Romans 7:1

[bluejx]

The statement was made:  "Why should I be upset at a law that has no jurisdiction over me?"

The scripture referred to explain the statement was Romans 7:1  (NASB) Or do you not know, abrethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?

My question is, what does the verse mean and what under what conditions is a man not under the law's jurisdiction.

 

 

[Kevin H]

Maybe the chapter division causes part of the problem. Romans 6 talks about Jesus freeing us from the law of sin and death. In Colossians 2:14 Paul says "having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross."

Too often we try to read into this the law and too many of our pastors missing what the verse is saying try to argue for it to be the so-called "ceremonial law." However the charge of our legal indebtedness that was nailed to the cross is our record of sin.

So here it may be that the law discussed is not God's law of self sacrificing love as presented in the 2 great principles of love God supremely and our neighbor as our selves, that is broken down further into 10 commandments and what the so called "Ceremonial Law" actually is, applications of God's law to different situations and learning tools where the law of God is absolute but the applications are not absolute.

Rather it could be the law of sin and death that Paul was just talking about in Roman's 6, and which was really nailed to the cross.

[Kevin H]

Some other information is that Paul talks about different things when using the word "Law" there is God's law. There is also the law of sin and death.  Third there are the "Oral Torah" and traditions of the Rabbis. Finally there is a new discovery: Paul belonged to the Synagogue of the Freedmen.

I won't go into all the details here, but they were not a typical mainstream Jewish synagogue. They were a right wing extremists hate group.  The members were either people or the children of people who were in slavery for a number of years working 7 days a week and eating what was available. At their freedom they and their families were given full Roman citizenship. But those who formed the Synagogue of the freedmen wanted to make up for their years of slavery. They wanted to prove that they were better Jews than those who lived as faithful Jews all the years. The wanted to show a greater zeal and wanted to prove that they were better than even the Pharisees and wanted to out do them.  They called all these extra things "The works of the Law". And when Jews including Paul using the phrase "The works of the law" it tended to be the specific term of this right wing hate group wanting to show that they were better than others.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

....it could be the law of sin and death that Paul was just talking about in Roman's 6, and which was really nailed to the cross.

I can't find that phrase, the law of sin and death, in Romans chapter 6.  I find that phrase only in Romans 8:2

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."

 

[Robert]

Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?

4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

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

My corporate life from Adam died "in Christ" therefore as far as the law is concerned I am dead, condemned by the law itself. Therefore since I met the justice of the law "in Christ" I have been released from the law.

[bluejx]

Let me explain my interest in this topic.

I've participated in forums in which the members made statements that to me seem a total misunderstanding of the message of scripture.  One such statement, or slgan if you will, is, "There is no sin that can get a saved man lost."  Antoher was, "A christian may commit murder but is not a murderer because it is not his lifestyle."

The notion I think that such statements convey is that at some point that occured in their (supposedly saved folks') life salvation is a done deal and God can't back out of it under any circumstance.  Essentially, to me, the notion sounds like salvation becomes a license to sin.

I don't think you hold to such a view, Robert, but as I said in the opening post Id like to discuss under what conditions is the man not under the jurisdiciton of the law?  What are those conditions in your own words.

[Kevin H]

7 hours ago, Robert said:

I can't find that phrase, the law of sin and death, in Romans chapter 6.  I find that phrase only in Romans 8:2

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."

 

True that is where you see the phrase, but you see that Romans 6 is discussing this.  Remember the original did not have chapter and verse divisions, and there are places in the Bible where the divisions are in the wrong place. But you see from the area above Romans 7 and the area just after this you see the law of sin and death being discussed, so why not in Roman's 7 as well?

[bluejx]

Hi Kevin,

I think you're on to something.  At least it make sense to me that the law of sin and death is what Paul defines in chapter 6 when he says the wages of sin is death.  In Chapter seven he suggests the law gave him knowledge of sin.  It echoes what John says in 1John 3:4 KJV, ".........sin is the transgression of the law."

 

[bluejx]

Based on the various statements some folks I've discussed with have made, it appears their understanding of Paul's words of freedom from the law of sin and death means that for the "saved" death is no longer a consequence for their continued sinning.  But is this what Paul meant or are they wresting his words to their own destruction?

[Robert]

9 hours ago, bluejx said:

I don't think you hold to such a view, Robert, but as I said in the opening post Id like to discuss under what conditions is the man not under the jurisdiciton of the law?  What are those conditions in your own words.

We are not under the law as Christians because the law requires 3 things for eternal life:

1] Perfect obedience in word, deed and thought

2] Perfect sinlessness of nature

3] The 2nd death for failure of 1 & 2

The condition for being delivered under law is to accept the gospel.

