Bible Study Let No Man Judge You

[wavy]

***under revision***

 

[yesha]

These verses are usually taken to mean that because of grace and atonement and forgiveness in verse 13, we no longer need the Torah and it is nailed to the cross in verse 14. Messiah has spiritually destroyed and brought the big, bad “law†of Moses and Jewish rulers that are preaching their terrible, old bondage ways of Torah to nothing and has conquered them (kind of silly since I see no particular reason to get excited that Messiah is overcoming his own Torah and people). So we are not to let fleshly Jews try to “Judaize†us into keeping the burdensome, weak “law†by saying we have to keep the big, bad Sabbaths, and detestable new moons and “Jewishâ€Â, fable feasts and adhere to repulsive kosher food laws. Why? Because these things were nothing but an ol’ raggedy shadow and we have the real “substanceâ€Â, which is Messiah. These shadows, although Yahweh gave them and called them sacred, are really the evil, carnal “doctrines of menâ€Â.

When you first read these passages, was it this viewpoint, or your's that you understood from these passages?

Do you see this viewpoint as a reasonable interpretation of these passages or is your own interpretation the only reasonable one?

Is there a bible translation that translates these passages is an acceptable way to you?

Are you affiliated with any particular denomination of Christianity?

How do you feel your views are different from the Jewdaisers, who apparently had an agenda to make gentile Christians obey OT Law? For example requiring them to be circumcised.

David Stern, a Messianic Jew, writes in his commentary for Col 2:16, "Don't let anyone pass judgement on your in connection with optional matters. Gentile believers are free to observe or not to observe rules about dining and Jewish holidays, as is clear from Romans 14&NN, 1 Corinthians 8&NN.

I agree completely with this quote, and I think it represents the common understanding of this passage. It is not a passage about doing away with the Law, or however you put it, but rather about being free from the law. So a Christian is quite free to observe the Laws of Moses, as they are quite free not to. But of course they are not free to sin, but must live under Christ's law, which fulfills the Mosaic Law.

Here we see Paul, not living like a Jew, when it best serves Christ.

1 Cor 9:20-21
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
(NIV)

 

[wavy]

When you first read these passages, was it this viewpoint, or your's that you understood from these passages?

When I first read them, being unlearned and having a bias taught from childhood that the Torah was "done away", of course that was my viewpoint.

Do you see this viewpoint as a reasonable interpretation of these passages or is your own interpretation the only reasonable one?

No. Not from a critical standpoint. For somebody who was just as ignorant I was, I could understand why they would interpret it that way. But the fact of the matter is is that that interpretation, imo, is dead wrong.

Is there a bible translation that translates these passages is an acceptable way to you?

Not really. I just know not to trust the English. The LITV translates it pretty acceptable though. Young's Literal...

Are you affiliated with any particular denomination of Christianity?

No. I consider myself a Nazarene.

How do you feel your views are different from the Jewdaisers, who apparently had an agenda to make gentile Christians obey OT Law? For example requiring them to be circumcised.

The Jews like the Galatian heretics added man-made traditions to Torah and reversed the order of the gospel by saying one was saved by first being circumcised and obeying all of Torah. The true order is Messiah justifies first. Then circumcision and Torah obedience ensue after learning and understanding, such as the nations in the synagogues on the shabbat learning from Torah (Acts 15:21).

David Stern, a Messianic Jew, writes in his commentary for Col 2:16, "Don't let anyone pass judgement on your in connection with optional matters. Gentile believers are free to observe or not to observe rules about dining and Jewish holidays, as is clear from Romans 14&NN, 1 Corinthians 8&NN.

David Stern, imho, is in error. That is his opinion on the matter in Colossians. Also, I believe 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 have nothing to do with that. I attempted to make that clear from my study on clean/unclean foods. If you have not read it, then you could to get my viewpoint of the situation. Answer (of course, your choice) that study and then we could get further concerning it. I'm not particularly fond of commentary (no offense) unless it directly addresses a point I have made.

If what Stern he says is true, then Paul had no right to judge the Galatians.

I agree completely with this quote, and I think it represents the common understanding of this passage.

I don't believe things "common" have anything to do with truth. Be honest. Did I present a plausbile case, or not? Can you answer it or explain why I am wrong?

It is not a passage about doing away with the Law, or however you put it, but rather about being free from the law.

So basically it's done away. This, to me, is a clever play on words (no offense). I explained why this passage is not talking about Torah, but the commandments and doctrines of men. Is Torah from Yahweh or men?

So a Christian is quite free to observe the Laws of Moses, as they are quite free not to. But of course they are not free to sin, but must live under Christ's law, which fulfills the Mosaic Law

.

There's no indication in scripture that Messiah's Torah is any different from Yahweh's through Moses. He said all things were delivered to him by the Father (Luke 10:22).

Here we see Paul, not living like a Jew, when it best serves Christ.

1 Cor 9:20-21
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

I am wary of the phrase "(though I myself am not under the law)". It does not appear in the KJV.

21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
(NIV)

Here is where we need to ponder. He said he was not free from Yahweh's Torah, but was under/subject to it for the Messiah. This passage has nothing to do with Paul hypocritcally acting like other people so he can win souls. The context is slavery (verse 19) to all men. He becomes a servant to these various types of people. Paul made it clear that he was a Jew (Acts 22:3; Romans 11:1; Galatians 2:15; Philippians 3:5) and that he was blameless concerning the Torah (Philippians 3:6).

 

[guibox]

wavy,

Check out my take on this Colossians passage here:

Not the law but the record of our sins

 

[Heidi]

If the Torah should be kept, then what did Christ do? Anything? :o

Wavy, how do you interpret; "Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial"?

 

[wavy]

guibox, I understood everything but this here:

But doesn’t it also say that “these are a shadow of things to come and the body is of Christ�

The “these†that the verse refers to is not to the five practices mentioned, but the ‘regulations’ put on them. Here are the two main reasons why:

1) The issue in verse 16 is not on the validity of the practices, but on the judgin of how to keep thee days. It logically follows the the se in vs 17 still refers to that issue

2) After verse 17, Paul again talks against the regulations ansd ascetic practices that keep people away from the forgiveness of Christ.

Logically, seeing as the “these†is preceded and followed by counsel against the regulations put upon the people, the “these†is referring to those regulations. This is made more meaningful in the context of Christ's forgiveness in the previous verses.

Paul is saying, "Why do you serve your body and your gods? Christ has forgiven you! You don't need all these rituals and philosophies of your so called 'leaders'! Christ is the body of it all. All you need is Him!"

Could you explain in more detail? It was pretty good and interesting with some of the points you bring up.

If the Torah should be kept, then what did Christ do? Anything? :o

Why must Torah have to do anything with his coming (other than his purifying it from man's traditions and keeping it himself and teaching it)?

