Paul's term: "the law of God"
May 26, 2021 4:56:15 GMT
Post by Colossians on May 26, 2021 4:56:15 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
The purpose of this work is to correct the long-held misconception that when Paul tells us that he delights in the law of God, he is referring to the OT law and in particular, the decalogue, when in fact he is referring to God Himself.
_____________________________
PAUL’S TERM: “THE LAW OF GOD”
[1] “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? [2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. [4] Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”
The (main) point here with regard to this work, is our being told that we are dead to the law – that we have no relationship to it anymore once we have come to Christ.
And by “the law” it is essentially meant, “the decalogue”.
[5] “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. [6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”
This is saying essentially the same thing as the tail end of v4 above, only it is also added that the very reason for our sins (when we were ‘in the flesh’) was the invocative force that is the (prohibition of the) law.
And so Paul also tells the church at Corinth:
“the strength of sin is the law” 1 Cor 15:56.
Note then the reciprocal:
“Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the [dominion of the] law” Rom 6:14.
[7] “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
Many will think that Paul is simply saying here that the law lets us know what sin is (that it defines sin), but such interpretation is necessarily deficient in that just because one is told what not to do, this will in no way convince such an one that such prohibited act is actually sin: one must rather know in one’s spirit that the violation of such prohibition is sin.
That is, Paul is speaking not of an intellectual knowing – for then sin were not known by the Gentile (who has not the law) but only by the Jew (who has the law) – but an experiential knowing, and in particular, the experience that is guilt.
The important point here then is that such latter can only result if the transgression in question is actually invoked by the law (invoked by the law’s provocation of the flesh to rebel against God). And given that the law is not really a thing in and of itself but rather the qualitative gap between God and man, such provocation will in fact consist of the memory of God’s presence that is encoded in the ‘spiritual DNA’ of man.
That is, when Paul writes:
“when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God” Rom 1:21
he is alluding to the offence which constituted the precursor to the law: on the experiential level our being under the law consists of our knowing that we no longer know Him whom we should know – that we are out of step with our Maker.
Overall Paul is here pointing to the utility of the law: unless we had been made aware that we had fallen short of the glory of God, we had no awareness of our need of a saviour.
[8] “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. [9] For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”
This follows directly from what we have pointed out at v7: the death we died is spiritual and is experienced as such.
[10] “And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. [11] For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. [12] Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
If I am slain by acting in opposition to the commandment, then given that my being slain consists of my becoming aware that I have transgressed Him who has done me no wrong, that which has slain me is necessarily good.
[13] "Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”
That which produces a negative via the utilisation of that which is good, is of necessity exceedingly bad.
[14] “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. [15] For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. [16] If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good”
If I do that which I would not, then I am found to be rebelling against that with which I also agree.
I therefore understand that the law shows me that I am deficient before God and therefore that only God is good.
I therefore agree that the law is good not because of any virtue it might possess in and of itself, but because it shows me that only God is good.
[17] “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [18] For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. [19] For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. [20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [21] I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.”
If the law shows me that only God is good, then I conclude that I am bad (else I could not say that only God is good).
And yet if I agree that it is good that the law shows me that only God is good, I am necessarily good.
I therefore understand that there are two identities in my human existence: one who transgresses the law and who is therefore bad, and one who agrees with the law's showing me that I am bad and who is therefore good.
But only God is good.
I am therefore forced to conclude that it is not I per se who agrees with what the law shows me, but another who resides within me, even Christ.
[22] “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: [23] But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”
But Christ is only in me because He rose from the dead in the face of the law’s verdict to the contrary.
I therefore understand that the law with which Christ in me (merely) agrees, is not the law in which Christ in me delights, but that such latter is rather and in fact God Himself. For there is no delight in death, but only in life, and it was not the law, but God, who raised Christ to life.
I will thus live not under the law, but the law of God: I will live under the law that is God Himself. For to delight, is better than to agree.
Amen.
