What Romans 14 Really Means

Romans 14 is often used to justify willfully transgressing God's law concerning food (eating that which God says is not food), the Sabbath (by changing it to Sunday), and the Appointed Times (by replacing them with man-made holidays such as Christmas and Easter).  Romans 14 starts by saying, "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to have quarrels over opinions." [Romans 14:1; NASB]  Right away, we can see that Paul is writing about matters of opinion.  That is, about matters that Scripture does not address.  So whatever Paul says we are not to judge others for, we must interpret it in light of the fact that neither Torah, nor Yeshua (Jesus) has addressed it.  Of course, I wouldn't be writing a whole blog post on this if people were actually applying Romans 14 correctly.  And it turns out that, in typical fashion, the vast majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" use this chapter to claim that God's commandments are a matter of opinion.  And this time, they (usually) openly admit that they are saying that these commandments merely matters of opinion.

To further drive the point home, let's take a look at the next verse:  "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables." [Romans 14:2; NASB]  The issue here is whether one should restrict oneself to eating only vegetables.  And in typical fashion, Paul doesn't give the full cultural context surrounding what it says.  It assumes that the reader knows the cultural context.  So what is the cultural context?  Simple:  In the Greek and Roman markets, some of the meats were sacrificed to idols, and many in the faith did not want to risk accidentally eating meats sacrificed to idols.  What I find interesting is how Paul is actually teaching people to do the opposite of what Daniel and his companions did concerning meats sacrificed to idols [Daniel 1:8:13].  There, Daniel and his companions are praised for refusing to eat meat that might have been sacrificed to idols.  But Paul says this is "weak in faith".  Torah does not prohibit one from eating meats that might have been sacrificed to idols, by the way.  But the fact that God rewarded Daniel and his companions in Daniel 1:8-16 should tell us how much God values going above and beyond what he requires.

Anyways, Romans 14:2 is twisted to justify ignoring God's dietary laws found in Leviticus 11.  Let's assume for a moment that Romans 14:2 is permission to eat pork in spite of God's very clear command not to.  What would that actually imply concerning Paul?  Well, Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 prohibits us from adding to or subtracting from God's commandments.  If the majority interpretation of Romans 14 is correct, then Paul is a false teacher for subtracting from God's commandments.  And they wonder why so many people are convinced that Paul is a false teacher.  Remember, Torah interprets the "New Testament", not the other way around.  Fortunately, since the very first verse of Romans 14 explicitly states that these concern only matters of opinion, Paul is not guilty of false teachings.

The next verse states:  "The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him." [Romans 14:3; NASB]  In other words, the ones who don't concern themselves with the fact that the market meet may have been sacrificed to idols, and the ones who do concern themselves with it, are to get along with each other.  Since the context is in matters of opinion, this applies to all matters not addressed by God's law.  And never applies to matters in which God's law explicitly permits, requires, or prohibits something.  The next verse likens judging others on matters of opinion to judging another person's servant.  In this case, it's God's servant you are judging, whom Paul says will stand, not fail, for God is able to make them stand.

Continuing onto the next verse (Romans 14:5), we read:  "One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. [NASB]".  Keeping in mind that Paul cannot subtract from God's law without becoming a false teacher, and that the passage concerns matters of opinion, these days that are or are not being valued over another are not the Sabbath or God's appointed times in Leviticus 23.  So what can they refer to?  How about what days we are to fast on?  That's right, Paul is addressing quarreling over which days are to be set aside for fasting.  By the way, in Luke 18:9-14, Jesus tells a story about two men praying.  One of which, a Pharisee, boasts about his self-righteousness.  And among the boasts is about the fact that he fasts twice a week.  Who told them to fast twice a week?  Certainly not God.  But since the Pharisees make such a big deal about fasting so often, it is not at all a stretch to think that people may have set aside specific days of the week to fast on, while others did not.  It's also not a stretch to conclude that people would quarrel about which days (if any) that one should fast on.  Romans 14:5 is clearly a condemnation of such quarrels.  But it cannot be a condemnation against condemning holidays that God did not appoint to serve God with.  The Israelites learned the hard way what God thinks of human beings appointing holidays on his behalf.  Twice!  By the way, Romans 14:6 proves that Paul is explicitly addressing fast days, as he outright states that the one who eats does so for the Lord, and the one who fasts does so for the Lord.

Romans 14:7-13 drives home the point that we will all give an account to God of ourselves and concludes that, "Therefore let’s not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this: not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s or sister’s way." [Romans 14:13; NASB]  But far be it for those who want to excuse sin to not take this prime opportunity to twist Scripture to do exactly that.  The plain meaning of this text, given the context, is to not judge others for having opinions that differ from yours, not to cause others to sin, not to cause distress to those who have differing opinions from you, and to not compel someone who go against their own conscience when their conscience is not contrary to God's law.  But instead of following Paul's instructions, they weaponize it.

So in what ways do they weaponize Romans 14:13?  First, we need to understand that they weaponize Romans 14:2 and claim that those who obey God's commands to abstain from pork are "weak in faith" while those who are unfaithful to God by willfully disobeying him are "strong in faith".  That alone tells you everything you need to know about where their heart is.  Obedience is labeled as "weak" while rebellion (which is idolatry) is labeled as "strong".  So for Romans 14:13, when is comes to stuff like enforcing unbiblical dress codes on everyone, they will say (for those instances) that men are weak, and that women who don't cover themselves are causing men to stumble.  In other words, they play the weak ones as a way to compel everyone to conform to their human standards.  And it's not just in areas such as "modesty", though that is the most common area that Romans 14:13 is weaponized.