Let me ask you another question: If we are not supposed to kill, then what did Christ do? Anything?

Wavy, how do you interpret; "Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial"?

Grey areas of Torah. The passage in Corinthians where he says this has nothing to do with Torah commandments.

 

[yesha]

wavy,

I would like to thank you for answering my question thus far.
I still have a way to go on just this post, and to keep post sizes down, I'll just address one point for now.

Since sin is defined by transgressing Torah (1Jn. 3:4), and since where there is no Torah, there is no offence (Rom. 4:15), verse 14 cannot be talking about Torah being removed or blotted out. Also, specifically in the Torah from the words of the righteous Yahweh himself, Torah was for our good (if we kept it), not against us. But what is exactly is this manuscript or document (Strong’s #5498, cheirographon) of decrees that was against us?

I would think that OT law is what is in view. Or more specifically the condemnation that OT law brings with it. OT law is of course not blotted out, but since people are no longer under the law, the condemnation that the law brings with it is blotted out, or one's "sin debt" is blotted out.

Rom 7:6
6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
(NIV)

Eph 2:15
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
(NIV)

I believe Paul was clearly alluding to Num. 5:23 concerning the law of jealousy. From verses 12-31, this law describes what is to be carried out when a man suspects his wife of cheating and he becomes jealous. He would then take her to the priests along with an offering. One of the priest would then put water into a bowl and put dust into it for the woman to drink. He declares the curses of the woman if she has been unfaithful and writes them onto a scroll and then blots them out with the water. If she is unfaithful and drinks the water, her belly will swell and her thigh will rot. If she drinks the water and has been faithful, nothing will happen. This is what Messiah did to all of Israel as her husband. We were all guilty of unfaithfulness, however. Yet when he died on the cross, he took those curses and blotted them out (interesting also how water came from his side; could be a representative of the water that blotted out the curses of the woman on the scroll) giving us a clean slate and forgiving us of trespasses, affirmed by verse 13. The husband (Yahweh) was jealous for his bride (Israel) and found a way to blot out the curses that condemned us.

The curses that condemned us, of course being the law. But you say it's can't be the Law, don't you?

Gal 3:10
10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
(NIV)

Gal 3:13
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."
(NIV)

Rom 7:10
10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
(NIV)

 

[wavy]

I would think that OT law is what is in view. Or more specifically the condemnation that OT law brings with it. OT law is of course not blotted out, but since people are no longer under the law, the condemnation that the law brings with it is blotted out, or one's "sin debt" is blotted out.

Exactly. "under the law" refers to the law of sin (in our flesh, Torah condemned us). Our sin is blotted out, not the Torah.

Rom 7:6
6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
(NIV)

Not in the letter (meaning legalistically), but in Spirit-filled obedience (Ezekiel 36:27).

Eph 2:15
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
(NIV)

The NIV has translated this verse inaccurately, imo, once again based upon the biased views of the translators. What he abolished was the law of commandments in decrees (the Greek word being properly "dogma"). What was destroyed was enmity and extrabiblical, man-made concepts such as the outer court of the gentiles and things specifically like what Peter mentioned in Acts 10:28. What is contained in the Torah is called "covenants of promise" in verse 12. So these commandments contained in dogma was not Torah. Torah never separated Jew from gentile. Strangers were and are always free to be one with Israel, no different than a native (Leviticus 19:33-34).

The curses that condemned us, of course being the law. But you say it's can't be the Law, don't you?

The Torah cursed us, but it is not the curse.

Gal 3:10
10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
(NIV)

That is not how that verse properly reads, as far as I can tell. More twisted text. It should read (literally), "for as many as are out of works of law are under a curse". Talking about the "works of law" group from James that preached salvation by Torah and man's dogmas added on it.

But again, it is still true. We must not rely on observance of any law or work any work to merit salvation or right standing.

Gal 3:13
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."
(NIV)

From the curse of the Torah, not the Torah itself. Titus 2:14 tells us Messiah has redeemed us from "iniquity" (the Greek word being anomia, meaning "violation of law").

Paul quotes the Torah here in Galatians. He is not quoting Torah against Torah as in "the Torah says you are under a curse so don't try to keep it". He's using this scripture against the "works of law" group.

Rom 7:10
10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
(NIV)

Because we broke it, being fleshly sinners. This verse proves Torah was for life and for good. How we acted upon it is the problem, not the Torah itself.

 

[yesha]

Exactly. "under the law" refers to the law of sin (in our flesh, Torah condemned us). Our sin is blotted out, not the Torah.

Good. We're getting closer to an understanding.
Let me ensure that I understand your position.
You believe that Christian are under OT law, except that they are not subject to the curses of OT law because Jesus freed them from the curses, but not from the law.

My position is that Christians are not under OT law therefore the curses of OT are not applicable. There are, it feels like endless, scripture that back this up, which must have taken you a long time to reinterpret in order to fit you view. How did you come to believe what you believe? Did someone teach you, or is it from your own study. Clearly, since no translation seems adequate to back up your positions, perhaps this may have come from your greek studies? Since I'm not greek literate, it may be a while, before I can read the same scriptures you are. Perhaps you should consider making a translation, the way you feel is correct, so that people may see what you see.

Rom 7:6
6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
(NIV)

Not in the letter (meaning legalistically), but in Spirit-filled obedience (Ez. 36:27).

I don't quite follow your position here. By saying "Not in the letter" do you mean that we are not released from the law?

Here is another scripture. How do you interpret this to mean we are under OT law?

Rom 7:1-4
1 Do you not know, brothers-- for I am speaking to men who know the law-- that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?
2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
(NIV)

 

[wavy]

Good. We're getting closer to an understanding.
Let me ensure that I understand your position.
You believe that Christian are under OT law, except that they are not subject to the curses of OT law because Jesus freed them from the curses, but not from the law.

Kinda. We can still be cursed if we fall away from Messiah and true Torah. It's still applicable that one is cursed if they do not continue in all things written in the book of Torah to do them (as a lifestyle).

My position is that Christians are not under OT law therefore the curses of OT are not applicable. There are, it feels like endless, scripture that back this up, which must have taken you a long time to reinterpret in order to fit you view. How did you come to believe what you believe? Did someone teach you, or is it from your own study. Clearly, since no translation seems adequate to back up your positions, perhaps this may have come from your greek studies? Since I'm not greek literate, it may be a while, before I can read the same scriptures you are. Perhaps you should consider making a translation, the way you feel is correct, so that people may see what you see.

I'm no, Greek or Hebrew scholar, but I am learning (a little; I try to study things out fairly, consulting encyclopedias and the internet and books and some of my Greek speaking friends). But what I know comes from studying different things. Debating different theologies. Seeing which one holds up with the scripture. My dad has taught me a lot too.