(See also our works: “Understanding Romans 7:1-4”, “Exposition of Romans 8:1-14”, “Understanding Romans 3:31”, “Understanding the entering of the law, at Romans 5:20”)
Forward
The purpose of this work is to correct the long-held misconception that when Paul tells us that he delights in the law of God, he is referring to the OT law and in particular, the decalogue, when in fact he is referring to God Himself.
_____________________________
PAUL’S TERM: “THE LAW OF GOD”
[1] “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? [2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. [4] Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”
The (main) point here with regard to this work, is our being told that we are dead to the law – that we have no relationship to it anymore once we have come to Christ.
And by “the law” it is essentially meant, “the decalogue”.
[5] “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. [6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”
This is saying essentially the same thing as the tail end of v4 above, only it is also added that the very reason for our sins (when we were ‘in the flesh’) was the invocative force that is the (prohibition of the) law.
And so Paul also tells the church at Corinth:
“the strength of sin is the law” 1 Cor 15:56.
Note then the reciprocal:
“Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the [dominion of the] law” Rom 6:14.
[7] “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
Many will think that Paul is simply saying here that the law lets us know what sin is (that it defines sin), but such interpretation is necessarily deficient in that just because one is told what not to do, this will in no way convince such an one that such prohibited act is actually sin: one must rather know in one’s spirit that the violation of such prohibition is sin.
That is, Paul is speaking not of an intellectual knowing – for then sin were not known by the Gentile (who has not the law) but only by the Jew (who has the law) – but an experiential knowing, and in particular, the experience that is guilt.
The important point here then is that such latter can only result if the transgression in question is actually invoked by the law (invoked by the law’s provocation of the flesh to rebel against God). And given that the law is not really a thing in and of itself but rather the qualitative gap between God and man, such provocation will in fact consist of the memory of God’s presence that is encoded in the ‘spiritual DNA’ of man.
That is, when Paul writes:
“when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God” Rom 1:21
he is alluding to the offence which constituted the precursor to the law: on the experiential level our being under the law consists of our knowing that we no longer know Him whom we should know – that we are out of step with our Maker.
Overall Paul is here pointing to the utility of the law: unless we had been made aware that we had fallen short of the glory of God, we had no awareness of our need of a saviour.
[8] “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. [9] For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”
This follows directly from what we have pointed out at v7: the death we died is spiritual and is experienced as such.
[10] “And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. [11] For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. [12] Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
If I am slain by acting in opposition to the commandment, then given that my being slain consists of my becoming aware that I have transgressed Him who has done me no wrong, that which has slain me is necessarily good.
[13] "Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”
That which produces a negative via the utilisation of that which is good, is of necessity exceedingly bad.
[14] “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. [15] For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. [16] If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good”
If I do that which I would not, then I am found to be rebelling against that with which I also agree.
I therefore understand that the law shows me that I am deficient before God and therefore that only God is good.
I therefore agree that the law is good not because of any virtue it might possess in and of itself, but because it shows me that only God is good.
[17] “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [18] For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. [19] For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. [20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [21] I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.”
If the law shows me that only God is good, then I conclude that I am bad (else I could not say that only God is good).
And yet if I agree that it is good that the law shows me that only God is good, I am necessarily good.
I therefore understand that there are two identities in my human existence: one who transgresses the law and who is therefore bad, and one who agrees with the law's showing me that I am bad and who is therefore good.
But only God is good.
I am therefore forced to conclude that it is not I per se who agrees with what the law shows me, but another who resides within me, even Christ.
[22] “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: [23] But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”
But Christ is only in me because He rose from the dead in the face of the law’s verdict to the contrary.
I therefore understand that the law with which Christ in me (merely) agrees, is not the law in which Christ in me delights, but that such latter is rather and in fact God Himself. For there is no delight in death, but only in life, and it was not the law, but God, who raised Christ to life.
I will thus live not under the law, but the law of God: I will live under the law that is God Himself. For to delight, is better than to agree.
Amen.
(See also our works: “Understanding Romans 7:1-4”, “Exposition of Romans 8:1-14”, “Understanding Romans 3:31”, “Understanding the entering of the law, at Romans 5:20”)