Roman 7 starts with the word "Or." So to me that means
that you need to back up and get some contextual
clues. I took the time to read Chp. 7 in three
translations(NIV, NASB, and Complete Jewish). And I
read the entire book of Romans. I couldn't stop
reading (only in one tranlation).
In chapter 6 it is talking about being dead to sin and
alive to Christ. In chp. 7 it continues that thought
pattern. There are two different laws talked about in
Chapter 7. One is the law of sin and the other is the
Torah. We are not dead to Torah we are dead to the law
of sin. Look at verse 12. "So then, the Law (Torah) is
holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and
good." Keep reading. Vr 13- Therefore did that which
is good become a cause of death for me? May it never
be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown
to be sin by effecting my death through that which is
good, so that through the commandement sin would
become utterly sinful.
In other words, the Torah points out one's sin and
makes them understand how horrible it is.
Chp. 7 continues on to describe the battle between the
law of sin which controls the body and Torah which
controls the mind.
Vr 25- "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our
Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind
am serving the LAW OF GOD (Torah), but on the other,
with my flesh the law of sin.
It is the law of sin that is bondage not the Law of
God.
Your question about the woman.... Of course she would
not be held to follow the law of adultry after her
husband has died. Just as we are not to held to follow
the law of sin because Christ died and we too die to
the LAW OF SIN.
Suzy
--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > I see one covenant. God's covenant with man, begun
> with Abraham, amended
> > with Moses, Again amended with David. Jeremiah
> prophesied a renewal, as
> > did Isaiah, etc. That renewal was accomplished
> through Yeshua. The "New
> > Covenant" is not new, it is Renewed.
>
> On what basis are you confident that the "New
> Covenant" is a "Renewed
> Covenant" and not new? I recognize that this is an
> assumption made by
> Messianics and Nazarenes, but is this only an
> assumption on your part, or is
> there some argument that has convinced you that
> "Renewed" is the proper
> translation and understanding?
>
> Did you see my post about Romans 7 where Sha'ul
> speaks of it being adultery
> to be bound to both the Torah and to Christ at the
> same time?
>
> Romans 7:3-6
> (3) So then, if while her husband is living she is
> joined to another man,
> she shall be called an adulteress; but if her
> husband dies, she is free from
> the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she
> is joined to another
> man.
> (4) Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to
> die to the Law through the
> body of Christ, so that you might be joined to
> another, to Him who was
> raised from the dead, in order that we might bear
> fruit for God.
> (5) For while we were in the flesh, the sinful
> passions, which were aroused
> by the Law, were at work in the members of our body
> to bear fruit for death.
> (6) But now we have been released from the Law,
> having died to that by which
> we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the
> Spirit and not in oldness
> of the letter.
>
> I had asked in that post if Slade considered a widow
> who had married another
> man to have a "renewed" marriage contract or a new
> one. Maybe you can
> answer this question for me, and perhaps you also
> can exegete the passage
> above (Rom. 7:3-6). Perhaps you have another
> translation you think is
> better. I have the Hebraic Roots Version by James
> Trimm and some other
> translations that I can consult too.
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > Sorry David, but Cut and Paste Theology is
> perfected in the church and
> > allows it's practitioners to distort almost any
> passage of scripture and
> > make it say anything when it is removed from it's
> original context.
>
> Oh, come on Jeff, be a man. If you think that I
> have taken something out of
> context, say that. Don't make me infer it by saying
> that such theology is
> perfected in the church. If you think that I have
> yanked something out of
> context, say that and then explain the context.
> Make your case. Comments
> like this paragraph above are nothing but a smoke
> screen and say absolutely
> nothing. I have done no "Cut and Paste" theology.
> I argue as the apostles
> argued in New Testament times: It is written...
> You need to do a little
> more "It is written" style argument here. Nobody is
> going to just take your
> word for it on this matter.
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > I do not accept that. Gen 17, see Acts 15. God's
> Holy Word, not mine!
>
> Put Acts 15 in the context of Hebrews who venerated
> the Torah. How can Acts
> 15 be true unless we understand covenants and
> recognize that we are talking
> about two covenants?
>
> I asked you previously to look at the Galatians 4
> passage and tell me
> whether or not you accept that there are two
> covenants. You reply that you
> only see one covenant. Please, then, exegete the
> following passage:
>
> Galatians 4:19-31
> (19) My little children, of whom I travail in birth
> again until Christ be
> formed in you,
> (20) I desire to be present with you now, and to
> change my voice; for I
> stand in doubt of you.
> (21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do
> ye not hear the law?
> (22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons,
> the one by a bondmaid,
> the other by a freewoman.
> (23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after
> the flesh; but he of the
> freewoman was by promise.
> (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the
> two covenants; the one
> from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage,
> which is Agar.
> (25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and
> answereth to Jerusalem
> which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> (26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is
> the mother of us all.
> (27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that
> bearest not; break forth
> and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate
> hath many more children
> than she which hath an husband.
> (28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the
> children of promise.
> (29) But as then he that was born after the flesh
> persecuted him that was
> born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
> (30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out
> the bondwoman and her
> son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir
> with the son of the
> freewoman.
> (31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the
> bondwoman, but of the
> free.
>
> What I see in this passage is Paul pointing us to
> two women: Hagar and
> Sarah. Sarah was the freewoman. Her slave was
> Hagar, whom she made to be
> Abraham's wife. Later, Abraham had to kick Hagar
> and her son out of his
> household. Paul argues that this historical event
> is an allegory that
> represents two covenants. The one covenant was from
> mount Sinai, and it
> "gendereth to bondage" or leads to bondage... the
> heavy yoke spoken about in
> Acts 15. Hagar's being a slave represents this
> bondage. Paul continues to
> point out that the city of Jerusalem is represented
> by this woman Hagar. At
> this time, Jerusalem was in bondage to Rome. The
> Jews there also were in
> bondage to the law; hence Paul's terminology in
> addressing them, "you who
> desire to be under the law." Now the historical
> lesson here is that Hagar
> and her son Ishmael persecuted Sarah and her son
> Issac, which resulted in
> Abraham having to cast out the bondwoman Hagar and
> her son Ishmael. Even so
> it is now, that those of the covenant of Sinai
> persecute the followers of
> Christ, even though they have the same father. Now
> as Abraham had to cast
> out the woman Hagar and her son, so must the
> talmidim of Christ cast out
> those of the covenant of Sinai. We are of the
> freewoman, Sarah, and like
> her child Issac, and of the heavenly Jerusalem which
> is above all.
>
> I might add something Paul did not. The allegory
> can be extended further in
> understanding that just as Hagar and her son were
> blessed, so also would
> those of the covenant of Sinai continue to be
> blessed. The problem is that
> they cannot continue side by side because they are
> of different covenants.
> Those of the covenant of law persecute those of the
> covenant of promise.
>
> Now please understand that saying that the covenant
> of law is obsolete is
> not the same thing as saying that the law is
> obsolete. I believe like you
> do that the law will not pass away until heaven and
> earth pass away (Mat.
> 5:17-20). Furthermore, I believe that we need to
> teach
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
