• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

1 corinthians 9:19-23

I'm looking for some deeper understanding of the statement by Paul that he isn't under the law but yet states he became one outside the law but not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ. Acts certainly makes it clear it followed the law but this statement makes it appear he didn't need to but did it to reach those under the law..any help would be appreciated.
 
Utlimately - it's simple:

WHICH 'law' - YHVH or man? "Nomos" - the Greek word - is ambiguous, it conflates both.

His Master, Yahushua, said (Matthew 5:17-10, with elaboration in MANY places, including Matthew chapter 23, Mark 7, etc) that He would NEVER change so much as a tiny part ('yod or tiddle') of His Word, so long as "heaven and earth" (Moses' two witnesses, Deuteronomy 30) still exist. They do, and if you believe He's coming back, then "all" has not been "fulfilled", either.

Elsewhere, you'll see renderings of "the traditions of the elders," or "your traditions" - which were CLAIMED to be "law" - but, as He said, were NOT. Or worse.


PS> The actual word He used, "torah," is a bigger set than just "law", even though most of the "old" testament translates it that way. "His teaching and instruction," or even just instruction, is better.

Because "torah" includes, but is not limited to, just "law". There are stories, examples, 'precedents', and even parables for our instruction. And when He MEANS to say things like "law" - He uses words like 'chuq', "mishpat," and "mitzvot" - which translate as things like "statute, judgment, and commandment"
 
I'm looking for some deeper understanding of the statement by Paul that he isn't under the law but yet states he became one outside the law but not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ. Acts certainly makes it clear it followed the law but this statement makes it appear he didn't need to but did it to reach those under the law..any help would be appreciated.
I think Romans 7 helps us understand what Paul meant. Frankly, all of Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, John, and the rest of Scripture help us. The Epistles of Paul are a great place to look. 😉

As a Christian, Paul has died to the Law through the death of Christ, and has now been united to the Person of the risen Lord Jesus Christ instead of the Law. The Law was Paul's previous master, but now the Lord Jesus is Paul's personal Master instead.

The Law is good. It is from God. It is instructive to the Christian, but we do not belong to the Law, we personally belong to the Man Jesus Christ instead. We are bound to Him, rather than the Law. We are adopted by God the Father via our union with Christ, not our performance of the Law. Christ, rather than the Law is how Paul was connected to, and pleased God the Father.
 
The Law was Paul's previous master...

Actually, NO. The 'law' of the Pharisees was Shaul's previous master; he was, by his own admission, a 'Pharisee of Pharisees'. In fact, he was SO bound "under the law" that he committed crimes, and murders, under that nomos. But it was NOT Yahuah's 'torah'!

And when his eyes were opened, he saw that. And was no longer 'bound' under the WRONG 'law'.

The problem with most English renderings (often steeped in the 'divine right of kings'!) is that they fail to discern the difference.

And, unfortunately, you can't really understand his letter to the Romans, much less Galatians, without seeing that.
 
Here's one clear example, once you see it:

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"
(Romans 6:16)

The context is vital.

And - this is important: The Hebrew root word which is rendered into all forms of 'righteous' or "righteousness" is
צַדִּיק = 'tzadik'

which means obedient to YHVH, and His Instruction.

It's WHICH "law" that matters. More importantly, 'Whose?"
 
MarkC makes a good point that Saul and the other Pharisees were not properly following the instructions of God as given in the Torah. Instead they were following a perverted mixture of God's Laws and the traditions of men.

They were supposed to follow God by obeying Torah by faith, but instead followed the traditions of men. Now, believers in God are to follow Christ by walking in accordance with the Holy Spirit, and not according to the flesh.

In Romans 7 Paul is saying that Christian believers are now united to and under the personal authority of Jesus Christ Himself rather than the old (and very good) schoolmaster of the Law given by God in the Torah (and much more, the traditions of men).
 
Let's look at a faithful Israelite. Nathaniel is described by Christ Himself in John 1:47.

"Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!" (NKJV)

According to Romans 7:1-5, Nathaniel was under the authority of Torah prior to the death of Christ. Following the death and resurrection of Christ, Nathaniel has become dead to Torah through the body of Christ, and has now been united.to the Person of Jesus Christ instead. Nathaniel now serves God in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
 
Flesh, according to Paul is sin. He makes that equivalation repeatedly. So we are not to sin. What is sin? It is disobedience. Disobedience and rebellion against the Lord. So we are not to walk according to disobedience, but rather obedience. There's no third option through fancy wordsmithing. Take it from the linguist whose job involved people living or dying based on what they said. Purely binary; life/death, blessings/curses, obedience/disobedience.

But half the people here will rebel against the idea of obedience to their "King" and delude themselves into thinking they still follow Him. "I never knew you. Get away from me you workers of lawLESSness."
 
As YHVH, He could change His mind, ignore His Word, and even lie - but He would NOT be YHVH. And there'd be no point in trying to study His Word.

As to whether or not a person is "under" His Covenant, which changes not - that's why He says "CHOOSE..."
 
