Is God exempt from his own laws?

[Adullam]

God said...THOU shall not kill...not I shall not kill.

I can drive my car...but a small child may not. Why? Because a child cannot do so safely.

So it is with us. We are not qualified to do what only God can do.

He is the creator therefore He is qualified to destroy. We are NOT the creator so we are NOT qualified to destroy.

 

[Sparkey]

I think you are pushing things too hard here.

The Law of Moses declared some foods unclean.

Jesus declares all foods clean.

Therefore, Jesus is either saying "I disagree with the Law of Moses in respect to the matter of unclean food" or He is saying "I, as God in the flesh, have the right to say that the time of "unclean" foods has come to an end".

I will go with the latter.

I do not see how you can claim that Jesus is not challenging the Law of Moses - at least with respect to food. Food is food. Some foods were forbidden by the Law of Moses. Jesus states otherwise.

I think we are forced to conclude that Jesus is striking down the Law of Moses - at least the food laws, anyway.

Drew? I thought the Pork-Wars were over. Show me biblically where any Jew ate pork and I'll buy your interpretation. Else there is no need to go further than the OP's specific example of murder, okay?

I know you like to complicate things but it really isn't needed. Better to at least try to stay on topic, please.

 

[tig]

I do not agree with the thinking that we all deserve God's love. No, none of us deserve anything from God. Our next breath is by Gods grace.

Which of your children are not deserving of your love? Fortunately it looks like the God of all creation doesn't see it that way (that we are not all deserving of God's grace). We are the apple of his eye. It is for us that all things exist. His will is being done on Earth as it is in Heaven, so nothing is held against us in this lesson of death, after all, he placed us here, it is his good pleasure to rescue us all, but in his own time. Some in the early harvest, but most in the final harvest.

If any Father here on this earth refuses to love his children, then we call that Father unfit. How much more will the one who is righteous not love his children, than we who are evil?

 

[Drew]

Drew? I thought the Pork-Wars were over. Show me biblically where any Jew ate pork and I'll buy your interpretation.

I do not understand why you are asking this question.

I simply pointed out that Jesus challenges at least one aspect of the Law of Moses - the food laws. If we believe that Jesus is "God", such an observation is bang on topic precisely because it shows that Jesus (as God in the flesh) has the "right" to set aside the Law of Moses.

I know you like to complicate things but it really isn't needed.

Einstein once stated: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Better to at least try to stay on topic, please.

My posts are on topic. The topic is "Is God exempt from His Own Laws". Well, the food laws are God's laws. Besides, the OP is clearly directed more broadly than the specific prohibition against murder.

 

[Sparkey]

Which of your children are not deserving of your love? How much more will the one who is righteous not love his children, than we who are evil?

Greetings, tig,

I think you meant to say, "How much more will the one who is righteous love (instead of "not love") his children..." That being the case, your point that children "deserve" love dismisses mondar's main point: The word "deserve" is synomyous with merit. Our actions and behaviors are what determine if we deserve punishment or reward.

Deserve: (according to Dictionary.com)
to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation: to deserve exile; to deserve charity; a theory that deserves consideration.

Of course, mondor will correct me if I'm wrong here but his point wasn't that babies aren't cute but rather that all men have sinned. He was giving evidence for the claim that sinful man can not demand "justice" and expect to live because the price of sin is death; hence, we depend on the goodness of God for our salvation.

 

[Sparkey]

I do not understand why you are asking this question.

I simply pointed out that Jesus challenges at least one aspect of the Law of Moses - the food laws. If we believe that Jesus is "God", such an observation is bang on topic precisely because it shows that Jesus (as God in the flesh) has the "right" to set aside the Law of Moses.


Einstein once stated: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.


My posts are on topic. The topic is "Is God exempt from His Own Laws". Well, the food laws are God's laws. Besides, the OP is clearly directed more broadly than the specific prohibition against murder.

Drew, you included an bifurcation (either/or) statement in your post that many believe is simply false when you said,

Therefore, Jesus is either saying "I disagree with the Law of Moses in respect to the matter of unclean food" or He is saying "I, as God in the flesh, have the right to say that the time of "unclean" foods has come to an end".

At least one more possibility exists. The other, I think more reasonable conclusion, is that Jesus is just saying what you eat goes into the toilet, not into your soul.

Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (KJV)

All in all the proper interpretation, if Jesus also said that Torah stands until the end, is that Jesus was saying non-kosher food won't kill you, but willfully disobeying God will kill you. So he isn't giving a command that Jews go eat in defiance of God, but clarifying that the food had no magical qualities of its own to destroy your soul.

If you insist on bringing the whole "Pork-War" back to life I'd suggest that you do so in another thread.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[tig]

Greetings, tig,

I think you meant to say, "How much more will the one who is righteous love (instead of "not love") his children..." That being the case, your point that children "deserve" love dismisses mondar's main point: The word "deserve" is synomyous with merit. Our actions and behaviors are what determine if we deserve punishment or reward.

Deserve: (according to Dictionary.com)
to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation: to deserve exile; to deserve charity; a theory that deserves consideration.

Of course, mondor will correct me if I'm wrong here but his point wasn't that babies aren't cute but rather that all men have sinned. He was giving evidence for the claim that sinful man can not demand "justice" and expect to live because the price of sin is death; hence, we depend on the goodness of God for our salvation.

What "qualifies" us for God's love are that we are his children. That "situation" that we are in, being the children of the most high God, is why we merit God's love. Yes, we have all sinned, and yes, we partake in what sin brings, but that does not disqualify us for the love that is God's duty, being he is our Father.

Remember it was God who put the two trees in the garden, he takes responsibility for that, and makes sure we get through it. Ours is to give an account, not to rectify.

So, though we all partake in death because we all sin, it does not negate that because of God's own love he gave us the gift of eternal life of which JC is the record. Which is great, because we deserve eternal life because of God's love and no action of our own. That in itself is the assurance we need to stand fast in God's love, and not in any merit we could possibly achieve.

PS- thanks for taking the"not" out of my improperly constructed sentence above.

 

[theLords]

What "qualifies" us for God's love are that we are his children. That "situation" that we are in, being the children of the most high God, is why we merit God's love. Yes, we have all sinned, and yes, we partake in what sin brings, but that does not disqualify us for the love that is God's duty, being he is our Father.

Remember it was God who put the two trees in the garden, he takes responsibility for that, and makes sure we get through it. Ours is to give an account, not to rectify.

So, though we all partake in death because we all sin, it does not negate that because of God's own love he gave us the gift of eternal life of which JC is the record. Which is great, because we deserve eternal life because of God's love and no action of our own. That in itself is the assurance we need to stand fast in God's love, and not in any merit we could possibly achieve.

PS- thanks for taking the"not" out of my improperly constructed sentence above.

I strongly agree. The belief that we have to earn God's love is why so many gravitate to legalism. :bigfrown

 

[Drew]

Drew, you included an bifurcation (either/or) statement in your post that many believe is simply false when you said,
At least one more possibility exists. The other, I think more reasonable conclusion, is that Jesus is just saying what you eat goes into the toilet, not into your soul.

I do not see this as a legitimate possibility.

Of course everything you eat goes into the toilet!

Besides, no Jew ever believed in the idea that "what you eat goes into your soul" - the Jew does not believe in the notion of a disembodied soul.

Jesus is not teaching his audience about human digestion. It is clear that Jesus is addressing the Mosaic laws about unclean food and challenging them.

 

[Drew]

All in all the proper interpretation, if Jesus also said that Torah stands until the end, is that Jesus was saying non-kosher food won't kill you, but willfully disobeying God will kill you.

Nowhere does Jesus really say that the Law of Moses will last forever - I have addressed the statement from Matthew 5 about "the law not passing away" in a post, above.

There is a lot of Biblical evidence that both Jesus and Paul see the written code of the Law of Moses coming to an end at the cross.

If you insist on bringing the whole "Pork-War" back to life I'd suggest that you do so in another thread.

Sorry, the "food issue" issue is clearly on topic.

 

[mondar]

Which of your children are not deserving of your love? Fortunately it looks like the God of all creation doesn't see it that way (that we are not all deserving of God's grace). We are the apple of his eye. It is for us that all things exist. His will is being done on Earth as it is in Heaven, so nothing is held against us in this lesson of death, after all, he placed us here, it is his good pleasure to rescue us all, but in his own time. Some in the early harvest, but most in the final harvest.

