |
Jim, Galations 4: 4-5 says Jesus was born under the Law to redeem us from the Law. Nowhere is there mention of a sacrificial law. Deut 4:13 "so He declared to you His covenant which He COMMANDED YOU TO PERFORM, the ten commandments; and He wrote them to two tablets of stone. Under the New Covenant of Grace, we are not commanded to perform anything. In Hebrews 9, it clearly states that the old covenant was made obsolete and is passing away. If you read Romans 7, Paul was trying to make us understand that when Christ died, we died to the Law, and know are married to another Law - the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ. Remember Paul's audience in Romans was primarily Jewish, and he was charged with explaining to the Jews that this Law, this thing they had been hanging on to - was not their key to Salvation. Paul is explaining to them that while the Law did not save them, it did not lose its validity in pointing us to our need for God. | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 646 Registered: 2-2008  |
Hi Jim~ a couple of things... Leigh Anne is absolutely right when us formers hear/read the word "law", we automatically think 10C's. The law is the first 5 books of the Bible. I think that Colleen's response was concise and was the answer to your question:
This is comparable to Joe Smith who finishes College with a degree. In order for Joe to receive his degree, he had to take certain classes. Once he finished taking his classes, he has fulfilled his obligation and now qualifies for a degree. Now those classes stand as a testimony that he fulfilled the requirements for that degree. Since he's received a degree doesn't mean that he "nullifies" the classes he has taken. Those classes stand as a testimony that he has fulfilled them in order to receive his degree. Jesus also stands as a testimony in that He alone fulfilled the requirements of the Law. Now the Law stands a testimony and points to Jesus so we can verify that Jesus is who He says He is. Without the law, how would we know that Jesus was the one to come for our salvation? The law is established for the purpose it was intended for... to lead us to Christ. ~vivian | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 647 Registered: 2-2008 |
Jim, I wrote this on another thread and I'm not computer savvy enough to figure out how to put a link here. So here's the whole post... let me know if this helps you with your question about how Christ fulfills the Sabbath:
Let me know what you think. ~vivian p.s. for everyone else... excuse the double posting! | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 475 Registered: 7-2004 |
I'm glad you posted it, Vivian, I don't remember reading it before. It is very good insight. In my answer I brought up the Sabbath when Jim was just talking about the law, BECAUSE I know that when someone is talking about the law being done away with they are talking about the 4th commandment almost every time... I think when it says the law was "established" or "fulfilled" it is the 4th commandment that was literally established and fulfilled in Jesus. The shadow was no longer pointing to something, it was HERE. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 431 Registered: 8-2008 |
Jim, my man, I was just talking to my wife last night about this: Certain texts, like Rom. 3:31 for instance, were used heavily as SDA proof-texts, divorced from their contexts. Because we have been so brainwashed with them, having them hammered into us and being told they mean "X" when context says "Y," it is very hard to actually read them contextually and exegete the surrounding passages. We have this Pavlovian visceral reaction to these texts, because they are the ones bandied about. We would hear about how "Such and such non-SDA was saying that the Christian isn't government by the 10 C's anymore, and I thought that was stupid, because Paul says the gospel doesn't nullify the Law, but establishes it." This is a common SDA discussion. Here is the problem. Law does not equal the 10 C's. Law is often used in different ways in Paul's writings. Paul was raised a Jew, lived for a long time as a Rabbi, and carried over some of his rabbinical tendencies into Christianity. When a Rabbi refers to the Law, or "Torah," he can either mean all 613 commandments in the Pentateuch, or the entire text of the Pentateuch itself, or sometimes even the entire OT (though this has fallen out of usage somewhat). Context points to Paul using "the Law" in the second to last sense here, as in the first five books of the Bible. The reason is this: He shows in Romans 3 that we are justified by faith, with the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ being imputed to us freely. He then shows in Romans 4 that the Law (Pentateuch) demonstrates this in the case of Abraham. I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate the fact that some stupid moron named Stephen Langton decided to divide the Scriptures with arbitrary chapter and verse markings. In so doing, Langton would slice up thoughts so that you couldn't see how the argument is connected. This particularly true in how Romans 4 is divided from Romans 3. It creates in people's minds the idea that Paul is simply moving to another unconnected thought. He isn't. Our chapter and verse markings come from a view of theology. You cannot add them without using your own human theological systems, because where you divide chapters will depend heavily on whether your system says these two thoughts are connected or not. If you believe we are saved by keeping the Law, as a Roman Catholic like Stephen Langton might have, then you would have to separate Romans 3:31 from Romans 4. Paul has already shown in Romans that 1) the Law, including the 10 C's, were given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles, 2) we are not justified by the Law, 3) the Gospel comes "apart from the Law." If you keep going, he hits these three parts REALLY hard in Romans 4. Romans 4, rightly understood, is the end of Seventh-day Adventism. But think of what would the Law would imply if Jesus never came to die for us. It would imply that God is willing simply to give us a list of rules, and continually punish us with death for breaking them, but never do anything to solve the problem of sin that caused Jews to break the Law. In other words, He would be unrighteous, because He wouldn't actually do anything to free us from the evil within us that causes us to come under the Law's judgment. Karl Barth's commentary on the book of Romans has really helped me understand this concept. Karl ain't perfect. We all know that, but one thing he had that a lot of other theologians don't: He saw the Gospel as the foundation-stone of human reality from which all other truths of human existence flow; not