Resurrection Contradiction?

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" [John 11:25-26; NKJV]

The above passage is one of several passages where Yeshua references the resurrection and promises eternal life.  The reason I bring up this passage is the apparent contradiction between Yeshua saying, "the one who believes in me shall live even though he dies" and him also saying, "the one who believes in me shall never die".  So how is this alleged contradiction resolved?  First, the passage is in the context of the resurrection.  Yeshua even states that much right before he said what he did.  Therefore, the rest of the passage shall be interpreted as if it is a statement of what will happen at the resurrection of the righteous.  Note that the one who does not believe in Yeshua will perish.

If the one who believes in Yeshua shall live even though he dies, then that is clearly a promise that the believer who dies shall be raised back to life.  I used to interpret verse 26 to mean that the soul leaves the body just before death, I have since learned (through some people pointing it out) that (a) souls are something that we are (Genesis 2:7), not something that we have.  And (b) the dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)!  So that interpretation is ruled-out.  But again, Yeshua made it clear that what he is saying concerns the resurrection of the righteous, those who believe in him.  So the correct interpretation is that once you are raised at the resurrection of the righteous, you will never die again.

One interesting thing to note is that Yeshua counted the living among the dead and the dead among the living.  For example, in Mathew 8:22, he spoke of living people as if they were already dead.  And in Matthew 22:32, he spoke of dead people as if they were still living.  Matthew 22:32 is another passage who's context concerns the resurrection.  There are probably other passages like this.  So what's the idea behind counting the living as being dead and the dead as being alive?  If you answer the following question, you will have your answer:  What is the end result?  Those who are raised at the resurrection of the righteous will live forever.  Those who are not raised at the resurrection of the righteous will perish!

But there is not one resurrection, but two!  The resurrection of the righteous, which is the one that happens first (1 Thessalonians 4:16), and the resurrection of the wicked, which happens later.  At the second resurrection, there will be many people who will wish that they were not raised because of what will happen to them!

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and [the Grave] delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and [the Grave] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. [Revelation 22:11-15; NKJV] [see note at end of post]

This is what will happen at the second resurrection, the resurrection of the wicked.  They will be required to give an account of everything that they have done.  And because they do not have any atonement for their sins, they themselves will pay the penalty for their sins by burning up in the lake of fire!  All who transgress the Law of Yahweh and have not had their sins atoned for by the blood of Yeshua will perish in the lake of fire as punishment for their innumerable transgressions.  The same will happen to anyone who uses this atonement as a license to sin, and willfully do that which they know is contrary to the commands of Yahweh.  The atonement for sin comes from the blood of Yeshua by believing in Yeshua, the one who died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

Note:
The Greek word "Hades" is a substitute for the Hebrew word "sheol", which literally means "grave".  The definition of the Hebrew equivalent is prioritized, because the New Testament (with the exception of Hebrews) was written in Hebrew.  One of the definitions of "Hades" is also "grave", but usually refers to either a false god or the realm of said false god which has the same name.  This pagan association is also why I'm prioritizing the definition of the Hebrew equivalent.

What Sins are Not Covered by the Blood of Jesus?

The Bible makes it clear in many places that whoever believes in Jesus will have their sins forgiven and will be saved.  But is this forgiveness conditional or unconditional?  And if it's conditional, then what are the conditions?  Well, Hebrews 10:26 says that when you learn something is sin, but deliberately continue in it anyways, then you have no atonement for your sins.  In fact, if you keep reading past that verse, you'll see just how dangerous it is to rebel against God's commandments once you learn what they are.  The very next verse literally says that the enemies of God will be BURNED! UP!  Jesus himself said, "Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." [John 5:14; NIV]  And we know from a previous examination of Scripture what that "something worse" is.

So one of the conditions is that we cannot continuously, deliberately do something that we know is sin.  If we learn that what we are doing is a sin, we must stop if we want to be forgiven.  Is that the only condition to being forgiven?  No.  Jesus made it very clear in several places (eg: the Lord's Prayer) that if we want God to forgive us of our sins, then we must forgive those who have sinned against us.  In other words, if you hold a grudge against someone who wronged you, even if they have repented, you will be counted among the wicked and the fate of the wicked will fall onto you.