If any Father here on this earth refuses to love his children, then we call that Father unfit. How much more will the one who is righteous not love his children, than we who are evil?

tig, do you really want to equate a human father with God? It is a comparison that breaks down completely in so many places. Satan is the father of many, not God. How would you read the following verse?
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

If all man is so lovable, that God simply owes his love to man, and his love is not an act of grace to undeserving sinners, then we does he not love Satan also? Why would God owe humanity his love and not owe Satan? If God owes his love to his creation, he failed with Satan. God provided no redemption for Satan, but only punishment. I am aware that in some theological systems (such as universalism) the love of God will be extended to even Satan, and all demons will also be saved. Are a universalist sir? Sorry, I do not know where you are coming from.

 

[jasoncran]

hmm i havent ponder this too much on god relationship with satan.

so i will say this. God has the right to decide what he will hate and will love. he choose to give man mercy and not angels. its what he said when he says

i will have compasiion upon my i have compassion and mecy..

he doesnt have to forgive us but he chooses to that says a lot of his nature.

 

[felix]

The Law is created by God for man, not God for God. As in Mark 2:27, it speaks about Sabbath (one of the commandments) being created for man. So, God the Father is not under His own law.

However, God the Son is born under the law as in Gal 4:4 to deliver us from the curse of law.

 

[tig]

tig, do you really want to equate a human father with God? It is a comparison that breaks down completely in so many places.

Hello mondar. Human parents are a picture of our true parent, weak, but still an image. So, if we being evil, love our children, then he who is good, will love his children all the more.

Satan is the father of many, not God. How would you read the following verse? John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Good question. One I have looked at many times. The conclusion I have come to is that JC was telling them who they trusted in, or obeyed, which was Satan, which in a sense would be the father they chose.

Like these verses right before the passage you quoted: JC was speaking to the "jews" (sons of abraham) Jn 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

These people JC was talking to were indeed Abraham's children, though not in the sense that they did the things Abraham would do. So as far as being mentally, or obediantly, the children of Abraham, they were not.

And verily that is the next sentence: Verse 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. So JC wasn't telling them who their actual father was, but who it was they were following, as stated here:

Verse 41 Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

And indeed the devil is the father of lies, and tricked mankind into trying to becoming like God through partaking of the knowledge of good and evil. God sent Christ to give them life to partake of, yet they chose to continue partaking of the knowledge of good and evil which brings about death. Just as Abraham was indeed their father, so was God, yet through their actions they proclaimed themselves to be children of neither, but of the devil. Whom they trusted and obeyed was the devil. That one verse you quoted needs to be understood in context.

When one does not know that God is his father, or when one perceives that God is their father for a different reason than the truth, then that one has trusted in a lie, of whom the devil is the father of. We ought always to trust our true father. If the Jews would have done that, then maybe their place had not been taken away, yet this is the way our Heavenly Father willed it to happen, so it was inevitable, like the first unbelieving of God in the beginning, they listened to another other than their Father, and it cost them dearly, yet God worked it out for good (God knew it would happen, and planned it so). He's good at that you know, working seemingly impossible situations out for good.

If all man is so lovable, that God simply owes his love to man, and his love is not an act of grace to undeserving sinners, then we does he not love Satan also? Why would God owe humanity his love and not owe Satan? If God owes his love to his creation, he failed with Satan. God provided no redemption for Satan, but only punishment. I am aware that in some theological systems (such as universalism) the love of God will be extended to even Satan, and all demons will also be saved. Are a universalist sir? Sorry, I do not know where you are coming from.

That's the greatness of the love of God, it surpasses having to be lovable. Why love man? For they are the children of God. What are angels? Hebrews 1: 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? - Angels, whether of satan or God are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for us (mankind) who shall be heirs of salvation. Mankind, not angels, is who God is saving. How does God achieve that? By having his children believe the truth. We can do that now by awakening to the truth JC told us about God (who he is, what he is, and who we are), or like most, we can wait for that truth to be revealed to us at the trump of God, when he wakes up those who are asleep in Christ, when JC comes to take us to the home he has prepared for us at the death of the flesh.

