Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

Sean commented:

dmatic wrote:

You all seem to think God unmerciful to instruct parents of children who refuse to harken to them to bring them to the elders of his city to stone him to death.



I don't recall "us all" saying that.

Actually, I said it seemed that "you all" were thinking that! I didn't say that it seemed you were all saying that!

Thanks for you invitation to respond to your earlier post Sean. I am sorry that I haven't gotten to it sooner, and though I haven't studied your question yet, i will try to give this response initially...OK?:

Paul is writing to those who know the law....and it is the law itself, that sets the woman free from being married to a dead husband. The law, in this case, does not die, but her husband did. The law, sets her free to marry another. It is not adultery, nor a violation of the law, if she marries another. She does not sin if she marries another, or if she does not marry another. She is free to marry or not. Now, since the law did not die....if she marries another, but then sleeps with another man, not her new husband, she does still commit adultery and the law convicts her of sin.

Does that help you?

If not, I'll try to re-read your earlier post.

Thanks for your patience.

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

I just re-read your version quoted of Romans 7:4ff:

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

I think Paul is talking about becoming dead to the law of sin and death.

The analogy seems a bit twisted...because he is talking about the death of the husband, and the wife being then free to marry another. But then he seems to equate us with the dead husband, having died. We died to sin, so that we can live to God. Romans 6, which precedes this passage seems foundational to what Paul is speaking to here. we have been set free from the law of sin and death, so that we can serve in newness of spirit....becoming "slaves" of righteousness, instead of being slaves to our former master...sin (which is transgressing the righteous and spiritual law of God).

He seems to be saying that we no longer are in the flesh....because we have died....with Christ, and have been raised with Him too! Now, we have the ability to obey God instead of our sinful flesh and its passions that are against the spirit and at enmity with God!

Does that help?

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

TK wrote:

the prodigal son, but he himself admitted he sinned against his father.

Of course he did. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that he hadn't. I meant to say that I didn't think he was "rebellious" and stubbornly refused to obey his father.

Actually, the admission, by the son, that he had sinned against his father, is the attitude that God is looking for! The rebellious one presumably won't even concede that!

The confession of sin, does not lead to being stoned to death. It leads to reconciliation, as the Prodigal Son story illuminates! This is the heart of God! And His will is that rebellious children repent and be restored!

If He chooses to instruct those parents that have failed in training a child, to bring him to the elders for stoning, God may be using this rebellious son to teach others the cost of disobedient insolence. He can still reach the lost one, even after the stoning, because neither life nor death...nor any other thing can separate us from the love of God in Christ. In the meantime, He may be using him as an example for the rest of the people! which also His word, in this instruction declares...and thus all Israel will hear and fear....

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Roblaine, First, I should try to calm your fears and confess that I have not yet stoned anyone to death! Nor am I sinless, having even been guilty of anger with brethren....which is to be in danger of some judgment! I do have many logs to remove from my own eyes, so as, hopefully, to some day be able to see clearly to help remove specks from others'.

You are, of course right about not knowing exactly what Jesus wrote on the ground. Many may have speculated....(It is one of the questions I have for Him, when i see Him face to face) But, I also want to know His mind, and why and how He thinks. As for not mentioning the man not being present, since the crowd had caught "her" in the act, this, certainly, would not have eluded Jesus' notice. (since it hasn't eluded even me!), but in any case, people were always seeming to try to trap Jesus in some error, so they could accuse Him of something. But, if you know the law, (as He surely does!), seeing the partiality from the so-called "witnesses" that had caught her in the very act, since they had not also brought the man, He admirably used another law to "judge" the woman. Maybe you are not familiar with it, but I think it is in Numbers...but it's called the Law of Jealousy, where, when a man is suspicious of his wife committing adultery, but has no proof, he is allowed to bring the case before the Divine Court, and have God judge, since He sees everything....and will judge correctly. The priest was to gather some of the dust of the floor of the Temple, I think, and then give it to her to drink....If her "thigh" wasted, or would be unable to have children, then it was that God had judged her guilty, but if she survived and even had children, then her husband was to "let it go". (I haven't read it for a while, so I'm certain I have the details wrong) But, interestingly, God judges all who bring their cases in front of Him, and there are penalties for bearing false or partial witnesses...so, I think it reasonable to say that He may have been writing some of the penalties down on the ground...which was also what the priest may have done in the temple...and then the witnesses would first be judged...by God. Since none of them seemed to want to be judged, they quietly slipped away, and Jesus was able to show the woman mercy and warn her...Go and sin no more! As for your proclamation that Jesus could have stoned her to death, since He was without sin, I disagree (that He could have legally done so). He wasn't one of the witnesses that had supposedly caught her in the act, and since none of the witnesses stayed to testify of their story, there were not the required two witnesses necessary to put her to death.