 

[Green Cochoa]

The part of the law we are no longer under, as redeemed citizens of God's kingdom, is its penalty.  If we were still under it, we are, by law, subject only to the death penalty.  Because we are not under that law anymore, since Jesus' took the penalty for us, we can live, and not be punished.

We will never, however, be released from the obligations of the law, only from its penalty.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[bluejx]

2 hours ago, Robert said:

We are not under the law as Christians because the law requires 3 things for eternal life:

1] Perfect obedience in word, deed and thought

2] Perfect sinlessness of nature

3] The 2nd death for failure of 1 & 2

The condition for being delivered under law is to accept the gospel.

 

I don't know that "perfect obedience" is possible.  However Paul did pose this question twice is his epistle to the Romans, "What then, shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" and previously in the same chapter, "What then shall we sin that grace may abound?"  Obviously we have to consider what Paul and More emphatically define sin to be, the transgression of the law.

I don't think the issue is about perfection or even about having a sinless nature in the flesh.  Thank God Jesus fulfilled every item on your list and imputes it to the truly saved.  It's about what does Paul really teach on the subject.  Don't you think so?

[bluejx]

Great article, Jackson.  Concise an to the point.  It seems I need to rethink the law of sin and death.  It appears from the article that it actually refers to the sin nature.  But was Paul actually saying he was serving the sin nature in his flesh and if so in what capacity?  I don't think it means he was living after or sowing to the flesh since he admonished his readers dire consequences for doing so.

Ro 8:13
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through
the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Ga 6:8
For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that
soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

I expect he was talking about the struggle we all have while living in our mortal bodies which we know are naturally sinful.

Oddly some folks believe serving the law of sin means they can do whatever they want assured of salvation because they recited the sinner's prayer in the past.  I think a better focus would be to consider what it mean to serve the law of God with the mind and emulate Paul's example in that.

[JoeMo]

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 3:18 AM, Robert said:

I can't find that phrase, the law of sin and death, in Romans chapter 6.  I find that phrase only in Romans 8:2

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."

 

Maybe Kevin wasn't talking about the phrase "sin and death"; but the "law" of sin and death"

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". (Rom. 6:23)

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, bluejx said:

Oddly some folks believe serving the law of sin means they can do whatever they want assured of salvation because they recited the sinner's prayer in the past.  I think a better focus would be to consider what it mean to serve the law of God with the mind and emulate Paul's example in that.

I hear people with a legalistic bent say this all the time (I'm NOT implying that you are a legalist).  Most people I know who have truly experienced the transformation brought to us by grace seem to follow the rules instinctively; and when they are convicted of a new rule, they gladly follow it. Also, no one I know is consistent 100% of the time - we fall, we make mistakes.  That's why we need a Savior.

I don't know if Paul is speaking of his current experiences in Romans 7 or if He is contrasting his life prior to experiencing the fullness of grace vs. his current life.

[Robert]

19 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

We will never, however, be released from the obligations of the law, only from its penalty.

That makes no sense....If you are obligated to the law and you come up short, then what?

[Robert]

16 hours ago, bluejx said:

I don't know that "perfect obedience" is possible.  However Paul did pose this question twice is his epistle to the Romans, "What then, shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" and previously in the same chapter, "What then shall we sin that grace may abound?"  Obviously we have to consider what Paul and More emphatically define sin to be, the transgression of the law.

I don't think the issue is about perfection or even about having a sinless nature in the flesh.  Thank God Jesus fulfilled every item on your list and imputes it to the truly saved.  It's about what does Paul really teach on the subject.  Don't you think so?

I'll get back with you...

[Green Cochoa]

59 minutes ago, Robert said:

That makes no sense....If you are obligated to the law and you come up short, then what?

Do you expect to be coming up short, i.e. sinning, in Heaven?  That makes no sense to me.

OR
Do you expect to NOT be obligated to keep God's law in Heaven?  Again, that makes no sense.

 

Obviously, all of us have sinned.  The Bible tells us this frankly in Romans 3:23 and elsewhere.  That is why Jesus died to take our penalty so that He would have the right to grant us eternal life, even though we didn't deserve it.  Knowing that Jesus took our punishment, however, does not make us free to sin away all we want--that is what the Bible would call doing despite to His grace (see Hebrews 10:28-29).  Contrariwise, because He first loved us, we love and obey Him.  He has said to His followers, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."  If we do not love Him, we will not be spending an eternity with Him, for God, in His love, knows this would be torture to us.  Therefore, if we do not here and now love Him and love keeping His commandments, we cannot expect to live forever.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[bluejx]

9 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I hear people with a legalistic bent say this all the time (I'm NOT implying that you are a legalist).  Most people I know who have truly experienced the transformation brought to us by grace seem to follow the rules instinctively; and when they are convicted of a new rule, they gladly follow it. Also, no one I know is consistent 100% of the time - we fall, we make mistakes.  That's why we need a Savior.

