"Webmaster"
With all due respect, your theology is fundamentally flawed.
"Until the Law was established sin was in the world and it was a nasty sinful place!"
The implication being that the world stopped being a "nasty sinful place" once the Law had been introduced, which is not the case, as today's world testifies.
"But God introduced the Law into the world so that no person can be justified in his sight."
No. God introduced the Law in order to reveal, through the nation of Israel, His Nature and Character to mankind. The fact that no person is justified in God's sight is incidental (they were not justified in His sight from the day that Adam and Eve sinned - long before the Law was introduced) but it is NOT the reason that the Law was introduced.
"It is the Judgement of God which was placed there to teach us what sin is."
Again, no. The Law is not the Judgement of God. It is the revelation of the nature and Character of God and the standard by which all men who do not live by faith in God shall be judged and condemned by God (specifically Jesus Christ) but the Law itself is not the Judgement of God (Rom.7:12)
"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."
The above quote is actually a mistranslation of the original Hebrew and Greek (but, again, with all due respect, you might not know that since you do not deem it necessary to be able to read Hebrew and Greek as, in your mind, A.V. (KJV)-English will suffice “God's word isn't hidden, and he doesn't have a problem getting his thoughts across in English...we don't need to speak Hebrew or Greek or Arabic to know! We just need the Spirit of God to!”) based on years (nay, centuries) of inbred anti-semitism within the Church going right back to the days of the early Church Fathers such as Origen, Ambrose and Augustine, three rabid anti-Semites who heretically taught the church to allegorize scripture by replacing the term "Israel" in the Old Testament with the term "Church" and the term "Zion" (a poetic term for Jerusalem) with the term "Heaven". They sought (very successfully, unfortunately) to completely divorce the, by that time, predominently Gentile Church from it's Jewish roots (in direct contradiction of Paul's teaching in Romans 9-11) and to purge the Church of it's Jewish associations. (The irony is that what Paul fought so hard to oppose (the forcing of Gentiles to become Jews before they could become believers in Yeshua the Messiah - Acts 15) the Church now does in reverse by forcing Jews to renounce their Jewish heritage and culture in order to become Gentile "Christians" so that they can believe in Jesus the Jewish Messiah?!)
Anyway, back to the original point. What the passage you quoted above should say is "For by the LEGALISTIC observance of the Law (NOT THE OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW PER SE) shall no flesh be justified. It is legalism which is wrong, not observance of the Law by faith which is the ONLY way (i.e. faith) that one is justified before God (Eph.2:8-9).
Contrary to popular almost universal opinion amongst Gentile Christians the Law DOES NOT exclude faith or else it would not be "just, holy and righteous" (Rom.7:12). If I am wrong on this point and the Church is right in it's erroneous and heretical understanding of the Law then it means that the Law (the revelation of the Nature and Character of God) is opposed to faith ("We're not under Law but under Grace!" (Rom.6:14) another erroneous mistranslation/application based on centuries of inbred anti-semitism!) and we all know what Jesus had to say about a house devided against itself (Matt.12:25-26)?! See Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel, Messianic Jewish Manifesto, The Jewish New Testament, The Jewish New Testament Commentary and/or The Complete Jewish Bible all by David H. Stern and published by Jewish New Testament Publications (JNTP).
"Does the Law Condon Killing people who commits certain crimes in the Bible, Yes!"
Although this is correct, it is grossly misleading to make this statement without first qualifying it by putting it into it's proper context.
The Law (which does command the death penalty for certain sins) was given to the theocratic nation of Israel and was only applicable to the members of that nation (including those Gentiles who chose to live amongst them - Ruth for example) so long as it existed as a theocracy. It did not apply to the other Gentile nations (though there were rules for the rest of mankind, which included the death penalty for murder, as elucidated in the Noahic code (Gen.9)).
Since the advent of the New Covenant, which began at Pentecost, (Jer.31:31-37; Heb.10:16-17) the theocracy has been suspended until the second advent. The New Covenant is now universal and non-geographical, inclusive of the "whosoever" from throughout the Gentile nations (which is why established "State" Churches are also heretical). This means that the application of the Law as it was applied during the Old Covenant theocracy has also been suspended until the second advent when it may be reinstated (probably in a modified form) by the Messiah?
Therefore, it is wrong for Christians to seek to enact the punishments of the Old Covenant Law upon unbelievers today. We do not live in the Old Covenant theocracy. Indeed, we are not even to concern ourselves with trying to regulate how those outside the Church live since they come under the jurisdiction of the God established (not "allowed") non-religious "State" authorities (Rom.13; 1Pet.2:13-17) and not the Church as the Body of Christ (1Cor.5. esp. vv12-13).