By the way, what does it mean to forgive?  Psalm 32:1-2 gives a good definition.  It means to not count or hold something against someone.  When God forgives us of our sins, he no longer counts those sins against us.  If someone offends you or harms you, and you forgive them, then you no longer count that offense or harm that they have caused you against them.

Are there any more conditions for our sins being forgiven other that what we discussed, and the need to continuously believe in Jesus?  There does appear to be one more condition:  "One can say something against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but whoever keeps on speaking against the [Holy Spirit] will never be forgiven, neither in the [present age] nor in the [coming age]." [Matthew 12:32; CJB]

Note:  Because of the translation I quoted from in the above passage, I translated the Hebrew phrases in the translation to English.  The word I translated as "age" can also be translated as "world" or "eon".

So, blaspheme against the Holy Spirit means complete disqualification from having your sins forgiven.  Now, nearly all translations that I know of does not have the word "keeps", implying that one mistake in this regard condemns you with no hope of redemption.  However, it appears that the Greek word translated as "against" (kata) has something to with a continuous action.  So the CJB is probably correct to include the word "keeps".  So one mistake won't do it.  But the continuous action of blaspheming the Holy Spirit will indeed disqualify you from eternal life.

So, there are three conditions for being forgiven, not counting the obvious condition of believing in Jesus.  These conditions are:  (1) When you learn of your sin, stop deliberately doing it.  (2) Forgive those who sin against you.  And (3) do not blaspheme the Holy Spirit.  What about all of those "what if" scenarios concerning sin?  Well, if you're not deliberately sinning, then you show that you do not want to sin.  The fact that you do not want to sin proves that your faith is the type that God wants from you:  A faith that drives you to naturally obey his commands.  Jesus himself advocates for us [1 John 2:1-2].

Those who learn of their sins, and initially deliberately continue in it, but later stop doing it and repent of it, they will also have complete forgiveness of their sins.  But if anyone uses that as an excuse to start deliberately doing what they know is sinful, because they can later "stop and repent", is that repentance even genuine, since they planned to sin from the beginning?  Such people put themselves into great danger!  Nobody who genuinely believes in Jesus wants to sin.  Nobody!  They all want to live in full obedience to his teachings!

One more thing:  If for any reason, there is a command that you cannot keep, then failure to keep that command is not a sin.  Using this as an excuse to break a command that you can keep however, is a sin.

Can the Church be Reformed?

Churches more and more are falling away to Universalism and New Age mysticism.  This falling away is not happening by the individual congregation, but by the denomination.  There is a desperate need to reform the Church.  But, can the Church even be reformed?

To answer that question, we just need to take a look at history, when a Catholic Priest by the name of Martin Luther tried to reform the Catholic Church with his 95 thesis.  Little did Martin Luther know at the time that the Catholic Church is run by those who are not hungry for the Word, but by corruption up to the highest levels in the Church (yes, he did have some idea of the Church's corruption, but only a small portion of it).  The resulting movement was not a reformation of the Catholic Church, but a break-away from the Catholic Church and its many, many heresies.

Also, note that the Catholic Church is not Christian by any stretch of the imagination.  It is but one branch of a satanic cult bent on ruling the world.  Those that run the Catholic Church (both in the past and in the present) do unimaginable acts of wickedness in secret.  And the wickedness that they do in public, and teach their members to do in the name of Jesus, is just the tip of the iceberg.  The Catholic Church, as Martin Luther found out the hard way, cannot be reformed.

Martin Luther's movement resulted in many people abandoning some of the Catholic Church's practices.  But this move to return to God's commandments would be greatly incomplete and short-lived, as most who are in the Church are governed by the flesh.  This is also why the Puritan's move to outlaw the counterfeit holidays of Christmas and Easter ultimately failed.  Those who are governed by the flesh worship God their own way, rather than God's way.