I don't know if Paul is speaking of his current experiences in Romans 7 or if He is contrasting his life prior to experiencing the fullness of grace vs. his current life.

I may or may not have a legalistic bent but that depends on your definition of legalism.  I don't think obedience to the law contributes to salvation.  May I ask what you consider legalism?

I agree that folks who experience grace produced transformation instinctively follow rules.  We see evidence of that is chapter two of Roman where Paul speaks of gentiles who demonstrate they have the law of God written in their hearts by doing by nature the things contained in the law.  I also agree that there is never a condition where we stop needing a savior.  It will always and only be Christ's performance and sacrifice that provide salvation.

I'm also not sure that the description of his experience in Romans 7 is that of a saved man.  After all at the end of the chapter he expresses a great desire to be delivered from it.  Personally i think the last verse of chapter 7 should actually be the first of chapter 8 where he explains how that deliverance is accomplished.

[LifeHiscost]

7 hours ago, Robert said:

That makes no sense....If you are obligated to the law and you come up short, then what?

Then I confess my sin and ask for repentance, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Then I ask for the cleansing of Jesus' blood, which I can claim God's promise to deliver to me.

…8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us....Acts 5

31"He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32"And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."....Acts 5

7"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8"My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My

disciples.…John 15

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, bluejx said:

I may or may not have a legalistic bent but that depends on your definition of legalism.  I don't think obedience to the law contributes to salvation.  May I ask what you consider legalism?

My definition of a legalist is a person who keeps the law because it is his/her contractual duty to do so; that they lose heaven and eternal life if they don't keep their end of the bargain.  It doesn't matter how successful they are in their own sin management, it is their motivation for keeping the law.  To me, it's like saying "Jesus didn't do quite a good enough job to save me; so I must help out just a little."  Living the Life of Good Intentions; Being All You Can Be; Working on Your Sin Alone Until You Are Worthy of Salvation.

This contrasts with the person who know they are already saved through the sacrifice of Jesus; and allow the Spirit of Christ access to their hearts, where he/she and Jesus can work on His/her sin problems together.  No guilt, no striving; just you and Jesus working together on your issues in the order that Jesus wants to work on them.  With Jesus' power and in His time, they are victorious over their sin and can move on together to the next issue. Living in The Room of Trusting In Jesus, Giving Your Sin and Guilt to Him.

I don't consider those who are better at sin management than I am as legalists.  I consider those who try to force their personal standards on me under threat of eternal condemnation if I don't.

I am also unsure of whether Paul's experience in Romans 7 is his experience in his current life as a born-again believer or as a Pharisee in his former life.  Either way, his conclusions are based on grace - not his own efforts which are fruitless.

[bluejx]

JoeMo said

My definition of a legalist is a person who keeps the law because it is his/her contractual duty to do so; that they lose heaven and eternal life if they don't keep their end of the bargain.  It doesn't matter how successful they are in their own sin management, it is their motivation for keeping the law.  To me, it's like saying "Jesus didn't do quite a good enough job to save me; so I must help out just a little."  Living the Life of Good Intentions; Being All You Can Be; Working on Your Sin Alone Until You Are Worthy of Salvation.

This contrasts with the person who know they are already saved through the sacrifice of Jesus; and allow the Spirit of Christ access to their hearts, where he/she and Jesus can work on His/her sin problems together.  No guilt, no striving; just you and Jesus working together on your issues in the order that Jesus wants to work on them.  With Jesus' power and in His time, they are victorious over their sin and can move on together to the next issue. Living in The Room of Trusting In Jesus, Giving Your Sin and Guilt to Him.

I don't consider those who are better at sin management than I am as legalists.  I consider those who try to force their personal standards on me under threat of eternal condemnation if I don't.

I am also unsure of whether Paul's experience in Romans 7 is his experience in his current life as a born-again believer or as a Pharisee in his former life.  Either way, his conclusions are based on grace - not his own efforts which are fruitless.

 

By your definition then I am not a legalist. Though there is no guarantee that I would be labeled as such based on someone's perception of what I point out rather than what I actually point out. My motivation for trying to keep the law is not about not loosing eternal life or part of a bargain or contract. I agree that such a motivation reveals a total misconception of the gospel. I don't think anyone who has actually studied scripture could conceive of such a motivation.

 

My motivation is that it make perfect sense that if you love someone you seek to please them for the joy of pleasing them. I love God. I love Christ. Christ prescribed how to express our love for Him, “If you love Me keep my commandments.” John said, “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” Paul said, “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but what matters is keeping the commandments of God.”

 

Of course such language does not sit well with some folks for some mysterious reason. They seem to automatically assume ever effort to obey God or the mention of such verses is an attempt to save oneself and an affront to their liberty and an attack on their concept of grace which they deem orthodoxy.