As God, He can decide when there will be an end of one covenant and the beginning of another.
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He has already told us when the covenant ends.
There is no deciding.
 
The context of Matthew 5:17 makes clear that Jesus was referring to the moral commandments of the law that He came “not to abolish but fulfill” not the ceremonial. John Gill correctly points this out in his commentary on this verse:

“I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. By ‘the law’ is meant the moral law, as appears from the whole discourse following: this he came not to ‘destroy,’ or loose men’s obligations to, as a rule of walk and conversation, but ‘to fulfil’ it; which he did doctrinally, by setting it forth fully, and giving the true sense and meaning of it; and practically, by yielding perfect obedience to all its commands, whereby he became ‘the end,’ the fulfilling end of it. By ‘the prophets’ are meant the writings of the prophets, in which they illustrated and explained the law of Moses; urged the duties of it; encouraged men thereunto by promises; and directed the people to the Messiah, and to an expectation of the blessings of grace by him: all which explanations, promises, and prophecies, were so far from being made void by Christ, that they receive their full accomplishment in him. The Jews pretend that these words of Christ are contrary to the religion and faith of his followers, who assert, that the law of Moses is abolished; which is easily refuted, by observing the exact agreement between Christ and the Apostle Paul, Romans 3:31 and whenever he, or any other of the apostles, speaks of the abrogation of the law, it is to be understood of the ceremonial law, which in course ceased by being fulfilled; or if of the moral law, not of the matter, but of the ministry of it.”

The fact that Jesus wasn’t referring to the ceremonial commandments is quite clear from the rest of the New Testament scriptures. The writer to the Hebrews explicitly states that there has been “a change of the law” pertaining to the Levitical priesthood and ceremonial commandments:

“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? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.” (Hebrews 7:11-12)

“For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” (Hebrews 7:18-19)

The Apostle Paul also explicitly states that God’s ceremonial commandments regarding circumcision have been repealed under the New Covenant:

“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters [i.e., the moral commandments].” (1 Corinthians 7:19)

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love [i.e., by keeping the moral commandments].” (Galatians 5:6)

“For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. What counts is a new creation [i.e., being regenerated, justified, and sanctified by faith in Christ].” (Galatians 6:15)

Paul also explicitly states that the law’s dietary restrictions and yearly, monthly, and weekly ceremonial commandments are no longer binding upon God’s people under the New Covenant:

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17; cf. Romans 14)

Thus, Jesus was clearly not saying that He had not come to abolish the ceremonial commandments of the law, which were temporary types pointing to His sacrificial death and inauguration of the New Covenant in His blood.

“But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6)

“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13)
 
Last edited:
But half the people here will rebel against the idea of obedience to their "King" and delude themselves into thinking they still follow Him. "I never knew you. Get away from me you workers of lawLESSness."

I believe it was TRM who said in another thread that we should all be able to fellowship based on Acts 15 and Romans 14, regardless of our personal convictions and consciences. I think it is unproductive to write off half the people here, especially when most of us are here BECAUSE we hold Gods Word and His Law in higher regard then the traditions and culture passed down to us.
If you believe some of us are mistaken on some point, please pray that God will open our eyes to see it, and teach whatever truth you know in love and patience.

Shalom
 
God’s attributes do not change, but that has no bearing on whether a person is under a specific covenant. As God, He can decide when there will be an end of one covenant and the beginning of another.
I don’t know if there’s a point to this conversation now but as usual I have to ask, what other covenant?
 
And which one is that? I just need a reference.
I’ve referenced the places where the New Covenant is spoken of specifically in the New Testament and you know where they are, so referencing them doesn’t seem useful.

My question would be this, where does Christ’s death on the cross fit into the Sinai Covenant? Is human sacrifice required in the Sinai Covenant? Do Priests come from the tribe of Judah under the Sinai Covenant?

Over the centuries the nation of Israel fell away from God and God brought them back to Him a number of times when they repented. The priesthood was re-instituted, temple sacrifices resumed, the temple was rebuilt a couple of times. Why didn’t that happen again? The covenant was “olam” correct? In light of that, what’s the point or need for Christ to come and die under that covenant? Abraham was in paradise when Christ was walking the roads of Judea, and so, presumably were Isaac, Jacob and others. He and they made it there before Christ went to the cross. So, how is a priest from the tribe of Judah, being born of a virgin, dying on a cross, rising from the grave, and ascending into Heaven on the clouds, part of the covenant made at Sinai? Please show me the passages at mount Sinai where those things are part of that covenant.
 
And which one is that? I just need a reference.

The new covenant (in contrast to the old covenant of Sinai) established by the sacrificial death of Christ for His elect people; the “better covenant” of which Christ Jesus is Mediator on behalf of all those who are united to Him by faith.

“And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’), by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.” (Hebrews 7:20-22)

“But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6)

“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13)

“And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” (Hebrews 9:15)

He takes away the first [covenant] that He may establish the second [covenant]. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:9-10)
 
Back
Top