CleverDan
New member
Thank you Lighthouse for responding to my post and for clarifying your positions on this issue. Now I would like to elaborate on items you responded to my post.
This brings me to often quoted verses of Romans 1:26-32. Actually if one starts reading from verse 8, Paul explains that his purpose in writing the letter to the church at Rome was to preach the Gospel by the Word of God for the purpose of instilling faith, with the result that individuals may be saved. Verses 18-32 Paul presents the condemning Law, casting a wide net on a number of sins that all people are committing. So if one doesn’t commit the sin of homosexuality, a number of other sins exist from which all of us commit at least one. It’s easy to read these verses and think that the “they” refers strictly to unbelievers. Then in Romans 2:1-ff, Paul introduces a “therefore” statement, tying in the thoughts of the previous chapter to the point he makes about judging people. If we pass judgment without realizing that we, ourselves, are sinners than we are condemning ourselves, so the Roman Christians are included in the “they” of chapter 1:18-32; a point reinforced in Romans 3:10-18 and 3:23. However, passing judgment does not mean that we can’t point out another believer’s sin (Matthew 18:15-19), but there needs to be a purpose in showing someone their sin, which is what Paul is doing in Romans 1. The purpose is to bring about repentance, described in Romans 2:4 as propelled by God’s kindness, tolerance (forbearance), and patience (longsuffering). A pattern exists throughout the New Testament Church where God’s Word is proclaimed so one can confess their sin and receive salvation, or for the believers to confess their sins to be renewed in the faith. (For other examples, see Acts 2:14-41 for the unbelievers and 1 John 1:8-10 for the believers.) Nowhere in Romans 1 does Paul tie sins “worthy” of death to a civil enforcement process like was described for adultery in Deuteronomy 22:23-24. The death being described here can be tied to God’s wrath fully revealed on Judgment Day (Romans 2:5)
I agree with your Old Testament legal analysis of the flaws in bringing charges against this woman. The point here is that the teachers of the law and the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus into advocating something not allowed under Roman law. It’s interesting to note that Jesus did not use this opportunity to correct their misapplication of Old Testament Israelite law, nor did He advocate returning to that system in order to deal with the situation at hand. Instead He went right to the heart of the matter in dealing with the same kind of problem that it appears Paul is addressing in Romans 2:1-4. Christ is the example of what Paul is describing.
The purpose of my comments in this post was to point out that Jesus is as much God as He is man. As God, Jesus (or His heavenly Father) could have condemned this woman of sin, and/or condemned her to death, using His divine nature and power. Instead in His State of Humiliation, He used the opportunity to bring about repentance, telling her “Go, and sin no more.”
It is God’s will that the Jews follow His commandments. Much of Jesus’ earthly ministry focused on correcting, and therefore re-establishing the proper interpretation of His Word, often times signified by Jesus saying, “It has been said…but I say to you.” A great example of this is found in Matthew 5:31-32 regarding divorce, where Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and then corrects the misinterpretation and misapplication of the text. By the way, Matthew records Jesus had to do this correction again regarding divorce in Matthew 19:1-9. These are great examples of interpreting Old Testament Law through the lens of Jesus and the Apostles of the New Testament. Again, Jesus was not interested in re-establishing the good old days of a sovereign nation but leading people to the idea of His kingdom on Earth through His Church. This is most vividly seen in the faith of His believers of His Church, and how they give witness to Him through their actions.
Certainly, government could institute these laws and would not be ruling against God’s will. God’s hand is seen in civil government regardless of whether they recognize Him as God. He allowed King David to rule as much as the godless Pharoah. He allows George W. Bush to rule as much as He allows rulers of Iran or Pakistan to exist. God puts them in power to keep order in the world (1 Peter 2:13-14.)Lighthouse said:I am saying certain aspects should still be in effect, as civil laws, because they would be good laws for all societies, outside of religion.
However, God has not established His Word as a handbook of laws that governments or rulers are expected to follow. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Paul clarifies for Pastor Timothy the purpose of God’s Word. The focus is the relationship of God in Christ Jesus to His Church and the Church to His believers (Ephesians 2:19-22 and Colossians 1:18-20.) If God thought it was best to institute His laws through government, then Christ’s message (and the Apostles following) would have advocated the overthrow of the Roman government and reinstituted Israel as a sovereign nation. Instead in Matthew 28:18-20, He commanded that individual believers go out to all nations and make disciples through baptizing and teaching, and to therefore use God’s law as the guide to follow for those saved under His grace and mercy. We are the ambassadors of His Word, showing men and women their sin, but also showing people their Savior and the salvation He offers by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).Lighthouse said:I am saying that the government should follow God's command above their own reasoning and desires. Because God's reasoning and desires are best, for He knows best.