as a derived principle that is secondary to Sinai or the 10C's or "ethics" or "religion" or anything like that. In so doing, he was a Paulist to the core. He points out that the concept of "the righteousness of God" is the central concept in the book of Romans, and this is what he says about it: The giving of a Law that man is unable to keep, can only be established or justified, if in so doing God were to bring about the solution to the unrighteousness of man that causes man to do evil and not good. If God merely gave the Law and then said, "You will only ever be able to solve your problems by keeping this Law," then he would be a cruel tyrant, since no one can keep any command of God until that person's sinful nature is first done away with. We can't obey until our problem is solved. But instead, God establishes the Law as part of His plan by using it as the means to bring people to the Cross. May I suggest either getting a copy of the Books of the Bible which is a Bible without chapters and verses, or copying and pasting from BibleGateway.com into a document and removing the chapter and verse markings yourself? Only the Spirit can truly know how to "rightly divide the Word," if you catch my pun. | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 1076 Registered: 11-2007  |
Yep, Jesus once said. "It says in your law..." and goes on to quote Psalms! SDA, and many other Christians don't know what Jewish person meant when they used the word "law". The Law is not nullified, as Colleen said - it still has a purpose to serve and stands as a witness - ALL of it - not just the 10C - it ALL foreshadowed and predicted Christ. In fact, if it was just the 10C alone, it would not have been even close to the whole picture God was painting for them -both of himself and of ourselves. The Law was not nullified - the CONTRACT was - the covenant. It still exists - but we are no longer in a relationship with it. I have not read everything posted above, so forgive me if I'm redundant. Short on time. =) Sondra | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10133 Registered: 12-2003 |
Good insights, Brent and Sondra. One more thing, Jim—Romans 5, 6, and 7 are astonishingly clear that the law came not to give us a standard of righteousness but to reveal our depravity. One point I was never taught as an Adventist which is specifically clear in Romans 5 and 7 is that, while death reigned ever since Adam because in Adam all of us died spiritually; nevertheless "sins" were not accounted when there was no law. Romans 7 even says that Paul was alive before the law came in, but when the law came, sin became alive and he died. Sin, taking opportunity afforded through the law, sprang to life, and he died. He even says he wouldn't have known what coveting was if the law hadn't said, "You shall not covet". But sin seized opportunity through the law and produced covetousness of all kinds in him. In other words, Paul had MORE trouble with coveting AFTER he became aware of the commandment than he had before. Bottom line: the law was given not to give us a standard of behavior but to expose depravity. Knowing adultery is sin, for example, actually increases adultery in those who are not born again. This function is intentional. God intended for people to come to know they absolutely have no power to resist sin. Only bumping into the law could produce that result. On this side of the cross, we deal with Jesus. He became sin and became a curse, and He died to sin and to rose to life. When we confront Jesus, that is where people become convicted of their sin. A person cannot look at the One who became sin for them and died for them and took punishment for them and have no reaction. Either they will feel angry and resistant and resentful, or they will feel their guilt and realize they face a debt they cannot pay. They will realize they cannot resist sin enough to deserve that sacrifice on their behalf. Facing Jesus now convicts people of their despair and guilt and draws them to repentance. The law was never meant to be God's standard of righteousness. Jesus was that standard. The law was a shadow pointing to Christ. We face our guilt when we face the risen Christ who bears the marks of our sin. Romans read with submission to God's Spirit, in context, reveals an absolutely astonishing reality which, frankly, many Christians have not actually read well. Jesus is ALL we need. Colleen | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 353 Registered: 3-2009 |
Hmmm, here comes nothing. I've been thinking about that statement of Paul cited by Colleen above: "sin is not accounted when there is no law." I was going to ask in this forum is the people before the law were saved because their sins were not accounted since there was no law. (I guess that's one of the SDA points in saying that the law is eternal since there was sin before Sinai.) Now, reading Colleen's post above, it came to my mind that they were born "with dead spirits". So even if they did not sin according to the law, they were dead, not saved. So it did not matter if they disobey a law or not, they were dead just the same. It seems to me then, that applying that to the life of the people this side of the cross, we could say that if we are not born again, we are dead even if we have "perfectly obeyed the law". And once we are born again we are saved even if we do not obey the law. In other words, the law has nothing to do with salvation one way or another. It all hinges in being born again. The Sprit will show His fruits after one is born again, but that has nothing to do with the law. Did I understand this correct, or am I all wet? Hec | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 572 Registered: 7-2008 |
Bible says that sin is the transgression of the law. So...when Adam sinned, what law did he break?? Some think the law wasnt in effect til Sinai. Such isnt true.God established a commandment.....Dont touch that tree !!!...makes one think huh?.... Animal..dont you enjoy thinking?? | ||
| Clintonc Registered user Username: Clintonc Post Number: 37 Registered: 10-2007  |
Ravi Zacharias describes this very well in an episode on his radio show called "The Lostness of Man": "Man is just not unethical, man is lost and dead... The biggest different between Jesus Christ and ethical and moral teachers is that these moralists came to make bad people good, but Jesus came to make dead people live!...I was 17 years old on a bed of suicide in Delhi, when I gave my life to Jesus Christ, I was not a bad man becoming a good man, I was a dying man who was now going to live for a cause greater than he was..." All of us born since Adam, even till today, we are all lost and dead. The only hope is Jesus, and Him only. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Romans 10:4 |
