Jump to content





- - - - -

But, Paul said...

By cbb1962, 05 October 2013 · 1,375 views

Whole Bible New Testament Old Testament Theology Denominations and Disciplines
How many of us studied the entire Bible and then through careful analysis determined that Paul’s statement “we are not under the Law” was actually: “we are not under the Law of Moses”?  No one that I have ever met has ever done this, myself included.  From the time I was able to understand what the preacher was saying, I was taught what Paul meant: “the Law” = “the Law of Moses.”  It never occurred to me to actually study it for myself!

Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" as opposed to exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda.” Wikipedia


“The Law” = “the Law of Moses” is a presupposition. Granted it was taught to us by beloved teachers, preachers, and family members, but they all applied the same presupposition.  We all tend to try to uphold what we have been taught all of our lives, however many things are so ingrained in us, that we can’t recognize them as presupposition and prejudices.

There are unthinkable ramifications if “we are not under the Law” wasn’t: “we are not under the Law of Moses.” Yet there is substantial evidence that “the Law” = “the Law of Moses” is incorrect.

It is interesting that when I defend what I have studied I am accused of being:

Ignorant of the true meaning of Grace, Blown about by every wind of doctrine, a heretical Judaizer, an AntiChrist, and Crucifying Christ all over again, etc…


Yet they fail to address the serious fallacies of the “we are not under the Law of Moses” doctrine, and choose to attack me. The main argument that the “we are not under the Law of Moses” doctrine followers use: “But, Paul said…” ____ insert reference here.  They treat Paul’s statements as if they occur in a bubble and don’t affect other passages and aren't affected either.

They ignore things like:
  • The “we are not under the Law of Moses” doctrine and the lies that killed Stephen are the same. (Act 6:11-14)
    • “we are not under the Law of Moses” is a significant change to "the customs that Moses delivered to us." therefore agreeing with the lies that killed Stephen.
  • The Biblical definition of “fulfill” (Mat 3:15, Mat 5:17, Rom 15:13, Col 1:25) is to dedicate, consecrate or fill completely; not “end.” (Num 7:88, 1Ch 29:5, 2Ch 13:9, Job 20:23, Psa 20:4-5 (2), Isa 8:8, Isa 13:3, Jer 33:5)
  • Jesus’ words in Mat 5:17-19 are directly against the “We are not under the Law of Moses” doctrine and would sentence Paul to be “least in the Kingdom.”
  • “We are not under the Law of Moses” and “iniquity” are the same.
    • “Iniquity” is lawlessness
      • Iniquity is never a good thing
        • G458 ἀνομία anomia an-om-ee'-ah From G459; illegality, that is, violation of law or (generally) wickedness: - iniquity, X transgress (-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.
        • Mat 7:23; Mat 13:41; Mat 23:28; Mat 24:12; Rom 4:7; Rom 6:19; 2Co 6:14; 2Th 2:7; Titus 2:14; Heb 1:9; Heb 8:12; Heb 10:17; 1Jn 3:4;
    • 1st John 3:4 is completely ignored.
      • When applying the “We are not under the Law of Moses” doctrine to 1st John 3:4 it becomes impossible to sin…
        • 1Jn 3:4 KJV Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
        • 1Jn 3:4 ASV Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
        • 1Jn 3:4 NET Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness.
        • 1Jn 3:4 NIV Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
        • 1Jn 3:4 HCSB Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law.
      • “But, Paul said…”
  • The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31 and Hebrews 8:8) isn't in place yet.
    • Jer 31:33-34 NET “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land," says the LORD."I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.  (34)  "People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me. For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me," says the LORD. "For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done."
      • The New Covenant is with Israel and Judah not the Church.
      • The Law will be written on our hearts
      • Not everyone knows the LORD
      • There is still Sin.
    • But, Paul said…
  • ​This doctrine makes a mockery of the reason that the Israelites were sent into captivity
    • ​Israel was sent into captivity for not obeying His Laws.
    • Isa 42:24, Jer 44:23, Jer 6:19, Jer 9:13, Jer 16:11, Jer 26:4-6, Jer 44:10, Eze 22:26, Isa 5:24, Isa 30:9
    • Punishing Israel for disobedience to the Law  - then telling a later Israel that they are "not under the Law of Moses."
    • Did the thousands die in vain?
  • The Law of Moses will be followed in the Millennial Kingdom:
    • Zech 14:16-18 Isaiah 56:7, Isaiah 66:22-23, Ezekiel 44:24, Ezekiel 45:17, Ezekiel 46:1-3, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 14:12, Revelation 22:14
PLEASE don't elevate the “we are not under the Law of Moses” doctrine to supersede the words of Jesus, his Apostles, Disciples and even the ignored pro-law words of Paul.

I know, I know:

"But, Paul said..."




Jesus’ words in Mat 5:17-19 are directly against the “We are not under the Law of Moses” doctrine and would sentence Paul to be “least in the Kingdom.”

Paul and Stephen didn't teach that you may violate the Law of Moses.

Paul was unlike the other 12 Apostles (who preached to the 12 Tribes that where spread over the world): the apostle of the Gentiles

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry:

 

the  NET translation is not very literal(it is "House of Israel")

The "House of Judah" are the Jews and the "House of Israel" are the "10 lost Tribes" who are not Jews.

From the Restored Holy Bible; (the red part is taken from the NT source)

 

 

Jer 31:31
    Behold, the days come, said the LORD,
    when I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah: Heb 8:8 .

Jer 31:33 For this is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days, said the LORD;
    I will put My Laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts:
    and I will be to them GOD, and they shall be to Me a people: Heb 8:10 .
Jer 31:34 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,
    saying, Know the LORD: for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest. Heb 8:11 .
    For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness,
    and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Heb 8:12 .

 

 

It is true that a part of the prophecy about the New Covenant shall be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom together with the Old Covenant. (Both Covenants co-exist)

But the New Covenant already existed since "the Last Supper" (on the beginning of Passover in the end of the 4 Gospels).

The word "Covenant" is also translated as "Testament" in the most Bibles. So the "New Testament" is about the "New Covenant".

 

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God,
    cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the Living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause He is the mediator of the New Covenant, that by means of death,
    for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the First Covenant,
    they who are called may receive the promise of everlasting inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a Covenant[Testament] is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a Covenant[Testament] is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives.
Heb 9:18 Hence even the First was not dedicated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law,
    he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the Covenant which God has enjoined to you. Exo 24:8 .
Heb 9:21 Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood both the Tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the Law cleansed with blood; and without blood-shedding is no remission.
 

Please lets finish the passage in Romans 11 it talks about the Gentiles being grafted into Israel.  Just like 

  • Exo_12:49  One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. 
  • Num_15:16  One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. 
  • Num_15:29  Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them. 

When a Gentile follows the LORD he becomes grafted into Israel same as it has always been.

 

Two more passages that are ignored:

  • 1 John 2:3-4  And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.  (4)  He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

How can "we are not under the Law of Moses" reconcile this?  how can you keep the commandments but not be under them?

 

  • Amo 3:7 KJV  Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
 

It isn't prophesied anywhere that anyone would ever "not be under the Law of Moses." 

Clint,

You talked about baggage at one time, and reckoned that anyone's theological beliefs come as a result of some form of doctrinal baggage. To be more precise, it was that the way one interprets Scripture as eisegetical is resulted from baggage one carries. So when I look at what you write, I wonder what baggage you have.

 

Firstly, when I look at what you say, I wonder where faith and grace fits in. I seem to get the feeling this is deliberately left out.

 

Secondly, when I look at what you say, I get the impression of you becoming legalistic. I hope I'm wrong, but the impression is there.

 

Thirdly, based on what you say, it seems that you want us to convert to some form Judaism and live by the law rather than by belief (faith) in Christ's atoning work.

 

You place a huge emphasis on The Law to the point of this is how we should live. And so, again, all this begs the question of where does faith and grace fit in all of this. And again, the impression I have, it doesn't.

 

Blessings,

Autograph.png

Hi Clint,

 

The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you believe the tree to be Israel.  If you follow the passage, the branches that are broken off are Israel.  Israel is broken off of the olive tree and the Gentiles are grafted in.  We cannot be grafted into Israel if they are not now part of the tree - and won't be "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."  The tree is Abraham - who came before the Law - Abraham who was justified by faith (the root).  This is proven by the fact that the branches were broken off because of unbelief (verses 20-23) - not because of disobedience to the Law, as you falsely assert.

 

Paul says in Gal. 3:19 that the Law "was added because of transgressions."  This means the Law of Moses has never been the main point.  It's an additive.  It's secondary.  Faith is and always has been primary.  And faith brings the obedience that the Law never could.  This is the point of the rest of Gal. 3 - the whole book of Romans, Galatians and Hebrews for that matter.