Lighthouse said:That's your assumption. Romans 1 relates to the verses on homosexuality in Deuteronomy.
This brings me to often quoted verses of Romans 1:26-32. Actually if one starts reading from verse 8, Paul explains that his purpose in writing the letter to the church at Rome was to preach the Gospel by the Word of God for the purpose of instilling faith, with the result that individuals may be saved. Verses 18-32 Paul presents the condemning Law, casting a wide net on a number of sins that all people are committing. So if one doesn’t commit the sin of homosexuality, a number of other sins exist from which all of us commit at least one. It’s easy to read these verses and think that the “they” refers strictly to unbelievers. Then in Romans 2:1-ff, Paul introduces a “therefore” statement, tying in the thoughts of the previous chapter to the point he makes about judging people. If we pass judgment without realizing that we, ourselves, are sinners than we are condemning ourselves, so the Roman Christians are included in the “they” of chapter 1:18-32; a point reinforced in Romans 3:10-18 and 3:23. However, passing judgment does not mean that we can’t point out another believer’s sin (Matthew 18:15-19), but there needs to be a purpose in showing someone their sin, which is what Paul is doing in Romans 1. The purpose is to bring about repentance, described in Romans 2:4 as propelled by God’s kindness, tolerance (forbearance), and patience (longsuffering). A pattern exists throughout the New Testament Church where God’s Word is proclaimed so one can confess their sin and receive salvation, or for the believers to confess their sins to be renewed in the faith. (For other examples, see Acts 2:14-41 for the unbelievers and 1 John 1:8-10 for the believers.) Nowhere in Romans 1 does Paul tie sins “worthy” of death to a civil enforcement process like was described for adultery in Deuteronomy 22:23-24. The death being described here can be tied to God’s wrath fully revealed on Judgment Day (Romans 2:5)
Lighthouse said:Actually, as Jesus was not recognized as a governing authority He would have been breaking His own command by demanding that the woman be executed, even if the scribes and Pharisees had been following the law otherwise, which, by the way, they weren't. And how do you know Jesus didn't give a suggestion that the man be brought forward? You don't know what He wrote in the dirt. And if He wrote the law that these men were referring back to, then He did at least suggest that the man be brought forward.
Also, when Jesus looked up at the end, there weren't any witnesses. So at that time, if Jesus had stoned her, or even merely condemned her, He would have been breaking His own command that there should be two or three witnesses.
I agree with your Old Testament legal analysis of the flaws in bringing charges against this woman. The point here is that the teachers of the law and the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus into advocating something not allowed under Roman law. It’s interesting to note that Jesus did not use this opportunity to correct their misapplication of Old Testament Israelite law, nor did He advocate returning to that system in order to deal with the situation at hand. Instead He went right to the heart of the matter in dealing with the same kind of problem that it appears Paul is addressing in Romans 2:1-4. Christ is the example of what Paul is describing.
The purpose of my comments in this post was to point out that Jesus is as much God as He is man. As God, Jesus (or His heavenly Father) could have condemned this woman of sin, and/or condemned her to death, using His divine nature and power. Instead in His State of Humiliation, He used the opportunity to bring about repentance, telling her “Go, and sin no more.”
Lighthouse said:Calvinist much? What makes you think it was God's will that the Jews not follow His commands? Just because another nation invaded, and took them over?
It is God’s will that the Jews follow His commandments. Much of Jesus’ earthly ministry focused on correcting, and therefore re-establishing the proper interpretation of His Word, often times signified by Jesus saying, “It has been said…but I say to you.” A great example of this is found in Matthew 5:31-32 regarding divorce, where Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and then corrects the misinterpretation and misapplication of the text. By the way, Matthew records Jesus had to do this correction again regarding divorce in Matthew 19:1-9. These are great examples of interpreting Old Testament Law through the lens of Jesus and the Apostles of the New Testament. Again, Jesus was not interested in re-establishing the good old days of a sovereign nation but leading people to the idea of His kingdom on Earth through His Church. This is most vividly seen in the faith of His believers of His Church, and how they give witness to Him through their actions.
Last edited by a moderator: