If you are talking “the law” in terms of God’s character then I agree, but if you are talking about “the law” in terms of the 10 Commandments then you have no biblical proof of what you say. Of course there is a right way and a wrong way and love has always been the right way. The 10C, however, were not given until Sinai.



I find it interesting how you start your comments with “No” and then proceed to validate my point. My point was that the health laws and tithing predate the OC law. Here is what I said:



Do you disagree that the health laws and tithing predated the law? Or are you arguing a minute point that I’m not making.



Most of the individual pieces of the OC existed in other forms before God gathered them all together into the OC. Very little was new other than God changing the pagan meaning to a prophecy of Jesus and salvation. God doesn’t have a problem speaking to us in our language. In fact God doesn’t have a problem veiling His divinity in our flesh to disarm our fear and prejudice.



That was my point exactly when I said:





The bible doesn’t say anything about vegetarianism, but it’s interesting how the principles of kindness and the knowledge that there will be no killing in heaven stimulates groups to put away flesh eating. There is a law greater than the OC in moving us to obey the principles of Christ.



Actually we will never agree on this because I interpret the words in the text according to the context and you change the context by looking at the words as if they were written in a medical journal or a spec book. Greek and Hebrew can’t be read that way. Word inspiration compared to thought inspiration. The word "abolished" is no stronger than "obsolete", "nailed to the cross", "no longer under", "ministration of death", or "passing away".

Paul is simply saying, in every way he could think of, that God doesn't condemn us like the OC declares us guilty, but that He is forgiving and willing to save anyone who will believe that He is as His Son revealed Him to be as He put into effect the NC by revealing God's grace through His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection.

The good news is that God is like Jesus and not like Israel thought He was.

scott

I'm talking about the law in terms of the 10 commandments. I presented the biblical proof and you didn’t comment on it. “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Once sin was imputed before Sinai, this means the law existed before Sinai. You claim that God gave laws about clean/unclean animals and tithing, which are peripheral issues, but didn’t give human beings the knowledge of His moral law, which defines sin. How could sin be imputed if people didn’t even know what sin was?
That the law existed before Sinai is obvious. When the people transgressed the Sabbath on their way to Sinai, God said, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?” (Exo. 16:28), which shows that they already had a knowledge of the Sabbath as part of God’s law.


I by no means validated your point. I said several laws were already known before Sinai, including, obviously, the moral law (meaning the 10C, which are the 2C of love expressed in a way adequate to sinful beings).


Yes, as I had already said, I disagree that the health laws and tithing predate the moral law. But in this item specifically I was disagreeing with your statement that the Israelites “were actually punished, punitively, for breaking the law” of clean/unclean animals. There was no punishment specified in the OC for breaking this law.


The laws that God had given previously were gathered into the OC, not practices that human beings had created.


??? What are you referring to?


Our knowledge is not enough, even today, to determine what is clean and what is not, and why. Why, for instance, are piranhas clean animals, since they are not only carnivores but scavengers?


I agree.

Posted above, reposted here:

1 Corinthians
9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.


The following two passages seem to refer to people who are under obligation to obey the law, which includes everyone.

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." Romans 3:19.

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law." 1 Cor 9:20, 21.

[1 Cor 9:20, 21 quoted] The Gentiles, Paul approached by exalting Christ, and then presenting the binding claims of the law. He showed how the light reflected by the cross of Calvary gave significance and glory to the whole Jewish economy. {GW 118.2}

[1 Cor 9:20, 21 quoted] To the Gentiles, he preached Christ as their only hope of salvation but did not at first have anything definite to say upon the law. But after their hearts were warmed with the presentation of Christ as the gift of God to our world, and what was comprehended in the work of the Redeemer in the costly sacrifice to manifest the love of God to man, in the most eloquent simplicity he showed that love for all mankind--Jew and Gentile--that they might be saved by surrendering their hearts to Him. Thus when, melted and subdued, they gave themselves to the Lord, he presented the law of God as the test of their obedience. This was the manner of working-- adapting his methods to win souls. Had he been abrupt and unskillful in handling the Word, he would not have reached either Jew or Gentile. {SW 77.2}

The "under the law" here is not "under the law" in the Greek. I was thinking this was in Romans somewhere, but it looks like you found the exception I was talking about.



You mentioned two passages. The one from 1 Cor 9:21 is not "under the law" in the Greek. Regarding the one from Rom. 3:19



Ok, so there's 2 exceptions, not just 1. I was remembering correctly that 1 was in Romans, but thought there was just 1, not 2. So you found both exceptions.

Do you think it would have been practical for God to have listed all of the tens of thousands of species that are not healthy to eat? He gave practical guidelines that could be followed. That doesn't mean it's OK to eat anything not on the list.

Tom, what is the difference between "under [obligation to obey] the law" and "in the law"? Following are three versions:

Romans
2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by law. (RV)

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. (NIV)

2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law. (NASB)

Romans
3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God. (RV)

3:19 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. (NIV)

3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God. (NASB)

1 Corinthians
3:19 To them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. (RV)

3:19 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. (NIV)

3:19 To those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. (NASB)

I'm not sure you understood what I said. Scott's argument is that we don't need the guidelines of Leviticus to know which animals should be eaten and which shouldn't. I said not even science can discern which animals are safe to eat and which are not, and why.

You asked this:



How does the fact that piranhas are clean animals establish the point that our knowledge is not enough, even today, to determine what is clean and what is not?

Rosangela,

You are making the point that Romans 5:13 is saying that sin was imputed before Sinai and before the 10 Commandments were given. Therefore the 10 Commandments were given in Eden?

You might want to read the whole context of Romans 5:13 "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

This text, by itself, says exactly the opposite of what you are saying. This text says that sin was in the world, but not imputed until the law. This statement shows that the law was much later than sin!

Your other text, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?” (Exo. 16:28) was given after God gave instructions to Israel not to glean manna on the Sabbath and then they went and did it anyway. This doesn’t reference Eden, but the instructions given to Moses when the manna was given!

Basically your text doesn’t prove your point at all, but just the opposite.

Sabbath, the clean and unclean, and tithing were not a matter of law until the Sinai. They were a matter of conscience just like they are now since we are no longer under the law!



Sin is rebellion against God and I guarantee you that everyone who is in rebellion against God knows it! Your statement reduces sin to behavior. Paul is talking about how God views us and considers us even though we are in rebellion!

scott

Please read the following article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041027113643.htm

All the carnivores/scavengers are classified in the Bible as unclean. The only exception I'm aware of is the piranha. The article itself gives the scientific reason for this: "Most of the species avoided for the ill include species high on the food chain. These fish are more likely to accumulate toxins." The same holds true for other carnivores/scavengers (non-fish). So, according to scientific knowledge, and according to the logical rule followed by the classification of clean/unclean animals, piranhas should be classified as unclean, but they are clean. Why? We have to depend on the Bible here, for we do not know the reason for this.