So tell me what you mean by this:

"There are, it feels like endless, scripture that back this up, which must have taken you a long time to reinterpret in order to fit you view."

Are you saying I have made or twisted these scriptures to fit my view? Because I believe just the opposite. Since it has been taught so long by Christendom that the "law" is "done away with" and they take you to the passages that they think prove it, people have just accepted it. Anything different would seemingly be twisting traditional interpretation of the texts. But I am erasing all of that and starting anew. And I have shown, at least I think I have, a reasonable case as to how Christianity has been wrong for a long time. Now on to your question below.

I don't quite follow your position here. By saying "Not in the letter" do you mean that we are not released from the law?

What I mean is that the "old way of the letter" does not mean free from what is written (Paul quotes what is written many times), but without a legalistic approach. Doing it to gain or save or just to boast about what you've done, being in the flesh or as a reason to reject Messiah.

Here is another scripture. How do you interpret this to mean we are under OT law?

Rom 7:1-4
1 Do you not know, brothers-- for I am speaking to men who know the law-- that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?
2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
(NIV)

Simple. This is talking about the law of a husband (not the whole Torah, but only this aspect found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Israel, being an unfaithful and adulterous bride, was divorced from Yahweh (Jeremiah 3:8) and could not be reconciled to Yahweh based on his own law (check Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Jeremiah 3:1). Because of Messiah's death, the wife (Israel) could be forgiven and taken back because the husband died. This releases her from the law of a husband so she could be married to Yahweh again. So in context, being "dead to the law" (also keep in mind that a single reference to "law" does not always mean the whole "Torah" or even the Torah at all sometimes as anti-Torah teachers want it to be) is being dead to the law of a husband in order for divorced Israel to remarry. This is seen in verse 4.

Also, you keep saying "under the law" as if that means keeping it. But it does not. Do a study on being "under the law" and you will find that it only refers to those who are in sin and without atonement

 

[guibox]

Eph 2:15
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
(NIV)

The NIV has translated this verse inaccurately, once again based upon the biased views of the translators. What he abolished was the law of commandments in decrees (the Greek word being properly "dogma"). What was destroyed was enmity and extrabiblical, man-made concepts such as the outter court of the gentiles and things specifically like what Peter mentioned in Acts 10:28. What is contained in the Torah is called "covenants of promise" in verse 12. So these commandments contained in dogma was not Torah.

Yes, and Ephesians 2:15 cannot be read back into Colossians 2 as the former is talking about man made laws being abolished and the latter speaks of the 'chairographon', the 'written record of our sins' that is nailed to the cross. So many people try to fit the two together to say that the Sabbath was abolished. These texts say no such thing.

guibox, I understood everything but this here in bold:

But doesn’t it also say that “these are a shadow of things to come and the body is of Christ�

The “these†that the verse refers to is not to the five practices mentioned, but the ‘regulations’ put on them. Here are the two main reasons why:

1) The issue in verse 16 is not on the validity of the practices, but on the judgin of how to keep thee days. It logically follows the the se in vs 17 still refers to that issue

2) After verse 17, Paul again talks against the regulations ansd ascetic practices that keep people away from the forgiveness of Christ.

Logically, seeing as the “these†is preceded and followed by counsel against the regulations put upon the people, the “these†is referring to those regulations. This is made more meaningful in the context of Christ's forgiveness in the previous verses.

Paul is saying, "Why do you serve your body and your gods? Christ has forgiven you! You don't need all these rituals and philosophies of your so called 'leaders'! Christ is the body of it all. All you need is Him!"

Could you explain in more detail? It was pretty good and interesting with some of the points you bring up.

Everybody tries to say that the Sabbath is 'the shadow of things to come'. I was saying above that the 'these' is not referring to the 'days, moons, sabbaths' but to the strict regulations put upon these festivals by the pagan leaders. The reason is linguistic as I pointed out above, but also logical.

The issue here in this verse is not the Torah, but forgiveness of Christ and the feebleness of trying to gain justification through ascetic rituals or fasting and feasting, or angelic worship as the people were being judged to do by the leaders. Paul was saying that as far as forgiveness goes, they are merely shadows. Christ is the reality of justification and forgiveness. Because our sins were 'nailed to the cross', we have been truly forgiven so no 'principalities and powers' can hold them over us. There is no need for ritualistic cleansing or trying to get closer to God through rituals and ascetic practices.

His forgiveness realized saves us from it. All of the verses in the context of the rest of the chapter harmonizes with this view. To throw the issue of the validity of the Torah in it is to remove the context that Paul was putting this in.

Remember that there is no order to not judge on NOT keeping those days (i.e., don't let anyone judge you for NOT keeping them). The keeping of these days was already a given. The condemnation wasn't even against those keeping the days. The condemnation was against the rulers who were judging the people on HOW they were being kept.

 

[yesha]

Kinda. We can still be cursed if we fall away from Messiah. It's still applicable that one is cursed if they do not continue in all things written in the book of Torah to do them (as a lifestyle).

So Jesus free's us from the curses of OT law, unless they fail to do everything OT law commands? I assume by this you mean that Jesus free's us from the curses of OT law by allowing us to keep all the OT laws, or something to that affect?

I'm no, Greek or Hebrew scholar, but I am learning (a little; I try to study things out fairly, consulting encyclopedias and the internet and books). But what I know comes from studying different things. Debating different theologies. Seeing which one holds up with the scripture. My dad has taught me a lot too.

What encyclopedias do you use? Which books support your position?

I've been told that a little greek is worse then no greek.
Since, as you say, no english translation uphold you views, and one must look to the greek, if you are not fluent in the greek, how can you trust your interpretations of it?

So tell me what you mean by this:

"There are, it feels like endless, scripture that back this up, which must have taken you a long time to reinterpret in order to fit you view."

Surely you know what I mean. You've already said that your reading was not your initial reading of the texts. It is not just a few verses that support not being under OT law, at some point you came to a new view, and the first step to testing this view is to see how it holds up to the scriptures, and there are a lot of scriptures that need to be reinterpreted in light of this view.

Are you saying I have made or twisted these scriptures fit my view?

Those words are a little harsh, as all interpretations are subjective (apparently), but clearly, as I see it, you are interpreting the scriptures in light of your view. For example...

Rom 7:1-2
1 Do you not know, brothers-- for I am speaking to men who know the law-- that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?
2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
(NIV)

Simple. This is talking about the law of a husband (not the whole Torah, but only this aspect found in Deut. 24).

This verse is not talking about the law of a husband, but the whole law. The law of the husband is just an example of this principal - of which, by the way, I thought you gave a insightful interpretation.

 

[wavy]

So Jesus free's us from the curses of OT law, unless they fail to do everything OT law commands? I assume by this you mean that Jesus free's us from the curses of OT law by allowing us to keep all the OT laws, or something to that affect?

Yahshua freed divorced Israel as a nation from the curses placed upon them by Torah. As to how you as an individual should walk, if you fall away from Torah again and begin the sin Messiah died for (as a lifestyle) then you are cursed all over again and continue to crucify Messiah. The man that does the Torah shall live in them (meaning he'll live his life in full committment to them; Leviticus 18:5).

What encyclopedias do you use? Which books support your position?

I use a lot. And I don't think books necessarily support my position (theologically), but certain elements used in proving my position are the help.

I've been told that a little greek is worse then no greek.
Since, as you say, no english translation uphold you views, and one must look to the greek, if you are not fluent in the greek, how can you trust your interpretations of it?

I don't, really. I have a few friends who know it. I consult them. Strong's Concordance is useful also.

It is not just a few verses that support not being under OT law,

What being "under the law" is has to be defined first. Because I agree that we are not "under the law".

Those words are a little harsh, as all interpretations are subjective (apparently), but clearly, as I see it, you are interpreting the scriptures in light of your view. For example...

[quote:68b4a]Rom 7:1-2
1 Do you not know, brothers-- for I am speaking to men who know the law-- that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?
2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
(NIV)

Simple. This is talking about the law of a husband (not the whole Torah, but only this aspect found in Deut. 24).

This verse is not talking about the law of a husband, but the whole law.[/quote:68b4a]

How? How is that proven? It can if we want it to be. The end of verse 2 tells us what it is talking about: law of husband. The context fits this and it is all tied together in verse 4. How is the "whole law" represented in light of the context of these verses?

The law of the husband is just an example of this principal - of which, by the way, I thought you gave a insightful interpretation.

Why use the law of husband though? He didn't have to use one aspect of the Torah to say we don't have to keep all Torah. That'd be kinda inconsistent if you ask me. If his point was that all Torah is "dead" to us, then he would have just said it. He does not need to use the law of husband to make that example.

 

[yesha]

Yahshua free divorced Israel as a nation from the curses placed upon them by Torah. As to how you as an individual should walk, if you fall away from Torah again and begin the sin Messiah died for (as a lifestyle) then you are cursed all over again. The man that does the Torah shall live in them (meaning he'll live his life in full committment to them; Leviticus 18:5).

So the curses for the nation are no more, but individual curses still stand?
It sounds like you believe Christ did little more then do a one time forgiveness of sins?
But that's what John the baptist did, Jesus did something more.

What being "under the law" is has to be defined first. Because I agree that we are not "under the law".

Yes, I was curious about your definition aswell. I understand under the law to refer to someone who's under the law... that is to say that they are subject to law and it's consequences.

How? How is that proven? The end of verse 2 tells us what it is talking about: law of husband. The context fits this and it is all tied together in verse 4. How is the "whole law" represented in light of the context of these verses?

I'm not sure how to answer this. Just a plain reading gives us these points.

1) Law only applies to someone who is alive.
2) You have died to the Law, there for it no longer has authority over you.

And to prove the point Paul uses an example of how at death, one is released from the law of marriage = they are bound to the law. Therefore the believers are no longer under the law that brings death, but belong to Christ.

Rom 7:1-2
1 Do you not know, brothers-- for I am speaking to men who know the law-- that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?
2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
..
4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
(NIV)

Why use the law of husband though? He didn't have to use one aspect of the Torah to say we don't have to keep all Torah. That'd be kinda inconsistent if you ask me.

He uses the law of the husband, to show that law doesn't apply when someone dies. The law demonstrates being bound to something, and being freed from this by death. He uses the law, because he is speaking to "men who know the law". So those who know the law, will understand that they are not under it's authority if they are in Christ.

If his point was that all Torah is "dead" to us, then he would have just said it. He does not need to use the law of husband to make that example.

He did say, "you died to the law", I think that's pretty clear.

 

[wavy]

So the curses for the nation are no more, but individual curses still stand?
It sounds like you believe Christ did little more then do a one time forgiveness of sins?
But that's what John the baptist did, Jesus did something more.

My mind is spinning with all these questions, but I think I understand what you are saying now and what to answer. As a nation, yes we are redeemed. As individuals we are redeemed. As a nation we keep Torah (or once again be cursed) and as individuals we keep Torah, or be cursed individually.

I do not think the first will happen, based off biblical prophecy, but for individuals, we can "fall away" by disobedience and refuse to live our lives in full commitment to learning and heeding the Torah, as well as the rest of the scriptures. They make us "wise unto salvation" as Paul stated to Timothy.

Yes, I was curious about your definition aswell. I understand under the law to refer to someone who's under the law... that is to say that they are subject to law and it's consequences.

Not in my opinion. Being "under the law" is clearly defined as being declared a sinner by the Torah so that you may become guilty before Yahweh (and thus in need of a Redeemer; Romans 3:19-22). We become "under the law" only because of our sin, not if we keep it. But by believing in Messiah's atonement and trusting in Yahweh alone to impute righteousness to us (of course, through Messiah) then we can be in full committment to obeying Yahweh without being cursed. This is walking in the Spirit and not in the letter, which kills.

I'm not sure how to answer this. Just a plain reading gives us these points.

1) Law only applies to someone who is alive.
2) You have died to the Law, there for it no longer has authority over you.

But this isn't the context. The context is us being "married to Another" in verse 4, which we couldn't do before because we were under the law (that is, condemned by its sin).

And to prove the point Paul uses an example of how at death, one is released from the law of marriage = they are bound to the law. Therefore the believers are no longer under the law that brings death, but belong to Christ.

Remember the context of the previous chapter (being "free from sin" in Romans 6:22). The Torah had dominion over us because we were sinners. So if we are made dead to it by the death of Messiah, it cannot condemn us. Keeping it has nothing to do with the context.

He uses the law of the husband, to show that law doesn't apply when someone dies. The law demonstrates being bound to something, and being freed from this by death. He uses the law, because he is speaking to "men who know the law". So those who know the law, will understand that they are not under it's authority if they are in Christ.

The context is sin. He mentions those who are not subject to his Torah in Romans 8:7. Authority (that merits obedience to it) has nothing to do with the context. Authority over you as you are a sinner in the flesh is the context. We are delivered and free from sin by Messiah's death, allowing us, the bride to be married again to him in right standing, unlike before. This is clear to me. Listen to Paul's outcry at the end of this chapter:

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Not "who shall deliver me from keeping the Torah?". Death because of breaking the Torah by your fleshly nature is the problem. Keeping it under the atonement of Messiah is walking in the Spirit, being free from death. If this means the Torah is done away, then by definition we cannot be married to Messiah again because marriage is sanctified only in Torah. The key here is being under sin, unable to remarry and thus, doomed. So we become dead to the law (in context of a husband) by the death of Messiah. We were free from the Torah that said we are unable to marry again to Yahweh because of our sin and defilement. I mean, it may not be there to you based on your own personal biases, but it is right there for me.

