Jefferson said:
Justin:
I don't want to get too far away from my main point which is the present tense verbs in First Timothy:
"8 But we know that the law IS good if one USES it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law IS not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."
Let's look at a literal, word-for-word translation of the Greek for v 8-9. You'll have to pardon the transliterated Greek: I can't get it to format correctly, but if you want to look at the original, it's available at
http://www.greekbible.com.
8 oidamen de oti kalos o nomos ean tis auto nomimos cretai, 9 eidos touto, oti dikaio nomos ou keitai, anomois de kai anupotaktois, asebesi kai amartolois, anosiois kai bebelois, patroloais kai metroloais, androphonois....
8: But we know that suitable the law if a certain one himself lawfully makes use of it.
9: I know this, that [for the] righteous law stands not, but lawless ("anomois," lit: "no law") and disobedient, [asebesi ... "ungodly"] and sinful, unholy and profane, [patroloais ... "killers of fathers"] and [metroloais ... "killers of mothers"], murderers....
As you can see, there are three words I don't know, but I'm willing to accept the conventional translation. But the important passage is v 8: "Suitable the law [is]
if a certain one himself lawfully makes use of it." The author of this epistle says absolutely nothing about imposing this law from without--indeed, this passage indicates quite strongly that it must be the decision of the individual to "lawfully make use of it." According to your doctrine, this is the kind of behavioral change that comes over a person regenerated by the blood of Jesus Christ, not constrained by outside enforcement.
Yes, "using the law"
is in the present tense--present tense
singular.
Regarding my post # 74 you wrote:The date of the compilation of the Tanakh is quite different from the date when centuries before Israel asked for a king, God told Moses "You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses." (Deut. 17:15) Therefore I would like for you to respond to that.
As this does not deal directly with theonomy, I will gladly discuss dating theories in a separate thread.
Moral truth does not change from one culture to another or from one century to another. Rape is immoral even in cultures where it is permitted. Murdering innocent people is immoral even in cultures where it is legal.
At no time did I make such a claim. I do claim that your Bible is a man-made understanding of absolute moral truth, but that is irrelevant to this thread.
That is why the moral laws of the Old Testament apply to all cultures in any century.
We'll discuss this so-called division of the law with the next section.
Then why did Paul uphold the moral law in First Timothy 1:8-11 but condemned the ceremonial law in Col. 2:16-21 and Ephesians 2:14-16?
As we saw a few paragraphs ago, the author of 1 Timothy was commending moral ("legal") behavior
when engaged by an individual who chooses to behave in that fashion.
As a tangential point, this seeming "contradiction" becomes much clearer when the pseudo-Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is understood. This is why there is a change in emphasis between Paul's condemnation of the Law--especially in the passage in Ephesians. Paul does not say that Christ abolished the ceremonial law--he abolished the law of commandments.
But I think the Greek will show it more clearly.
By the way, notice what Eph 2:14-16 says: "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity."
Why does the verse include the words "contained in ordinances?" If your view was correct, those words would not have been included in that verse.
Again, to the Greek: Eph 2:14-16.
14 autos gar estin 'e eirene emon, o poiesas ta amphotera en kai to mesotoicon tou phragmou lusas, ten ecthran, en te sarki autou, 15 ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin katargesas, ina tous duo ktise en auto eis ena kainon anthropon poion eirenen, 16kai apokatallaxe tous amphoterous en eni somati to qeo dia tou staurou, apokteinas ten ecthran en auto.
14: For Himself [is] our peace, who has made [amphotera ... "both"] one and the partition wall of separation [he] loosened, the enmity, in [his] flesh himself,
15: The
law of the commandments in dogma he rendered idle, that these two [they might] make in themselves into one new man he makes peace.
16: And he reconciled both in one body to God through the cross, to destroy the enmity in himself.