Over the past several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by the same, satanic cult that runs the Catholic Church.  But this time, that which was previously done in private is more and more being done in public for all to see.  And the means of deception have only gotten better, so that those who would otherwise be convinced of the intolerable nature of these acts are instead committing them themselves!  And by the way, we're still talking about the tip of the iceberg!

The teachings of these abominations have to do with gratification in this life, or hope only for this life.  Sin is rarely, if ever discussed, and the message of salvation and the promise of eternal life is reduced to allegory.  And there is absolutely no concept of being held accountable to God on Judgement Day.  Their teaching is ultimately one of hopelessness with the "perk" of no accountability or condemnation on Judgement Day.  In other words, their teachings add up to this:  This is the only life you have and when it's over, it's over for good, with no hope of eternal life, and no accountability for what you have done.

Contrast that with the numerous warnings in Scripture given by both Jesus and his disciples:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [Matthew 7:21-23; KJV]

But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. [Matthew 12:36; NIV]

Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, [Hebrews 9:27; NIV]

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. [Romans 3:19]

The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. [Matthew 3:10; NIV]

His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire. [Matthew 3:12; NIV]

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [Matthew 7:19; NIV]

As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. [Matthew 13:40; NIV]

That's just a small sample of the numerous warnings about what will happen to the wicked.  Get the picture?  The one who does not have their sins atoned for will be BUNRED! UP! on Judgement Day!  Those who trust in Jesus for this life only instead of for the remission of sins and his promise of eternal life will BURN! UP! on Judgement Day!  Once this life is over, you will be raised from the dead to face God's Judgement!  The righteous will inherit eternal life, but the wicked will perish in the lake of fire!

14 Then death and [the Grave] were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. [Revelation 20:14-15]

It would seem that the mission of these wicked pastors is to make sure that people are blind to the danger of the impending judgement.  Any Church run by such people cannot be reformed until all those who teach against the Judgement by not mentioning it are removed from said Church.  Even then, as we've learned from history, most of those who call themselves "Christian" are governed by the flesh, which compels them to worship God their own way instead of God's way.  Even those who are supposed to be teaching people how to live by God's Word are instead governed by the flesh.  So the Church as a whole cannot be reformed.  And the extremely few congregations that may reform will incur a great financial loss.

Your best option is to leave a Church as soon as you recognize that it's falling away, and form your own Bible study group.  And to study the Bible for yourself and to obey it!  And to test everything against it.  Also, any Church that refuses to learn to obey the front of the book will eventually stop obeying what little of the back of the book that they are currently obeying.

Proving Paul is a True Apostle [Part 2]

In Part 1, we examined a significant portion of the book of Romans to prove that Paul is a true apostle of Jesus the Messiah.  I planned on going through more of the book (if not finishing it) in part 2, but I realized I missed something in part one.  So we're going to start this off by addressing what we missed in the last post.

Here is the relevant passage.  Romans 3:9-20.

9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;

11     there is no one who understands;

    there is no one who seeks God.

12 All have turned away,

    they have together become worthless;

there is no one who does good,

    not even one.”

13 “Their throats are open graves;

    their tongues practice deceit.”

“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”

14     “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”

15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16     ruin and misery mark their ways,

17 and the way of peace they do not know.”

18     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

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. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. [NIV]

The charge here is that Paul is taking Scripture out of context and twisting it to say what he wants it to say.  They contend that Psalm 14:1 (which Paul quotes in Romans 3:10-12) says that there's nobody among fools that does good.  However, Paul is not quoting just one verse here, but multiple verses.  The next two (Psalm 14:2-3) makes it clear that there is nobody among all mankind that does good.  We see the same pattern in Psalm 53.  And Ecclesiastes 7:20 (one of the many verses Paul quotes in this passage) also makes it clear that nobody is righteous.  And the definition of righteous that is used in that verse requires the person to never sin once.  Ironically, it's those making the charge against Paul who are taking Scripture out of context.