He did say, "you died to the law", I think that's pretty clear.

To the law of a husband, in context, because of sin. I made it clear that "law" is not always referring to the five books of Moses, which are called "Torah". Please read above. You have to already be biased against Torah to make this reference to being "dead to the law" a release from obedience to Torah, which is not the context. Being a sinner that breaks Torah and needs deliverance is the context.

 

[wavy]

I have taken more consideration into what you are saying. Let's say, for example, that Paul did use the law of husband to explain how we were "dead to the law" (the whole Torah) and to show how the Torah does not have dominion over us.

In what way? In obedience to it? I think we can both soundly conclude that Paul was not arguing against obedience to Torah, but against justification by works without atonement and against those who would try to put us "under the law" to be justified.

He says we are not "under law" (in the context of sin) in Romans 6:14-15. The point is clear in verse 14: "sin shall have no dominion over you because you are not under law, but under grace". Why doesn't sin have this dominion? Because through atonement Yahweh has forgiven us by the graceful act of that atonement. No amount of good works will make up for our sin. Only Yahweh-shua's imputed righteousness can.

But Paul also makes it clear at the beginning of Romans 6:15-16 that we should not sin again (transgress Torah; 1 John 3:4) because of grace. That's why we need grace in the first place. He says "how are we who are dead to sin live any longer therein?" ( Romans 6:2). We yield ourselves back to obedience (Romans 6:16) to Yahweh because of that grace. Then he continues on how we are free from sin (which is the meaning of not being "under the law") and makes an example beginning in Romans 7:1.

The Torah has dominion over a man as long as he lives (the "he" being Messiah; Romans 7:1).

Romans 7:2 explains that a married woman is bound by Torah to her husband as long as the husband lives (the key here is being bound to a husband by the Torah, not bound to Torah). So after he dies, she is free to marry some one else (by Torah).

Romans 7:3 then explains that if the first husband lives and she becomes married to another man (after the divorce from the first husband) then she is an adulteress. I believe this first husband represents Yahweh. As I said, he divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8) and could not take her back by his own law (Jeremiah 3:1). So if she tries to marry another man while the former husband lives (become married again to Yahweh, but Yahweh is still alive and lives forever and can't take her back because she is defiled by sin) she is an adulteress (still in sin).

So the husband must die so she can be freed from the law of a husband (which says she is an adulteress if she tries to marry). This is what Yahweh did in the flesh and person of Yahshua. Now because of the husband's death (the former husband) she can marry another man (which is still the same Yahweh from before) and therefore is not an adultress (considered a sinner).

So Romans 7:4 explains that by the same principle, we are dead to the Torah (free from sin) by the body of Messiah (who is the husband that died, yet is raised again as the "Another") and are free to marry him again without being called sinners (once again the theme of the whole chapter and the previous chapter). We are given a clean slate. Notice, however, that a woman is still bound by the Torah to a husband according to Romans 7:2.

We are bound by Torah (our marriage certificate and vows to Yahweh as his bride) to Yahweh through Messiah.

The alternative explanation could be (I'll have to study it out) that the first husband is sin. If sin dies (when Messiah took our sin by his death) we are freed from sin as a husband (since Torah pointed out and condemned us because of our sins).

But if we are still married to sin (being without Messiah's death, who became sin for us and died with it) and try to marry Yahweh, then we are an adulteress. So sin has to die (through Messiah's body) so we could be married to another (Yahweh). This seems to make more sense and to line up a little more with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but like I said, I'll study it out more.

 

[yesha]

My mind is spinning with all these questions, but I think I understand what you are saying now and what to answer. As a nation, yes we are redeemed. As individuals we are redeemed. As a nation we keep Torah (or once again be cursed) and as individuals we keep Torah, or be cursed individually.

Iim still not sure what exactly you think Jesus did?
Redeem us to where we always were?

Nope. Being "under the law" is clearly defined as being declared a sinner by the Torah so that you may become guilty before Yahweh (and thus in need of a Redeemer; Romans 3:19-22). We become "under the law" only because of our sin, not if we keep it. But by believing in Messiah's atonement and trusting in Yahweh alone to impute righteousness to us (of course, through Messiah) then we can be in full committment to obeying Yahweh without being cursed. This is walking in the Spirit and not in the letter, which kills.

rom 3:19 (HCSB)
19 Now we know that whatever the law says speaks to those who are subject to (under in nev) the law.

Again under simply means you are subject to. I think what you are thinking is that being "under the law" means that you are under a curse for trangressing the law. This is incorrect. One is under Law, if the law has authority over them. If you are in Christ you are not under law, because Christ died, and the law is not applicable to someone who has died.

But this isn't the context. The context is us being "married to Another" in verse 4, which we couldn't do before because we were under the law (that is, condemned by its sin).

The argument is based on the premise (v1) that law doesn't apply to one who has died. The marriage, is an example of this principal, in that if a spouse dies, the other is not bound to the dead spouse. Pick any law, it is not applicable to a dead man. Also I see how your definition of "under the law" carries over into your interpretation of other passages.

Remember the context of the previous chapter (being "free from sin" in Romans 6:22). The Torah had dominion over us because we were sinners. So if we are made dead to it by the death of Messiah, it cannot condemn us. KEEPING it has nothing to do with the context.

Yes, the context is when the Torah had dominion over us, because we would sin, we must die. But now that the Law has no dominion over us, ours sins do not lead to death.

The context is SIN. He mentions those who are NOT subject to his Torah in Romans 8:7. Authority (that merits obedience to it) has nothing to do with the context. Authority over you as you are a SINNER in the FLESH is the context. We are delivered and free from SIN by Messiah's death, allowing us, the bride to be married again to him in right standing, unlike before. I don't see how it can get much clearer. This is Paul's outcry at the end of this chapter:

The covenant (law) that binds God and Israel together is described as a marriage in terms of the covenant describes the relationship between the parties much like a marriage law describes the relationship between people.
Jesus died, therefore the old covenant is no longer applicable to him. Those who are in Jesus, likewise also die to the old covenant. The are now free to "remarry", that is enter into a NEW covenant. The sting of death, only has duristiction under the OLD covenant. Since those in the NEW covenant are not under the OLD, their sins are not counted against them. They are free from sin deadly grasp because they are no longer under the law.

If this means the Torah is done away, then by definition we cannot be married to Messiah again because marriage is sanctified ONLY in Torah.

You'll have to explain this. Marriage represents the covenant. Thus getting married again represents a new covenant. It is not dieing, and being freed from a covenant only to enter into it again.

How do you interpret this verse:

Before this faith came, we were confined under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed.
24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.
25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[wavy]

Iim still not sure what exactly you think Jesus did?
Redeem us to where we always were?