But, as I previously alluded to...the very seat of God's throne is called the mercy seat. It covers the Law contained under it....so to try to administer God's Law without mercy is to miss His heart and purpose. This is why Jesus also told the Pharisees and scribes to go back and study the law, because they had missed the mercy of it! The weightier matters, as they tried to declare that they were keeping the letter! God's mercy is everlasting and exalts over judgment! But, judgment and justice is also contained within the perfect law of God.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

JC, regarding your post of 1/25...You're right. I deserve to be stoned to death for my sin. I agree that God's Law is just, and correct. But, we are told to reckon ourselves dead to sin, having died with Christ, Who paid the penalty of death for us! Now, it is no longer I that live, but Christ Who lives within me! Christ in me the hope of glory! Jesus did not put away the Law of God, neither should we.

I don't know Billy Graham, nor his son. Nor do I know how he raised his son. If he was eager to discipline him in love, or if he was too harsh and discouraged his son. You ask me to judge if he was obeying God, or Jesus, as if to pit the two against each other, when they are one. If him and his wife prayed and interceded for their rebellious son, maybe even asking God to punish them for not attending to the raising of him according to God's instructions, instead of puinshing the son, how would I know? I still think, your argument against God's instruction to parents to bring their failed offspring to the elders for stoning, is with Him. I, agree with God. I can see the wisdom and love in that command, as I've simply alluded to previously.

My opinion, is that God's Law is correct, and righteous, and perfect and holy and good, and spiritual! If I disagree with it, the problem is with me.

you imply that I misunderstand God's commandments, which is certainly a very real possibility. But, you have called my opinion that God's law is right, and God's command itself, repugnant! This should concern you! You haven't admitted any concern about this, whereas TK, as least honestly responded with "how can I disagree with God's command?"

I do seek understanding of God and His Law and His mind. I do want to know all that He wants me to know. I want to increase in true knowldege of Him. But, I don't put away His law, because I may think it too harsh or unreasonable. I want to live by EVERY word that proceeds from his mouth! Your dismissal of His word should concern you. I want to meditate on His purposes and His commandments, because they reveal how He thinks and acts.

I am coming to see that God's law defines His mercy, because His mercy is everlasting. Now, we don't often see as far as He does, but I trust Him, because I see that His Law is restorative and reconciliatory. When the truth of God's justice meet with His mercy....it is a beautiful thing!

you try to trap me with a judgment about the Grahams and whether I think they are being disobedient to God because they didn't bring their rebellious son to the elders to have him stoned....and I think I'll leave that to God, since I know nothing of their case.....but I did mention, I think, my wife's expression, when we read about the shooting in that Omaha, Nebraska mall recently. The kid who did the shooting, was from a broken home, and there were some quotes from the father, that he could not get the son to listen to him....so they just gave up, and he was treated by the state's psychiatrists for four years, costing that state's taxpayers $265,000! But they couldn't do anything for him either, and didn't take any blame for the tragedy of course, because they had done the best they could. So, now the kid is 18 or nineteen, and loses his McDonald's job, and his girlfriend dumps him or something else tramatic so he declares that he wants to go out in style....so he elects to take an assault rifle into a shopping mall with two thrity-round clips, and start shooting innocent people, just doing their shopping before "christmas'.

If the rebellious kid would have been stoned to death....there would be eight innocent people still alive, living with their families. The kid, after shooting about ten people, turned the gun on himself and died anyway!

After the incident, there was talk about the kid from his classmates, etc. and one of his friends was upset and threatened to "put a cap" in a girl who had said something disparaging about him....so who knows how many other kids this guy infected with his rebellion? Now, most of that state are talking about how to prevent another of those attacks by banning guns, and more treatment programs for the rebellious...My wife had the best suggestion it seemed to me. He should have been stoned to death. then other kids and parents would have heard and possibly changed.

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

what if the elders refuse to carry out the punishment? after all, they might get sued if they stone somebody.

TK

[Guest]

what if the elders refuse to carry out the punishment? after all, they might get sued if they stone somebody.

Possibly a jail term.

[Guest]

Romans 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

I think Paul is talking about becoming dead to the law of sin and death.

I agree.

The analogy seems a bit twisted...because he is talking about the death of the husband, and the wife being then free to marry another. But then he seems to equate us with the dead husband, having died. We died to sin, so that we can live to God.

Actually, that's not what Paul said. Paul states: "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."

Paul (speaking to those who know the law) says that "you also" have become dead to the law, so that they could "marry another", Christ. Marriage is a covenant relationship. The Jews relationship to the law is also a covenant. Paul is stating that a Jewish Christian was to die to the law and come to Christ and the new covenant He established. Now, if one dies to the law and "marries another" namely Christ, then it would be improper to act as though you are still married to your old, dead spouse (in this case, the law).

He seems to be saying that we no longer are in the flesh....because we have died....with Christ, and have been raised with Him too! Now, we have the ability to obey God instead of our sinful flesh and its passions that are against the spirit and at enmity with God!

Again, Paul states the "we" have died to the law, and Paul also states:

Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Paul states that a Jewish Christian who was once under the law is "now" delivered from the law, having died to what they were "held by". The reason Paul gives is so they can now serve in the newness of Spirit and not in the "oldness of the letter".

This seems pretty clear and straightforward. We don't serve God by the law but by the Spirit.

Please consider what Paul has said and thanks for your time and response!

[_Rick_C]

Greetings

I recall, not long ago; Sean, Homer, and I think, Paidion, and I had a thread about: "Who was the "I" in Romans 7?" (or something like that). I'm sure I could relocate and link to it. (Btw, I was just surfing around just now and came to this thread and noticed y'all are talking about this. I also can see the thread is no longer really about the Sabbath).

At any rate, what is sort of odd is that I was actually thinking about Romans 7 when I came here! I remember in our former discussion, which was pretty good, we came to some certain agreements about this passage.

I maintained from the start that the "brothers" in Ro 7:1 was a direct reference to Jewish-Christians. That is, it was not with reference to only those who had some familiarity with the law; the "brothers" targeted the Jewish-believers in Rome. With this, I say the entire chapter is about Jewish-Christians before Christ, and under the law and, quite naturally and obviously, should be interpreted in this context.

Sean, your observations on Romans 7 (here) are good, imo. And, if you can't tell, I'm up for taking this topic up again, which is why I'm posting. I recently discussed this chapter with someone with regard to the Word of Faith teaching. What relevance would the WOF teaching have in terms of this chapter? you may ask.

Well, to go into it would require going past where you've gone in this thread, and on to the "I statements", Ro 7:7b ff.

Briefly, for now (and do you all want to start a new thread?); the "I" Paul mentions is a literary device pointing to "a Jew under the law", imo, as opposed to Paul suddenly shifting from talking about the groups in the Roman church---as with his Jewish-Christian "brothers" in this chapter---and shifting on over to a "present, continuing, spiritual struggle".

Put another way, many a Christian today thinks that we still have a sinful nature (Greek, flesh) dwelling inside us that inhibits us from obeying God and binds us to sin. They cite Romans 7's I-section as a "present, continuing, spiritual struggle" when Paul was writing to Jews in Rome about "a Jew in the past tense" and before being in Christ.

This misreading of the chapter can provide a convenient excuse to choose to sin; as if, we are under the law now, which we are not! And neither was Paul! His "I" was his (proverbial) past self---or any other Jewish-brother in the Roman church---who had formerly been Jewish (and not Christian).

Also, there is a possibility that the letter to the Romans was "evangelistic" in that, it isn't necessarily addressed to believers-only. Paul could have been writing to non-believing Jews, as well as believers, in Romans 7 and the entire book (which is, perhaps, something of an aside).

This chapter is one of the most intricate in the Bible, difficult to interpret. However, tentatively at least, this outlines my interpretation. The more I study it, the more convinced I am that it has essentially nothing to do with a believer's current state (while realizing others disagree, and, probably, a majority of Christians).

What relevance does this have for WOF teaching? If it is true that I have a sinful nature inside me; that Romans 7's "I statements" is Paul's present-tense spiritual struggle (which I can't see how Paul shifts-topics suddenly); then it follows that "I" can also be a current-believer going around being condemned by the law...and that, as a wretched man! No, I don't think this is the case, nor what Saint Paul really meant to convey here!

Anyways....

Sorry if I trailed off-topic but y'all seem to be moving around in the thread.
Do we need a new one?

Thanks for reading,
Rick

[Guest]

Greetings

I recall, not long ago; Sean, Homer, and I think, Paidion, and I had a thread about: "Who was the "I" in Romans 7?" (or something like that). I'm sure I could relocate and link to it.

(Btw, I was just surfing around just now and came to this thread and noticed y'all are talking about this. I also can see the thread is no longer really about the Sabbath).

I think if it can be shown that we don't observe the Jewish law as Christians, then it also shows that we are no longer (or as Gentiles never were) required to keep sabbath.

Sorry if I trailed off-topic but y'all seem to be moving around in the thread. Do we need a new one?

Thanks for reading,
Rick

Sure. Why not start a new thread on Romans 7, or just bump up the old one.