So, when it's convenient for themselves, they condemn being "weak in faith" (while ironically claiming that they aren't condemning "weakness of faith").  And when it's convenient for themselves, they demand that we always conform to those who are "weak in faith" so that we "do not cause them to stumble".  But verses 2 and 13 aren't the only verses in Romans 14 that are weaponized.  We'll get to those in a moment.

In verse 14, the NASB says, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean."  If you read the footnotes, you'll see that the word translated as "unclean" literally means "common".  So the NASB translators admit that they used the wrong word for this passage.  What's the difference?  "Unclean" is the word used by God to declare something as unfit for human consumption.  "Common" is the word used in that day by man to declare something as unfit for human consumption.  I do find it interesting that even then, the Pharisees distinguished between God's rules and their rules by using the word "common" for their own rules.  Otherwise, verse 14 would say something like "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing that God has not declared unclean is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean."  If even the Pharisees didn't dare to conflate their own rules about what to eat or not eat with God's commandments about what to eat and not eat, then why have our translators and teachers done this by changing the very thing they say is literally the "word of God"?

By the way, verse 14 is used to justify eating things that God says we are not to eat, even though this would be a clear violation of the command to not subtract from God's commandments.  Here's how the NASB should have rendered this verse:

"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is common in itself; but to the one who thinks something is common, to that person it is common."

And we can see from using the correct translation that Paul is not at all saying that God's dietary regulations have been abolished.  Rather, he is saying that we do not have to comply with human rules.

In verses 15 and 16, Paul says "[15] Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. [16] Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil" [NKJV].  These seem like contradictory instructions at first, to not destroy a fellow believer with one's choice of food and to not let that which is good be spoken of as evil.  But there is a hint at the beginning of verse 15:  "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food..."  Perhaps this is because of what is being served to them.  We need to also keep in mind what was said at the beginning of the chapter:  "The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him" (Romans 14:3; NASB).  It is likely that Paul is instructing us to not compel others to go against their own conscience in matters of opinion.  The specific matters of opinion being addressed here are (a) which days of the week are fast days, and (b) whether one is allowed to eat meat that could have been sacrificed to idols, but one does not know for sure have been sacrificed to idols.

Once again, none of these passages apply to any matter that God explicitly commanded us to do or not to do.  If you do something that God's law forbids, then you sin.  If you do not do something that God's law requires, you also sin.  But if you do something that God's law does not forbid, or do not do something that God's law does not require, then you do not sin.  If two people have opposite opinions on something that God's law neither forbids or requires, then that is when Romans 14 applies.  It is in these cases where Paul is saying that neither person is to judge the other.  And if we take a look at Deuteronomy 4:2 or 12:32, we can see quite clearly that the real sin is adding to and subtracting from God's commandments.  If you require something that God's law does not require, or forbid something that God's law does not forbid, and call that requirement a command of God, then you sin.  Likewise, if you permit that which God's law forbids or make optional that which God's law requires, then you also sin.

Although we aren't quite done with Romans 14, if I were to summarize it, it would be this:  Romans 14 is correcting those who judge others for doing that which is contrary to their own opinion.  We can certainly discuss our opinions and why we have them.  But we should not be elevating them to the same level as God's commandments.  Instead, we should do our best to get along in spite of our differences in opinion.

By the way, Romans 14:17-19 tells us why we should do all of this:  "[17] for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. [18] For the one who serves Christ in this way is acceptable to God and approved by other people. [19] So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another" [NASB].  Our goal is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, not nit-picking on matters of opinion.  While it is clear here that it is wrong to go out of your way to offend those who's opinions differ from your own, it is also clear that it is wrong to compel others to conform to your opinion so that you are never offended.

Romans 14:20 says "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense."  The word translated as "offense" is also translated as "stumbling".  Using what we've learned so far in this chapter, "stumbling" here refers to going against your own conscience, even if what you are doing is permissible according to Torah.  And the next two verses reiterate that point, closing with, "[22] ... Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. [23] But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin." in verse 22-23.

If you approve of something that Torah is silent on, then you shall have no doubts about doing what you approve of.  If you do it with doubt, then you sin.  Not because you have transgressed Torah, but because you have done something contrary to your conscience.  And your conscience serves to keep you from transgressing God's commandments, and to keep you on the path of righteousness.

Some may try to claim that "whatever is not from faith is sin" means that we can do things contrary to Torah, so long as it's done "from faith".  But this line of reasoning quickly falls apart at the slightest bit of scrutiny.  For example, can we lie as long as it's "from faith"?  Can we steal as long as it's "from faith"?  Can we commit adultery as long as it's "from faith"?  If you answer "no" to any of these questions, then you answer "no" to everything that is contrary to Torah.  In fact, the definition of sin is the transgression of Torah (1 John 3:4).

If someone decides they should fast once or twice a week, they do it to the Lord.  And if someone never fasts, they do it to the Lord.  If someone decides to eat only vegetables, they do it to the Lord.  If someone decides to eat meat, they do it to the Lord.  Likewise, the woman who's standards of "dressing modesty" requires them to cover all of their legs, arms, and torso does so to the Lord.  And the woman who's standards of "dressing modestly" permits them leave their legs and arms uncovered, and show cleavage, does so to the Lord.  The one who uses technology on the Sabbath does so to the Lord, as does the one who abstains from using technology on the Sabbath.  The one who plays games on the Sabbath does so to the Lord, as does the one who abstains from playing games on the Sabbath.  And the same rule applies to all matters in which Torah is silent.

The one who is quick to judge and is easily offended should learn to get along and not be easily offended.  The one who seeks to offend others should stop seeking to offend others and learn to accommodate others where the accommodation asked for is reasonable.  And accommodation shall not be demanded outside of any setting that you are not in charge of.  That includes pressuring those who are in charge to demand accommodation.

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.