 

The book of Hebrews revolves around the idea that Christ is the Mediator of a BETTER covenant (Heb. 8:6).  The author of Hebrews then goes on to quote Jer. 31:31-34 - nuking your earlier assertions about that passage.  Christ cannot mediate the Mosaic Covenant because He is from the tribe of Judah, not Levi.  That's the point of the Melchizedek comparison.  You cannot quote anything Christ said to support your position, He cannot serve your table.  You can't just pull verses out of their context.  Your view is incoherent in light of the entire context of any passage you have used.  Hebrews 8 ends saying the Mosaic covenant has been made obsolete!.

 

External obedience to the Law has never been the primary point.  The sacrifices were the point - to illustrate substitutionary atonement.  The Just have always lived by faith.  Israel had to have faith that the blood of bulls and goats would cover their sin until Messiah.  Which raises another dilemma for you.  It is impossible to keep the Law of Moses without a Temple in Israel.  No sacrifices.  Period.  End of story.

 

May God grant you enough light to see your own blindness,

Bill

Jer 11:16-17 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.  (17)  For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.
 
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Christ cannot mediate the Mosaic Covenant because He is from the tribe of Judah, not Levi.  That's the point of the Melchizedek comparison

He is also for a part of Levi because He is family of a priest named Zacharias;  who was the father of John the Baptist.

John the Baptist was the only son of Zacharias. Who is his successor? If Jesus is his successor then has He the right of Levitical priesthood just as His right in the order of Melchisedek

Hi Again Clint,

 

Your other arguments are better assembled than your latest blog. You've raised some interesting points in your other entries. Stick with Scripture, not opinion about denominations.

 

As for Jeremiah 11:16-17, a branch that is "broken" by disobedience is quite different from a branch that is "broken OFF" because of unbelief. Paul is clear that Israel represents the branches that are broken off, not the tree. The Scriptures say repeatedly that we are justified by faith - not by obedience (Luke 17:5-10). You can't just ignore all of the passages that speak of faith and grace because you choose to focus on law-keeping. You have no right to make yourself an arbiter of truth. All of Scripture must be taken into account.

 

When people like me say we are not under the Law of Moses, we are not advocating lawlessness - you are disingenuous when you assert such. Faith is obedience (Rom 1:5 & 16:26). Titus 2:11-14 says that grace teaches us to deny worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously and godly, and makes us zealous for good works. For you to say we teach lawlessness is just another of the many straw man arguments you've postulated.

 

As for the Law and the New Covenant: Hebrews 7 goes to great lenghts to illustrate why the New Covenant HAS ALREADY superceded the Law of Moses:

 

Heb 7:11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

 

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

 

Heb 7:13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

 

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.

 

Clearly, Jesus, Paul and John (whom you've quoted) are advocating a different Law than you. They are advocating the New Covenant which has a new Highpriest - not the Law of Moses and a priesthood that could make nothing perfect, as you are doing. So, quoting them does not support your erroneous case.

 

Sorry Katoog, your assertion that Jesus is "a part of Levi" fall's flat in light of Scripture. The Bible doesn't say what kind of family relationship exists between Jesus and John, but whatever it was - Scripture is clear, Jesus is not, in any way, from the tribe of Levi. Besides that, to say that Jesus is John's successor borders on blasphemy. Jesus is John's God!

 

Galatians 3:24 says the purpose of the Law was to bring us to Christ - and YOU, Clint, want to take us from Christ and give us back to the Law. You have it backwards. I'm sitting at my Father's table, dining freely and joyfully in His presence, and YOU want to deliver me back to a "schoolmaster." The previous verse (Gal. 3:23, ESV) says that the Law imprisons people - the Law holds them captive! Christ offers us intimacy with His Father, and YOU offer prison. Wow. Sounds awesome, Clint. Thanks for that! Worse still, Rom. 10:3,4 says YOUR way is "ignorant" and pointless.

 

Fancy arguments aside, you can't deny the clarity of Galatians chapter 3 or Hebrews 7 & 8. Your interpretation is inconsistent with the whole counsel of God. You can't simply deny grace because you don't understand it. I have clearly illustrated that the Law/Covenant HAS changed, that the Law of Moses IS "obsolete," and that Grace does NOT equate to lawlessness. Therefore, you have nothing left to offer anyone here. I will take sonship over bondage to your obsolete and ignorant legalism any day. Lest you think me harsh, this is the opinion of Scripture regarding what you are teaching, not my opinion.

 

May God open your eyes to see,

Bill

December 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17 18 1920212223
24252627282930
31