Not Under the Law?

Since making this video, my view of the Bible has changed quite a bit. For more info, see my homepage. Also, check out my other channel: www.youtube.com/AfricansArise

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Torah
• Paul
• Grace
• Law
• Commandments
• Christianity
• Antinomianism
• Messiah
• Covenant
• False
• Apostle
• Galatians
• Bible

[captaincanuck65]

(sorry my posts are always so long!)

[Torahrevival]

That does indeed make sense and thanks for posting. I have no problem with such lengthy posts when they are well thought-out like yours are. Needless to say, I disagree with you on almost every point, but it's good to have opposing views up and then people can evaluate the different perspectives and make their own minds up.

[captaincanuck65]

haha, well i fully expected you to disagree! But I would love to hear or read a full argument about with what specifically you disagree. Seriously, tear my argument apart.

[Torahrevival]

Lol! Honestly, I'm getting more and more pressed for Internet time these days so I won't be able to spend time on 'refuting' your points anytime soon. But keep an eye on my vids and I may in the longer term come back to some of these points.

[king4him]

How do you get that? You made a crazy jump in thoughts when you went to 1 Corinthians. He said to those without Torah, without Torah, NOT BEING WITHOUT TORAH TOWARD ELOHIM, BUT UNDER TORAH OF MESSIAH. How is that teaching AGAINST Torah?

[Torahrevival]

Well, this is an analysis of Paul's belif that believers in Yahoshua are "not under Torah." This was clearly a very central idea for Paul. He used the phrase in at least three of his letters (Galatians, Romans and 1 Corinthians).

By comparing his writings with one another, it seems clear to me that to Paul, "under Torah" meant to be bound to walk in the requirements of Torah. Thus, to him, believers in Yahoshua are not required to do this.

What do you understand by "not under Torah"?

[captaincanuck65]

(continued from below)

The Torah was never intended to be a means unto righteousness in God's eyes, but an outward reflection of the faith that was already there and a constitution for a nation (it came after the promise). Paul still agrees that you need to follow the moral law and live according to those principles not as a means to righteousness but out of love and obedience to Him (which He calls the Torah of Messiah, in other words, Messiah's filled-up Torah). Does that make sense?

[captaincanuck65]

(continued from below)

Jesus said in Matthew 5 that He didn't come to abolish the law/Torah, but to "fill it up" and then went on to talk about the intentions behind the actions (murder/hate, adultery/lust, taking care of your relationships with others before you give an offering to God). And I believe that Paul would agree with Him (and, more importantly, He would agree with Paul). The Torah hasn't been abolished, it has been filled up.

continued

[captaincanuck65]

(continued from below)

I don't think Paul was trying to abolish the Torah, but he recognized that as God's focus had shifted from the nation of Israel to the church (for a time) some of them just don't apply right now. Later, when God finishes with the church and switches His focus back to Israel as a nation and then sets up His theocratic kingdom on earth I think the Torah will apply again (honestly I haven't studied enough eschatology to be confident of this, but I think that's right)

con'd

[captaincanuck65]

(continued from below)

but I'm sure you would agree that putting people to death for their sins isn't something we should be doing today (John 8:1-11) or that we need to burn mildewy clothes any more (Lev 15:47-59). The ceremonial laws were object lessons to teach Israel principles, they pointed to and enforced the moral laws. I believe the dietary laws fit into this based on Acts 10 and especially Peter's vision juxtaposed to the salvation of a gentile.

continued

[captaincanuck65]

(continued from below)

By that, I mean that the Torah (as I see it) has three types of laws, moral, judicial, and ceremonial. The moral laws are based on God's character and apply to all people in all situations. It is always a sin to lie, murder, have idols, etc. The judicial laws were set up to govern a theocratic nation, ruled directly by God or to encourage hygiene while living in the wilderness. I'm not sure when the actual time that these laws stopped applying,

continued

[captaincanuck65]

(Continued from below)

The law (Torah) was established 430 years later to the nation of Israel, but the Mosaic covenant didn't supersede the Abrahamic covenant, it simply adapted it for a time by setting up a constitution and moral guidelines for a nation. (I believe this is Paul's Argument, correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case then it makes sense to me that some of the laws from the Torah don't apply right now.

continued