We are made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, and they (the angels) are the ones who minister to us through this lesson of death. Satan is the great angel that tempts man's lust to partake of the knowledge of good and evil, his angels also help in that job. God's angels protect and keep us, from so much as dashing our feet on a stone if it's not God's will. Nothing for the angels to be saved from, they are doing the things they were created to do. Mankind, who is God's children, are the one who shall be heir of salvation.

 

[Free]

Just a friendly reminder that discussion of Universal Reconciliation/Salvation is strictly verboten.

 

[smaller]

tig, do you really want to equate a human father with God? It is a comparison that breaks down completely in so many places. Satan is the father of many, not God. How would you read the following verse?
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

If all man is so lovable, that God simply owes his love to man, and his love is not an act of grace to undeserving sinners, then we does he not love Satan also? Why would God owe humanity his love and not owe Satan? If God owes his love to his creation, he failed with Satan. God provided no redemption for Satan, but only punishment. .

It is perfectly logical and reasonable that when Satan for example spoke through Peter, that God hated and still hates Satan and that God in Christ loved Peter.

Two measures, one man of the flesh.

Connect 'mans' sins to Satan which should be rightfully done and you 'should' recognize that there are two parties involved and they are not the same.

Jesus spoke to 'children of the devil' IN MAN.

It makes zero sense to see the men and the devils that controlled their hearts and minds as the same entities.

In this way every Word of God is FULLY APPLICABLE to 'man' depending on which party is viewing.

The fact that Satan resists this view within believers is pretty much prima fascie evidence that Satan is operational in believers, not ALLOWING them to deal with this fact in a personally applied way.

In this way Calvins view is close, but no horseshoe because he makes no clear cut definition between the parties. Yes, man is totally depraved, but it is because of the overlap of DEVILS.

Logic dictates that Satan is totally depraved and the man wherein Satan is operational is A PAWN, a BLINDED SLAVE of the devil.

You are welcome to do the math logic from there.

There are few, so very few believers that seem to be 'able' to come to grips with this one simple fact it remains amazing to me. The lack of factoring in this matter personally is continually resisted in the 'stiff necked.'

They are so stiff necked because of the presence of the devil within their own hearts.

And in this way they are unreasonable in their doctrines, blind even. Continually justifying themselves and overlooking the fact of the devils presence.

Such is the condition of blinded Pharisees in who the children of the devil resides.

Were any 'believer' speaking factually they would see that there is no justifications for the workings of the devil in them and that when they sin in thought, word or deed, they are in fact SLAVES OF DEVILS. And as such there is NO justifications.

In this way THE LAW stands, secure and FULLY APPLICABLE to the EVIL that resides in the hearts of ALL MANKIND.

God in Christ wrote THE LAW. Believers don't get it. And there is a very logical reason they don't want to hear it, because of the presence of LAWLESSNESS within them all. Not one bit different than the Israelites.

The 'evil in the heart of Israel's people' said 'put it in writing' so we don't have to HEAR GOD SPEAK.

The Words of God's speaking drove the EVIL in their hearts HOG WILD.

So, when God kills man, is God not extracting perfectly LEGAL justifications for doing so?

Absolutely.

enjoy!

s

 

[cyberjosh]

Obeying the commandments is the Israelites' side of the covenant that God made with them. God did not make this covenant with Himself, so why should He obey the others' "side" of the "deal", do you think?

Is it even sensical to ask if God is exempt from the Law? Given that He is the creator and arbiter of morality and the Law, is it even possible for Him to be under it?

My thoughts in response to the OP were exactly along these lines. The Law by nature is something of specific application, namely to mankind, and is particularly crafted as is appropriate for men (such as marriage laws - which would not apply to, say, even angels - and certainly not to God). I would say that God does not require a law (which is an external framework & guide) since God inherently does what is good and righteous to do. All others truths and even human-applied laws derive from God's character and determination of good and evil. If you must speak in terms of law (yet as Paul might have said "I speak as a man" - that is to say in somewhat inadequate human terms) you might say God is a law unto Himself.

But 'law' I believe is something applied to men and not God. There is a moral sense in which Paul sometimes uses the word "law" which speaks of conscience driven convictions of right and wrong based on what God has revealed to man. Perhaps we can say that in some sense that kind of law men derive directly from the mind of God since we are created in His image, and the Holy Spirit - who convicts all men of sin, righteousness, and judgment - is the revealer of the mind of God.

God Bless,
~Josh