It looks like the confusion is in v 15--specifically, the portion I have underlined. If you know any Greek grammar, look back at the original: "in dogma" is in the dative case, and is a subordinate noun to "of the commandments." The word "dogma" means a lot of things, so let's look at the lexicon:
dogma,n {dog'-mah}
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance 1a) of public decrees 1b) of the Roman Senate 1c) of rulers 2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment 3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living
And this word is in the dative case, so let's look at the definition:
The dative is the case of the indirect object, or may also indicate the means by which something is done. The dative case also has a wide variety of uses, with the root idea being that of "personal interest" or "reference". It is used most often in one of three general categories: Indirect object, Instrument (means), or Location. Most commonly it is used as the indirect object of a sentence. It may also indicate the means by which something is done or accomplished. Used as a dative of location, it can show the "place", "time", or "sphere" in which something may happen.
Cite
So the phrase "contained in ordinances" is a descriptive claws that modifies "laws." As we can see, verse 15a clearly means "The law of the commandments contained in ordinances he rendered idle."
If Donald Trump spoke Koine Greek, "rendered idle" is the phrase he would use to fire someone. According to your Bible, when Jesus died, he turned to the Mosaic Law--
all of it--and said "You're fired."
When Christians, who are not under the law, agree with the truth of the law that murder is immoral and, when angry, they therefore refrain from committing murder, they are not putting themselves under the law and, by extension, under the law's curse. If you disagree with this then you have to believe that Christians must commit murder otherwise they would be obeying a part of the law and would be putting themselves under it's curse.
That's complete and total nonsense, not to mention a grotesque charicature of my position. One does not need to follow the Mosaic Law to agree that murder is wrong.
Galatians 3:10 is a curse for anyone who obeys the law for the purpose of attaining salvation as the context of the very next verse proves: "But that no one is *justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for 'the just shall live by faith.'" (Gal. 3:11) Using the law to create a peaceful society does not violate Gal. 3:10 because it would have nothing to do with attempting to attain salvation.
OK, I can agree with that, and I concede the point about placing people under a curse.
Additionally, the law was partially applied every time a new dispensation began. As Hebrews 7:12 says, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." In every dispensational change only the ceremonial laws changed, never the moral laws.
The doctrine of "dispensation" as you are using it is highly questionable, but a full analysis would completely overwhelm this thread.
But the application of the Law will produce a peaceful society.
Tell me how "peaceful" society was, according to your scriptures, between the time of Moses and the Babylonian Captivity.
Yes, I know--you assert that if the laws are actually
followed this time, as they were not then, then there will be peace.
That's because Rome provided no such opportunity. In democracies, however, the people are the government because the people decide who shall govern.
Ah, but there's a problem here, Jeffereson: if you agree with Bob Enyart's views,
you don't want a democracy: you want a monarchy. With the way our government is set up now, you would have to do one of three things:
1: Get enough popular support to get a majority of voters in the US to agree to void the Constitution;
2: Rebel and overthrow the government by force; or
3: Secede.
Options 2 and 3 are not available options to Christians, unless they wish to violate Rom 13:2. Option 1 is available, but I somehow doubt you'll ever have that kind of support.
Orthotomounta perfectly makes my point.
Jefferson, do you know anything about Greek?
This "death" is not the government inflicting the death penalty via public stoning. It's natural death.
Yet this is one of the most popular support texts for the continuance of Mosaic Law against homosexuals. You can't have it both ways, Jefferson.
Just take, for example, fornication. The Bible says fornicators should get married. It doesn't say they should be executed.
Yes, I notice that you evidently have not yet read
Post 164.
There are good ministers of God's Law and bad ministers of God's Law. The Roman governing officials were bad ministers. But that does not negate the fact that they were indeed God's ministers according to Romans 13:4.
Nor does it negate the fact that our current government is, according to your scriptures, God's ministers today.
What standard do you think God will use to judge the difference between a good governing official and a bad one?
Jefferson, I don't think
any of your Bible is an accurate depiction of God. If I were arguing based on my opinions or knowledge, I would be arguing from the point of view of the Bible's inauthenticity. What I'm doing in this thread is arguing that your Bible does not say the things you're trying to make it say.
Justin