"Does the Law Condon Killing people who commits certain crimes in the Bible, Yes!"
Again, apart from any context this is completely misleading - see above.
"Are Christians under the Law! No we are under Grace, making the Law of null effect!"
There's that inbred anti-semitism again (so insidious and pervasive that many Christians are completely unaware of it)!
A good starting place would be a thorough study of the Greek word “nomos” (“Law”) and it’s derivatives as used in the New Testament. The sampling which follows is intended to whet the appetite and encourage further investigation.
a. Romans 10:4 – Did Jesus End The Law?
Consider Romans 10:4 which states – in a typical but wrong translation – “For Christ ends the law and brings righteousness for everyone who has faith.” Like this translator, most theologians understand this verse to say that Jesus terminated the Law. But the Greek word translated “ends” is telos from which English gets the word “teleology” defined in Webster’s Third International Dictionary as “The philosophical study of the evidences of design in nature;...the fact or the character of being directed toward an end or being shaped by a purpose – used of...nature...conceived as determined...by the design of a divine providence...” The normal meaning of telos in Greek – which is also it’s meaning here – is “goal, purpose, consummation,” not “termination.” The Messiah did not and does not bring the Law to an end. Rather, attention to and faith in the Messiah is the goal and purpose towards which the Law aims, the logical consequence, result and consummation of observing the Law out of genuine faith, as opposed to trying to observe it out of legalism. This, not the termination of Law is Paul’s point, as can be seen from the context, Romans 9:30 – 10:11.
The next six verses of Romans introduce another issue clouded by the translators. The familiar King James Version serves as well as any to demonstrate the problem. Rom.10:5 mentions “the righteousness which is of the Law;” and verse 6 begins, “But the righteousness which is of faith…” Every translation I know of, by rendering the first word of verse 6 (Greek de) as “but,” seems to imply that there are two different contrasting ways to attain righteousness. Theologians take this “but” as a strong adversative meaning “on the contrary,” and are thus led down the primrose path of regarding “the righteousness which is of the Law” as bad and “the righteousness which is of faith” as good. From here it is only a short step to regarding the Law as bad and the Gospel as Good.
But Greek has a different word, alla, for “on the contrary.” The word de here is weaker; it can be rendered “and,” “also,” “moreover,” implying that what continues follows the previous thought and does not contrast with it. Or it can mean “but” in the sense of limiting the previous statement rather than contrasting with it. In any case, there is only one way to attain righteousness, not two. Paul’s point is that righteousness, which truly comes if one observes the Law (v.5), is achieved only if one has faith (vv.6-8). (He said the same thing a few verses earlier, in Rom.9:30-32.)
It is highly significant that he brings evidence for this from the Old Testament – Lev.18:5 in verse 5 and Deut.30:11-14 in verses 6-8 – showing that the Law itself mandates faith in order to attain righteousness. If there were two ways of attaining righteousness – one in the Law and the other in the Gospel, Paul would be guilty of citing the Law against itself. But never, in any of his writings, does Paul demonstrate one part of the Bible inconsistent with another.
Here is what Rom.10:5-10 teaches. The righteousness which is of the Law says that he who “does these things,” he who does what God commands to be done, will attain life through doing them (v.5). But, that very righteousness which is “of the Law” must also, necessarily, be “of faith” if it is to be efficacious (vv.6-8). “Doing these things” legalistically will never bring eternal life. Only if obeying God’s Law commands is grounded in the kind of faithful trusting that does not demand going up to heaven or across the sea to bring the Messiah (these being legalistic efforts at attaining righteousness), but simply waits on God to provide him and acknowledges him now that he has come (vv.9-10), will salvation be assured.
b. “Under the Law” and “Works of the Law.”
Much of Christian theology about the Law is based on a misunderstanding of two Greek expressions which Paul invented. The first is “upo nomon”; it appears 10 times in Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians and it is usually rendered “under the law.” The other is “erga nomou” found with minor variations 10 times in Romans and Galatians, translated “works of the law.”
Whatever Paul is trying to communicate by these expressions, one thing is clear: Paul regards them negatively: being “under the law” is bad and “works of the law” are bad. Christian theology usually takes the first to mean “within the framework of observing the Law” and the second, “acts of obedience to the Law.” This understanding is wrong. Paul does not consider it bad to live within the framework of the Law nor is it bad to obey it; on the contrary, he writes that the Law is holy, just and good” (Rom.7:12).