There may be other places I've missed or will miss, but we'll address those when I realize I've missed them or when they're pointed out to me.  In the mean time, let's continue where we left off from part 1:  Romans 8.  Here, we are introduced to two new laws:  The "law of the Spirit" and the "law of sin and death".  In addition to that, we have the law of God, which is referred simply as "the Law".  So we see that there are at least three laws at play here.  In verse 7, Paul states that he is referring to God's Law when he says, "The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."  What does that tell you about those who say "God's Law is a burden" or "God's Law is too difficult"?

So, let's go back to Romans 6 and 7, and see if chapter 8 can help us understand these passages which imply that God's Law is the problem or that we've been set from from it.  Paul states that we have died to sin (6:2) and have been set free from sin (6:7).  He also said that sin shall no longer be our master because we are not under the law, but under grace (6:14).  So if being set free from sin means we are no longer "under the law", then which law is Paul referring to?  Wouldn't it be the law of sin and death mentioned in Romans 8:2?  Also, if the answer is no, then does Paul define what it means to be "under the Law" when "the Law" refers to God's Law?  Perhaps.  In Galatians 3:10, Paul quotes God's Law when he says that those who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse.  Why are they under a curse?  Because the Law says, "Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out." [Deuteronomy 27:26; NIV]  So, if being "under the Law" is referring to God's Law, then it means being under the curse of the Law because you have broken the Law.  Again, it is not those who keep the Law who are cursed, but those who break the Law who are cursed.

Continuing on, Paul says we used to be slaves to sin (6:17), but have since been set free from sin and are now slaves to righteousness (6:18).  And that we should now offer ourselves as slaves to righteousness just as we used to offer ourselves as slaves to ever-increasing wickedness (6:19).  And we have been set free from sin, and are now slaves to God (6:22).  In Romans 7:1-3, Paul uses the marriage Law as an analogy to what has happened to us, then says we have died to the Law (7:4), have died to that which once bound us (7:5) and have been released from the law (7:6).  Which Law have we been released from?  The law of sin an death!  The marriage law represents the law of sin and death that we were bound to before we came to repentance and faith in Jesus.  By the way, in Romans 7:23, Paul specifies that it is the law of sin working against the Law of God.  And the next two verses, states that it was through Jesus the Messiah that he was delivered from the law of sin.  So we were introduced to the law of sin here.  And it is this law that we are no longer under.

How Accurate is the Translation of "Church"?

What comes to mind when you hear the word "church"?  A building where Christians meet?  Christianity as a whole?  Something else?  The word translated as "church" in our Bibles is the Greek word "ecclesia", which is a compound Greek word that literally means "to call out".  This word appears in the Bible 118 times and is translated as "Church" 115 of those times in the KJV.  But how accurate is this translation?

If by "Church", you mean "congregation" or "assembly", then the translation is not accurate at all.  Nothing I could find about ecclesia has anything to do with gathering together or assembling.  It has everything to do with what some refer to as "the called out ones".  That is, the people who believe in Jesus.  A better word to translate as "Church" in the context of an assembly would be the Greek word "synagogue", which literally means "assembly".  The Bible also uses this to refer to the place where believers assemble.

If you mean the place where believers in Jesus assemble, then the phrase "house of God" or "house of the Lord" seems to be the best option.  Every place where this phrase appears in the Bible, it always refers to a physical location or building where the people assemble.  The word "synagogue" I guess can work, but that word is usually reserved for congregations that try to observe God's Appointed Times and Sabbaths as closely to what's prescribed as possible.

In two places in the New Testament, you'll find the phrase "God's household".  Paul uses this is 1 Timothy 3:15 to refer to "the called out of the living God" (literal translation).  Peter seems to use it in the same manner in 1 Peter 4:17.  So while the phrase "house of God" refers to the physical place of assembly, the phrase "God's household" refers to those who believe in Jesus.  Although some interpret "God's household" as synonymous with "house of God", which refers to the place of assembly.