 

The contrasts that you make are probably extremes. I've heard the language you employ echoed by those who have made the statements I mentioned in an earlier post. As you mention there is no guilt and no striving but an all important sense of assurance of salvation. I feel there must be a balance between both extremes. Paul mentions mortifying the deeds of the flesh. Obviously this requires some measure of striving against the inclination to sin. If one never strives one never mortifies. And then there are to consequences Paul mentions. Paul does seem to encourage some measure of sin management even while trusting in Jesus. Wouldn't you agree?

 

I hope you don't sense that I'm trying to impose standards on you or anyone else for that matter. I'm just trying to decipher what Paul taught and how he synthesized the gospel of Christ and what He actually said on this topic. I'll let Paul do his own imposing.

 

You're right that Paul did not conclude salvation by works or by his own efforts. That is clear to all. But he did make some pretty profound statements concerning the purpose for which Christ condemned sin in His flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh. What do you suppose he meant by that?

 

 

[bluejx]

I forgot to comment on your final paragraph.  Do you think that Paul's statement about being sold under sin could be a clue to whether or not the bulk of Romans 7 is describing a pre-salvation experience?

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, bluejx said:

As you mention there is no guilt and no striving but an all important sense of assurance of salvation. I feel there must be a balance between both extremes.

In any true relationship, both parties are motivated to make an effort to reinforce and sustain the relationship.  If we have a relationship with Jesus, we will naturally not resist His desires for us.  But to think that there is anything more than love and trust in the power of Jesus' blood that will give us the power to overcome is pure pride.  The grace of God made available by the life, death, resurrection, and ministry of Jesus is the ONLY thing that gets us to heaven.  Jesus did a good enough job to save me; my 2 bits of effort - outside of loving and trusting him - means nothing.  All of my righteousness is as filthy rags.  We overcome by the blood of the Lamb; not by impressing God how awesome we are.

Concerning your last question - I believe it is a pre and post-salvation experience.  Just because we are "saved" doesn't mean we will never sin again.  Yes, we were sold under sin; but we were redeemed (bought back) by the blood of Jesus.

[bluejx]

JoeMo said:

In any true relationship, both parties are motivated to make an effort to reinforce and sustain the relationship.  If we have a relationship with Jesus, we will naturally not resist His desires for us.  But to think that there is anything more than love and trust in the power of Jesus' blood that will give us the power to overcome is pure pride.  The grace of God made available by the life, death, resurrection, and ministry of Jesus is the ONLY thing that gets us to heaven.  Jesus did a good enough job to save me; my 2 bits of effort - outside of loving and trusting him - means nothing.  All of my righteousness is as filthy rags.  We overcome by the blood of the Lamb; not by impressing God how awesome we are.

Concerning your last question - I believe it is a pre and post-salvation experience.  Just because we are "saved" doesn't mean we will never sin again.  Yes, we were sold under sin; but we were redeemed (bought back) by the blood of Jesus.

 

We are not talking generalities here. This is a very specific relationship in which the controlling parties (God the Father and Christ) authoritatively define the particulars of that relationship and provide through grace the necessary enabling. I've already mentioned a few verses that describe those particulars of the relationship. I don't see how one choosing to submit to the defined particulars because of genuine love then is looked on as prideful. Or maybe it is not. What might be considered as prideful is doing so for some other imagined motivation. I find it interesting that such a suspicion is tendered and wonder why it is. Perhaps you can shed some light on that.

 

Obviously such a compliance to the defined specifics of the relationship between us and God in no way contributes to salvation. It is however evidence that there is a true relationship. John's language in his gospel and epistles implies it. Even suggesting that without it the relationship is at best only pretense.

 

It can't be about impressing God but about actually having a relationship.

 

Joh 14:15

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Joh 14:23

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my

words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make

our abode with him.

Joh 15:10

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have

kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1Jo 5:2

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and

keep his commandments.

1Jo 5:3

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his

commandments are not grievous.

 

1Jo 2:4

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and

the truth is not in him.

 

You're absolutely right that “The grace of God made available by the life, death, resurrection, and ministry of Jesus is the ONLY thing that gets us to heaven.” This is something we all agree on. But would you agree that there is more that grace does in the life of a believer than only get him to heaven?

 

My experience has been that some, taking this knowledge, extrapolate, at least in theory, that all manner of disobedience must be tolerated by God because it is all by grace. Of course I think that sometimes extrapolations trespass the borders of wresting. There is a reason there will be folks described in Matthew 7 who though they supposedly exhibit gifts of the spirit there experience and doctrine allowed them to simultaneously work iniquity.

 

We all know that doing the will of the Father does not contribute to salvation but those who do are the only ones in Jesus' prediction that enter the kingdom. And those who don't will not. Why do you suppose that is?

 

Edited February 25, 2016 by bluejx
wierd characters left over from a graphic