C.E.B.Cranfield has shed light on these two phrases; his first essay on the subject appeared in 1964, and he summarized it in his masterly commentary on Romans. There he writes:
“…the Greek language of Paul’s day possessed no word-group corresponding to our “legalism,” “legalist” and “legalistic.” This means that he lacked a convenient terminology for expressing a vital distinction, and so was seriously hampered in the work of clarifying the Christian position with regard to the law. In view of this, we should always, we think, be ready to reckon with the possibility that Pauline statements, which at first sight seem to disparage the law, were really directed not against the law itself but against that misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we now have a convenient terminology. In this very difficult terrain Paul was pioneering.”
If Cranfield is right, as I believe he is, we should approach Paul with the same pioneering spirit. We should understand “erga nomou” not as “works of the law” but as “legalistic observance of particular Law commands.” Likewise, we should take “upo nomon” to mean not “under the law” but “in subjection to the system that results from perverting the Law into legalism.” This is how the phrase is rendered in the Jewish New Testament.
The expression “in subjection” is important because the context of “upo nomon” always conveys an element of oppressiveness. Paul is very clear about this, as can be seen from 1Cor.9:20, where, after saying that for those without the Law he became as one without the Law, he stressed that he himself was not without the Law but ennomos Christou, “en-lawed” of Messiah. He used a different term “ennomos” in place of “upo nomon” to distinguish his oppression-free relationship with the Law, now that he is united with the Messiah, from the sense of being burdened which he noticed in people (probably Gentiles!) who, instead of “en-lawing” themselves to God’s holy, just and good Law, subjected themselves to a legalistic perversion of it.
If the above renderings of “upo nomon” and “erga nomou” were used in the twenty passages where these phrases occur, I believe it would change Christian theology of "The Law" for the better.
c. Galatians 3:10-13; - Redeemed from the curse of the law?
Galatians 3:10-13 presents a number of stumblingblocks in most translations. As an example, here is the New American Standard Bible’s rendering, which strikes me as neither better nor worse than most:
“[10] For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse for it is written “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them” [11] Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” [12] However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” [13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law , having become a curse for us – for it is written “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree””
These verses appear as follows in the Jewish New Testament:
“[10] For everyone who depends on legalistic observance of Torah commands [erga nomou] lives under a curse, since it is written “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything that is written in the scroll of the Torah [Deut.27:26] [11] Now it is evident that no one comes to be declared righteous by God through legalism [nomos], since “The person who is righteous will attain life by trusting and being faithful.” [Hab.2:4] [12] Furthermore, legalism, [nomos] is not based on trusting and being faithful, but on a misuse of the text which says “Anyone who does these things will attain life through them.” [Lev.18:5] [13] The Messiah redeemed us from the curse pronounced in the Torah [nomos] by becoming cursed on our behalf; for the Tanakh says, “Everyone who hangs from a stake comes under a curse.” [Deut.21:22-23]”
“The curse of the Law” is not the curse of having to live within the framework of the Law, for the Law itself is good. Nor is it the curse of being required to obey the Law but lacking the power to do so – this would be a kind of “Catch 22” unworthy of God, although there are theologies which teach that this is exactly the case. Rather it is “the curse pronounced in the Law" (v.13; see v.10) for disobeying it. Paul’s point is that the curse falls on people who are actually trying to obey the Torah if their efforts are grounded in legalism (vv. 11a , 12.) For Paul such a legalistic approach is already disobedience; for the Old Testament itself requires genuine obedience to emerge from faith (11b). There is not space here to prove that this is the case or to deal with other controversies raised by the above rendering of these four verses; the Jewish New Testament Commentary (op. cit.) addresses these matters.
"Are the Jews under the Law, NO!
Are either under the Law once they are told what the Law says, YES! "
With all due respect, which Bible do you read?! The Jews DO NOT come under the Law only when they become "Bar Mitzvah" (a son of the Law) at the age of 13 (12 for girls) for that is when they become morally accountable to God in their own right and are no longer under the grace of their parents accountability under the Law, rather every Jew is born "under the Law" (Gal.4:4) and lives as one "under the Law" even before their 13th birthday!
"It's [The Law] part of the Gospel message!"
It sure is! Though most Christians, based on centuries of anti-Semitic conditioning, would flatly deny it!
"My honest opinion is that this is casting the pearls before swine. It shouldn't be discussed in front of non-Christians!"
Excuse me?! What do you mean that discussing the subject of whether homosexuals should be "executed" (murdered?!) for their sin should not be done "in front of unbelievers (homosexuals?!)" since that is to "cast pearls before swine"?! You mean it should only be done in secret like Heidrich's meeting in Wannsee in 1942 to decide the fate of the Jews in Nazi Germany and to bring about "The Final Solution"? Explain please?
Yours, in His service,
Simonline