If by Church, you mean those who believe in Jesus, then you have a whole host of phrases to choose from if you want to eliminate any ambiguity.  Phrases such as "body of Christ", "body of the Messiah", "the called out ones", "the called out of God", and a few others.  You also have the word "Christians".

In conclusion, the word "Church" is not the most accurate translation of ecclesia.  A literal translation of "called out ones" or "called out" seems to be the best translation in most (if not all) cases.  By the way, have you been wondering what exactly we have been called out of?  I believe that the answer is that we've been called out of sin.  That would mean "ecclesia" refers to those who have been called out of sin, and now walk according to that calling.  I also believe that God is calling everyone out of sin, but very few are going to answer it.  This is why I believe that this translation is the best.  Because by using this, we will constantly remind ourselves that we have been called out of sin, and into righteousness (Romans 6:11-14), which is obedience to God's commandments (Romans 2:13).

Proving Paul is a True Apostle [Part 1]

So, in a previous post, I exposed the rather lacking attempts that the Church makes to defend Paul and explained why they cannot provide an adequate defense of the Apostle.  In this post (which will probably be a multi-part series), I'll be proving that Paul is a legitimate Apostle of our Lord, Jesus the Messiah.  We're going to be starting in the book of Romans since much of the accusations against Paul are the result of misunderstanding what Paul wrote in his epistles.  First, we need to lay a few rules about how we are testing Paul to determine his legitimacy.

1. Any command that he gives that he credits to God must come from God's Law.  Same for any command that he credits to Jesus.  For he is not allowed to add to or diminish from God's commandments [Deuteronomy 12:32].
2. Teaching people that they do not have to keep God's Law is the same as teaching people to follow after other gods.  See the Deuteronomy 13 Test for why this is.

With that out of the way, let's get started with Romans Chapter 2.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. [Romans 2:12-16; NIV]

In the above passage, Paul makes it abundantly-clear that only those who keep the Law will be declared righteous (verse 13).  And in verses 14 and 15, Paul explains that the one who does what is required by God's Law, even though they do not have the written Law, shows that they have his Law written on their heart.  By the way, Jeremiah 31:31-34 is a promise by God to make a new covenant with his people where he will write his Law on their hearts.  The Law being on our hearts is nothing new.  Deuteronomy 26:16 commands us to keep the Law with all our hearts.  That is, keeping God's Law should come naturally to us.

25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. [Romans 2:25-27; NIV]

There is definitely a lot of confusion on the topic of circumcision.  Some use the above passage as proof that circumcision is bad.  But those we are addressing in this post use this passage as proof that Paul was a deceiver.  But notice what Paul said about the one who keeps the Law, yet is not circumcised.  If God's Law requires all to be circumcised, then how can somebody obey the Law without being circumcised?  Hint:  It does not require all to be circumcised; only the descendants of Israel and those who want to eat the Passover.

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. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. [Romans 3:19-20; NIV]

This passage should be pretty self-explanatory.  The Law tells us what sin is, and it is because of the Law that the whole world will be held accountable to God on Judgement Day.  This is one of many passages that are used as proof that keeping the Law is a bad thing.  But the logic behind this is what's known as a non-sequitor.  It does not follow that because the Law makes us aware of our sin, that we therefore should not keep the Law.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Since the Law tells us what sin is, we should be making every effort to keep the Law.  And remember Romans 2:13:  Only those who keep the Law will be declared righteous.

Romans 3:21-26 is Paul explaining that righteousness comes from believing in Jesus.  This does not mean that one can break the Law and still be righteous.  It means that those who believe have been forgiven of their transgressions through the blood of Jesus.  Forgiveness means God no longer counts the times you have transgressed his Law against you, and are therefore, righteous in his sight.  Oh, and if anyone gets any ideas after stopping at verse 30:  You stopped one verse too soon!  Those who have faith keep God's Law!  Now even if he didn't explicitly say that, think:  How much sense does it make to define righteousness as keeping God's Law, then teach us not to keep the Law?  Does it make any sense for someone to say, "righteousness is keeping God's Law, therefore do not keep God's Law"?  Of course not.