No. To redeem us of sin and Torah-breaking (Titus 2:14, the word "iniquity" being anomia meaning "violation of law"). To regather the exiles and declare them as free from captivity. What do you think he did? Come soley to preach that we don't have to keep Torah? Something he gave to us? You asked this question, I am assuming, because you think Messiah came to change Torah ways. Where is that in scripture?

So no, not "back to where we always were". We need to be redeemed from bonds, and debts and sins. Not Torah. Torah is not a problem.

rom 3:19 (HCSB)
19 Now we know that whatever the law says speaks to those who are subject to (under in nev) the law.

Again under simply means you are subject to.

Not true. The Greek word en does not mean "subject to". Bad translation. En means "in" or "concerning" and a multitude of other things. Nothing to do with obedient subjection.

I think what you are thinking is that being "under the law" means that you are under a curse for trangressing the law. This is incorrect. One is under Law, if the law has authority over them. If you are in Christ you are not under law, because Christ died, and the law is not applicable to someone who has died.

You ignored everything I said above about the context being "sin". You are not proving your points with scripture. How does the Torah have authority over them? By condemning them. That is being "under the law", but if we are redeemed, sin has no dominion over us (Romans 6:14). It is the sin which Torah points out and condemns us by that we are not under. The context, once again, has nothing to do with obeying Torah, but everything to do with breaking it and how we are justified and forgiven through atonement and grace.

The argument is based on the premise (v1) that law doesn't apply to one who has died. The marriage, is an example of this principal, in that if a spouse dies, the other is not bound to the dead spouse. Pick any law, it is not applicable to a dead man. Also I see how your definition of "under the law" carries over into your interpretation of other passages.

Again, you are taking things out of context. There is no separation between chapter 6 & 7. The continual theme is being enslaved to sin because of what Torah points out to us. He does not start a new "chapter" about how we don't have to keep Torah in Romans 7:1. That is not in the context. You keep superimposing that.

Yes, the context is when the Torah had dominion over us, that because we would sin, we must die. But now that the Law has no dominion over us, ours sins do not lead to death.

Our sins don't lead to death if we have atonement through Messiah. The Torah now has no dominion over us in the context of, as you said, condeming us to die. If we die to the Torah (what condemned us), then we are not "under" whatever commandments were against us.

But what you are suggesting (which is nowhere in the context) is that since we are free from sin (Torah-breaking by biblical definition), we can now break Torah freely. Paul refutes that in Romans 6:1 and Romans 6:15.

We do not go back and transgress the Torah because transgressing Torah is the reason he has to have grace in the first place. Being dead to the Torah is being dead to our own flesh and body which causes transgression. This is so purely evident from reading chapters 6 and 7. You are equating being "dead to the law" with "do not keep it" which, imo, is error. That is nowhere in the text. We are free from dominion held over us as accused sinners, not free from obedience.

The covenant (law) that binds God and Israel together is described as a marriage in terms of the covenant describes the relationship between the parties much like a marriage law describes the relationship between people. Jesus died, therefore the old covenant is no longer applicable to him. Those who are in Jesus, likewise also die to the old covenant. The are now free to "remarry", that is enter into a NEW covenant. The sting of death, only has duristiction under the OLD covenant. Since those in the NEW covenant are not under the OLD, their sins are not counted against them. They are free from sin deadly grasp because they are no longer under the law.

You proved my point right here. We were under a curse, divided and unredeemed. So Yahweh had to make a New Covenant. One in blood through Messiah for reconciliation and redemption. This has nothing to do with obedience to the contents of Torah. Nothing at all. And you still have not given me a good definition of what being "under the law" means by anything other than your own opinion. My definition is backed by context of scripture. I believe he would have used the word for subjection (huppotasso, perhaps) if he means we do not have to obey the Torah.

You'll have to explain this. Marriage represents the covenant. Thus getting married again represents a new covenant. It is not dieing, and being freed from a covenant only to enter into it again.

But that's the whole purpose of his using the law of husband. Under the old covenant, we transgressed against it. We became adulteresses. He put us away (Jeremiah 3:8). He "disregarded" us (Jeremiah 31:32). How are we reconciled to him again? Having all that was against us (our sins in the flesh pointed out by Torah) taken out of the way so we could marry as a justified bride as opposed to an adulteress one. You obviously made this statement because you are assuming that Torah is the problem and needs to be gotten rid of. You are assuming the marriage vows are the problem. No, I believe we are the problem. We broke the marriage vows. So we had to die through Messiah (Torah not being able to condemn us) and be risen with him through baptism to be a justified bride again (not under a curse and therefore not doomed). We are not going back to being cursed under the old covenant. We are moving forward to a New Covenant wherein we are not condemned or cursed (obedience having nothing to do with the issue, other than the fact that we should not sin again because of grace).

Do you understand what I am saying?

How do you interpret this verse:

Before this faith came, we were confined under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed.
24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.
25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

This is when we (divorced Israel) were under the law (condemned as sinners) and rebuked and corrected by Torah. We were not heirs (as we had lost our inheritance through sin/Torah-breaking).

So after faith is revealed through Messiah's gospel (of liberty and redemption from being exiled and "under the law") we are justified by that faith as we should have formerly been.

To interpret this passage in a dispensationalist manner would be wrong for a few reasons:

These gentiles/nations/non-Jews could not have formerly in their lifetime been keeping Torah. They, living as gentiles, would not have had Torah to obey. So his reference to "we" must be "we" as a nation of Israelites who had been Yahweh's set-apart nation formerly, divorced and thus being "under the law", and then received back again according to the good news of Messiah which allows us back into the sheepfold.

This cannot be speaking of a time when all we had was Torah, and now is a time when we have faith (which dispensationalism). Why? Faith always existed. It is established and recorded all over the Tanach (with Abraham as the big example in Torah). This must be speaking of a different scenario. This is faith that brings us back, not faith in contrast to keeping Torah.

Another interpretation is that he is alluding to Isaiah 56:1. Torah was given to prepare us for Yahweh's righteousness (Messiah Yahshua), so as to lead us to him. Now that he has come, we don't need Torah as our teacher and guide because we have Messiah and Messiah now uses it to guard us from sin and thus falling away. We don't need Torah to say "don't do this" and point out our sins as the schoolmaster. We have Messiah that imparts righteousness through the Spirit, and we then yeild ourselves in love that merits obedience (John 14:15).

 

[yesha]

Not true. The Greek word en does not mean "subject to". Bad translation. En means "in" or "concerning" and a multitude of other things. Nothing to do with obedient subjection...

Another bad translation. Wouldn't you admit that the translators understand the greek better then you? Here then is the niv.

Rom 3:19
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
(NIV)

Anyway, this is the verse that you said supports your definition of "under the law" to mean "being declared a sinner by the torah". As I said, under law means that the law is applicable to the person. Whatever the law says, it says to those to whom it is applicable. Since defining "under the law" to mean "being declared a sinner by the torah", is of vital importance to your arguments, you shall have to explain how this verse clearly defines it. As to what I say it means, it is simply putting two words together.

hupo - under
Figuratively of what is under the power or authority of any person of thing, generally. Followed by the acc. of the thing implying state or condition under something. (Complete Word Study Dictionary)

nomos - law

Thus under law means they are under the authority of the law.

Gal 5:18
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
(NIV)

You ignored everything I said above about the context being "sin". You are not proving your points with scripture. HOW does the Torah have authority over them? By condeming them. That is being "under the law", but if we are redeemed, SIN HAS NO DOMINION OVER US (Romans 6:14). It is the SIN which Torah points out and condemns us by that we are not under. The context, once again, has NOTHING TO DO WITH OBEYING TORAH, but everything to do with breaking it and how we are justified and forgiven through atonement and grace (CAPS for emphasis, not anger).

My point is proved with casual reading. No explanation required for most people.
Law has authority over someone if they are subject to consequences of breaking the law.
Right now, Islamic law has no authority over me. If I lived in an Islamic state, God forbid, it would have some. Since people are subject to the 'if you sin you die' law, that law has authority over them. Atauthorityver them simply means they are subject to the laws. I agree that it has nothing to do with obeying the Torah, men are condemned because they sin, and are therefore subject to the 'if you sin you die' rule. Again because they are subject to this rule, this rule has authority over them. Now if someone were to move from Israel, where the law is 'if you sin you die', to a spiritual Israel, where the law is grace and atonement, the old countries laws no longer apply in the new, instead the new has it's own laws. This is the movement from the OT covenant to the NT covenant.

Again, you are taking things out of context. There is no separation between the chapters. The continual theme is being enslaved to sin because of what Torah points out to us. He does not start a new "chapter" about how we don't have to keep Torah. That is not in the context. You keep superimposing that.

The context of being liberated from sin has everything to do with not being under the law.
If you are under the law, then sin in your will produce death. If you are free from the law, then sin can't harm you.

Our sins don't lead to death if we don't have atonement through Messiah.

You must have miswrote this. Our sin do lead to death if we don't have atonement through Messiah.

The Torah now has no dominion over us in the context of, as you said, condeming us to die. If we die to the Torah (what condemned us), then we are not "under" whatever commandments were against us.

If we are dead to the law, then it has no dominion over us, thus cannot pronouce a death sentence for sin, and of course we are not under it's commandments.

But what you are suggesting (which is nowhere in the context) is that since we are free from sin (Torah-breaking by biblical definition), we can now break Torah freely. Paul refutes that in Romans 6:1 and Romans 6:15.

Further proof that my interpretation is correct is the need to explain that we are not free to sin. Since Paul has argued that we are not under OT law, he must clarify that that doesn't mean we are free to sin. We are not free to sin, but we are free from sins sting (1Cor 15:56)

We do not go back and transgress the Torah because transgressing Torah is the reason he has to have grace in the first place. Being dead to the Torah is being dead to our own flesh and body which causes transgression. This is so purely evident from reading chapters 6 and 7. You are equating being "dead to the law" with "do not keep it" which is error. That is nowhere in the text. We are free from dominion held over us as accused sinners, not free from obedience.

Sin is ddisobedienceto God, not to the Torah. Only when someone is under the Torah, is ddisobedienceto the Torah ddisobedienceto God. If God commands one person one thing, and another person another. Each is accountable to what God commands to them, not the the other. Yes being dead to the Torah is being dead to our own body which may cause transgression. Being dead to the law does means that we are not under the law, OT law that is. However we are under Law, Christ's Law, NT Law. I think you fail to recognize that the Old covenant and New covenant are not the same.

But that's the whole purpose of his using the law of husband. Under the old covenant, we transgressed against it. We became adulteresses. He put us away (Jeremiah 3:8). He "disrgarded" us (Jeremiah 31:32). How are we reconciled to him again? Having all that was against us (our sins in the flesh pointed out by Torah) taken out of the way so we could marry as a RIGHTEOUS bride as opposed to an ADULTERESS one.

If I remember correctly, according to the law, you cannot remarry someone you divorced.
We might be taking this analogy a bit too far, but God does not take the same wife twice, thus the need for a new covenant, and not a return to the old.

You obviously made this statement because you are assuming that Torah is the problem and needs to be gotten rid of.

I think romans 7 answer this point. The Torah is not the problem, but sin, working through the torah.

Rom 7:11
11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.
(NIV)

You are assuming the marrige vows are the problem. No. WE are the problem. We BROKE the marriage vows. So we had to die through Messiah (Torah not being able to condemn us) and be risen with him through baptism to be a justified bride again (not under a curse and therefore doomed). We are not going back to being cursed under the old covenant. We are moving forward to a New Covenant wherein we are not condemned or cursed (obedience having nothing to do with the issue, other than the fact that we should not sin again because of grace).

I don't really have any issue here, except to stress that the new covenant is not the old.

Before this faith came, we were confined under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed.
24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.
25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Simply put this states that the law was ttemporary The Law was our guardian, and we are no longer under a guardian. Again notice the use of the word 'under' meaning has authority over us.

 

[wavy]

Another bad translation. Wouldn't you admit that the translators understand the greek better then you? Here then is the niv.

I'd admit that they are biased. Prove to me why the Greek word en means "subject to". Click here and prove that to me. As Messiah said, don't judge by the appearance but judge righteous judgment.

If a million scholars say something is true, yet it doesn't line up, then it isn't true. We can't go by what's common. We have to investigate for ourselves.

As I said, under law means that the law is applicable to the person. Whatever the law says, it says to those to whom it is applicable. Since defining "under the law" to mean "being declared a sinner by the torah", is of vital importance to your arguments, you shall have to explain how this verse clearly defines it. As to what I say it means, it is simply putting two words together.

Well, here is your dilemma: you are assuming "law" means Torah. However, Paul did not quote any of the first 5 books of Moses in that passage. So "law", or nomos, does not mean Torah commandments or the five books of Moses.

Also, you still have not proven how "under the law" means it being "applicable" to some one. No context or Greek. You just keep saying that's what it means. I have backed my position up, however.

This is how: look at all those things the "law" says in the previous verses before verse 19. Those are not people who KEEP the Torah. Those are people who break it and are therefore guilty (end of Romans 3:19). How could you be guilty for keeping it? But we have not all kept it. That is why:

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

This is what Torah (all of it, Genesis to Revelation) does. Exposes sin. So we need righteousness apart from Torah (Romans 3:21-22) to justify us, because we sinned against Torah (the context is still sin, not those who obey the Torah). This is why he says:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of YHWH;

This is the problem, not "all those who keep Torah need to stop keeping Torah and just 'believe'". The chapter is ended with:

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Forbid: yea, we establish Torah.

Clear. This is how those who are en the Torah are the ones who are sinners, not the ones who keep it.

hupo - under
Figuratively of what is under the power or authority of any person of thing, generally. Followed by the acc. of the thing implying state or condition under something. (Complete Word Study Dictionary)

nomos - law

Thus under law means they are under the authority of the law.

Gal 5:18
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
(NIV)

Nomos does not always mean "Torah". And that definition is opinion. The semantic meaning of the word is simply "under", although it could be applied in many ways. Under the authority of nomos how? By the knowledge of sin it points out. Explain Romans 8:7.

Let's say it does literally mean "under authority of", for a minute. Under the authority of it how? To figure this out, we must look at the context.

My point is proved with casual reading. No explanation required for most people.

Because they already have biases against Torah. Casual reading from an anti-torah mind from unlearned people would come to that conclusion, but context reveals nothing about obeying Torah. You have to prove that. You keep asking me to prove it, but haven't proved your point with scripture, you just keep saying it. Besides you are ignoring mostly every other point I have made in this thread and have insisted on staying on this "under the law" topic.

Law has authority over someone if they are subject to consequences of breaking the law.

True. But with Yahweh's Torah and in the context of what being "under the law" is in scripture, it means that our sins past don't bring consequences. We are redeemed from those sins. Paul still refutes breaking it again.

You are swithing sin definitions. If sin came by Torah and we need freedom from Torah's curse, what is the "sin" that we should not go back to because of grace according to Romans 6:1-2 and Romans 6:15? The sin we refrain from now is sin under "new testament law", but the sin we did formerly was sin from breaking Torah? Inconsistency. No scriptural proof for a NT law and sin against a NT law.

Now if someone were to move from Israel, where the law is 'if you sin you die', to a spiritual Israel, where the law is grace and atonement, the old countries laws no longer apply in the new, instead the new has it's own laws. This is the movement from the OT covenant to the NT covenant.

No scripture to back this claim. Israel is spiritual and physical. There is no contrast between the two. Just as there is no contrast between grace and Torah. "Grace" and "atonement" are not laws. This is your error, and there is no scripture to back it. Grace and atonement are needed for breaking Torah.

The context of being liberated from sin has everything to do with not being under the law.
If you are under the law, then sin in your will produce death. If you are free from the law, then sin can't harm you.

But Paul says we should not sin, meaning that we still can (meaning the Torah has to be in effect for sin to occur, because without it sin does not exist). If we return to sin, then we are using Messiah as the minister of sin. He died because we were sinners, not so we can sin.

If we are dead to the law, then it has no dominion over us, thus cannot pronouce a death sentence for sin, and of course we are not under it's commandments.

You keep saying this, but are not supporting it. This I mean: "and of course we are not under it's commandments". You added this with no support. That is not the context. I do not want your opinion, I want the scripture (no offense).

Further proof that my interpretation is correct is the need to explain that we are not free to sin.

But sin is transgressing the Torah (1 John 3:4). This does not help your point/interpretation at all. And again you are changing the definition of sin again, with no scripture.

Since Paul has argued that we are not under OT law, he must clarify that that doesn't mean we are free to sin. We are not free to sin, but we are free from sins sting (1Cor 15:56)

Define sin.

Sin is ddisobedienceto God, not to the Torah. Only when someone is under the Torah, is ddisobedienceto the Torah ddisobedienceto God.

This is found nowhere in scripture, however. And I don't know how many times I have directed you towards 1 John 3:4. You keep assuming, with no support, that being "under Torah" is being obedient to it, when it is not. Prove that first. Yahweh gave Torah and commanded us to keep it. Therefore breaking Torah would be going against what he told us to do, thus sinning against him.

If God commands one person one thing, and another person another. Each is accountable to what God commands to them, not the the other.

This is a nice little saying, but is irrelevant based on the fact that no scripture says Yahweh does this. Not concerning a Torah standard, at least.

Yes being dead to the Torah is being dead to our own body which may cause transgression. Being dead to the law does means that we are not under the law, OT law that is. However we are under Law, Christ's Law, NT Law. I think you fail to recognize that the Old covenant and New covenant are not the same.

I think you fail to understand that there is no "christ law" apart from Torah. This is nowhere in scripture. There is no such thing as NT law. That is not in scripture. I also think you fail to realize what the New Covenant is. You are assuming Torah is the problem (but cannot prove it with scripture) and think for the New Covevant to be in effect, Torah must be done away with. But a New Covenant does not imply "new commands" or a change of the contents of Torah. A new covenant allows reconciliation betweem Judah and Ephraim Israel and the putting of Yahweh's torot/laws on the heart of Ephraim Israel (since they were divorced for breaking it) so they could do them (please read Ezekiel 36:26-27). No such thing as "New Testament law". And Paul or anyone else could not have referred to any "NT law" for the simple fact that when they spoke of "law" there was no NT.

If I remember correctly, according to the law, you cannot remarry someone you divorced.
We might be taking this analogy a bit too far, but God does not take the same wife twice, thus the need for a new covenant, and not a return to the old.

You are making things up now. You cannot marry some one you divorced if the woman becomes defiled by another man. Please read Deuteronomy 24:1-4. So Yahweh could not take Israel back unless she was forgiven from the law that declared her as an adulteress. He did this by death. This is the purpose for the new covenant. Reconciliation to the same bride, but by the blood of Messiah, the bride is forgiven and declared a righteous virgin. The purpose for the New Covenant, as you seem to suppose (without scripture, once more), is that we need a new Torah that marries us to Yahweh. Prove that. If that's the case, there is no need for grace. Every time we sin, all he has to do is get rid of whatever law we sinned against.

I think romans 7 answer this point. The Torah is not the problem, but sin, working through the torah.

Which is why we need atonement, not a doing away with Torah.

I don't really have any issue here, except to stress that the new covenant is not the old.

You are assuming that the difference is contents, which is not in scripture. The difference is us forgiven vs. being "disregarded" and "divorced". We are married by the same Torah, however. There is no indication that the contents changed. He says "I will make a new covenant...I will put my laws...", NOT "I will make a new covenant to CHANGE my laws".

Simply put this states that the law was ttemporary The Law was our guardian, and we are no longer under a guardian. Again notice the use of the word 'under' meaning has authority over us.

How that authority is applied is what I believe you don't understand, and then you used unscriptural examples pertaining to Islamic law and some type of "law of grace" and "atonement".

Sorry, but it looks as if this is going nowhere. You seem to be picking grains. You've ignored numerous scriptural points I have made from the original post all the way through the rest of this thread.