Starting in Romans 3:21, Paul is teaching that righteousness is by faith apart from the works of the Law.  And in Romans 4:3, Paul quotes the historical account in Genesis 15 to prove his point.  This is because Genesis 15:6 states "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. [NIV]"  Many assume that Paul is teaching something called "faith alone", which James had some choice words concerning such doctrines.  The only time the phrase "faith alone" appears in the Bible is when James speaks against it.  It never appears anywhere else.  Faith alone is the doctrine that since our righteousness is by faith apart from the works of the Law, that our works have absolutely no bearing on our righteousness.  And those who teach it will say that if you teach otherwise, then you are, by definition, teaching a "salvation by works".  Never-mind the fact that only those who keep the Law can be declared righteous in God's sight (Romans 2:13).  In Jame's rebuke of such heresy, he quotes from the exact same verse to prove that Abraham's deeds came from his faith.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Romans 5:20-21; NIV]

Here's another verse that I've seen used to try to prove that Paul spoke against the Law.  There's just one tiny little detail:

6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? [Romans 6:1-2]

Yup!  They stopped too soon again. Speaking of which, chapters 6 and 7 is where Paul starts his teaching on slavery to sin vs slavery to righteousness; being dead to sin, but alive to God.  Take to heart Peter's warning, and read carefully the whole passage before jumping to conclusions about what Paul did or did not teach.  Because a lot of the misunderstandings about what Paul taught are from forming whole doctrines around one or two verses without taking the context into consideration.  By doing this, one will draw a conclusion that is the exact opposite of Paul's teachings.  This is on top of the fact that Paul is still difficult to understand, per Peter's warning.

Read Romans 6 very carefully.  And notice how Paul is teaching that we have died to sin, and therefore are no longer slaves to sin, having been set free from it.  And that we are to offer ourselves as instruments of righteousness.  Now, what does Romans 6:14 mean?  What "law" is Paul referring to when he says we're not under the Law?  Is it possible that Paul is talking about more than one law here?  Under what law is sin our master?  If it's God's Law, then what does being "under the Law" mean?  Does being under the law mean we have to keep the Law?  Or does it mean something else?  Perhaps it means that we are under the curse that comes when we break the Law.

If you interpreted "not being under the Law" as referring to God's Law, then you might want to continue reading.  The very next verse states that we shall no means sin because we are "not under the Law".  It seems that Paul knew how we might misunderstand what he was trying to say, and so he made sure that we would not draw any incorrect conclusions about what he was trying to teach.  If only we would not keep stopping one verse too short.

That brings us to Romans 7, which will be the last chapter we cover in this post.  At the end of Romans 6, Paul reiterates one final time that we have been set free from sin and are now slave to God.  And Romans 7 starts off by making using God's marriage law as an analogy for what he is trying to say.  So now, what is Paul trying to tell us when he says that we have been "released from the Law" (Romans 7:6)?  Which law is he referring to?  If he is referring to God's Law, then is he referring to the requirement to keep the Law?  Or is he referring to the penalty that the Law requires for breaking the Law?  Again, it seems Paul knew how people would interpret what he was saying verses what he was trying to say.  Because in Romans 7:7, he says (clearly referring to God's Law), "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'"

Notice again that Paul is saying that it is because of God's Law that we know what is sinful.  And if you keep reading, you will see that Paul is saying that sin uses God's Law to deceive us.  Sound familiar?  It should.  Because this is exactly the same trick that the serpent used in Genesis 3 to deceive Eve into eating the fruit that God said, "you shall not eat of it".  And Paul spends the rest of the chapter explaining how he used to be under the power of sin, but have been saved through Jesus the Messiah (Romans 7:21-25).

In part two, we will (Lord willing), continue to study Paul's writings to prove that he never once taught against God's Law.  For now, I'll leave you with this quote, from Paul:  "I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the flesh a slave to the law of sin."

Part 2 is available here.