Out of Context

[jabcat]

Well, this is an interesting thread.  In one thread I've suggested we list favorite one-liners, and in this one, I'm questioning some one-liners and asking for others  :laughing7:.  Goofy me.

I personally think context is important.  I've seen others either minimize it, or say altogether that there is no such thing - any scripture can stand on its own.  In a sense, that might be true, but in another sense, I believe many (most, all?) scriptures can either be pulled from their context or even a piece of line of scripture used - probably not usually intentionally to deceive - but still, it can at least cause confusion and misinterpretation of the true meaning.  I was pondering this tonight, when a member here, Seth, sent me a link on Facebook to his blog, where he said this;

"[Regarding the scripture often translated as "Christ became/was made sin", which is argued by Coy Brock on Is Was Will Be that it means Jesus did in fact sin], L. Ray Smith makes a compelling rebuttal that the translation above should have been translated as Jesus "was made to be a sin offering." There, he rightly asserts that Coy Brock violates the Biblical doctrine that no scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), that is, no single scripture is its own explanation." - end quote Seth

So with all that in mind, can you think of scriptures that when just a part of them are used or even the whole verse is used, but yanked from a "full" contextual setting, seems to mean one thing - but when examined further in context, really actually means something quite different?

I'll start with one I've "kind'a figured out", and then one that puzzles me. 

This one's kind of "nit-picky", but I've heard many people use John 12:32: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" to mean, we are to tell people about Jesus, and then He'll draw them.  (I believe that's true, but there are other scriptures that directly address that [example, "how can they believe in who they haven't heard, how hear without a proclaimer?", etc.  Also, I of course believe He WILL draw all men - in order).  But for this scrip,the message is often "If we "lift up" Jesus and ascribe glory to Him, the power of Christ is released to transform the hearts of those listening, and they are drawn to Him (ALL TRUE!); but that's not what Jesus is specifically talking about in John 12:32.   Continuing on to verse 33,  the actual CONTEXT and meaning of the verse comes into view;  "He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die" (John 12:32-33). So in that context, being "lifted up" clearly means to be crucified (and He WILL draw all men to Himself!:) 

Here's the one that puzzles me.  Maybe someone can shed some light on it.

There's a scripture where Jesus says he came not to judge the world but to save it.  So we believe that right?  Jesus, Savior of the world!  Amen. In my own mind I've stopped right there at times, leaving it at Jesus didn't come as a judge.  I believe that's true, and it also sounds nice :).   However, if I absolutely do just stop there, I could make the case then that there won't be a judgment, and by extension, it doesn't matter what we do or believe.  However, the very next verse says something very different than that.  It says "The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day."  John 12:48.   Ideas on what that means exactly?  That judgment wasn't then, then was a time for proclaiming and some would believe - but further, there will come a day when every word Jesus spoke will judge us? 

Thoughts on this one?  And/or care to add your own verse, that when standing alone can appear to say one thing, but when taken in context, has more, or even a much different meaning?

Blessings!

[WhiteWings]

Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous

I've seen that scrip for a long time on your sig Wings, and I've pondered it.  If we make more than a few comments back and forth, I'll split it off to another thread, as I'd like this one to really pile up the "one liners" :)

But quickly, as I've thought about it (I'll also check the context around that verse for my own study), but here's another way to look at (interpret?) that scrip.

"But to the one who does not work,   but believes   in the one  who declares the ungodly righteous..."  (tied into "by grace are you saved through faith [believing], not of works"..?)  Again, I'll do a little more study on it in context, thanks.

A verse that support each doctrine :-)

Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

No works
There is a believing factor
The defenition of UNgodly is without God. Meaning not believing in the (right) God.

There are several interpretations.
a]
Those who do not work (charity) are ungodly but still are saved because of their faith.
--> You already know my view on this.

b]
The ungodly have absolutely no connection with the earlier mentioned faith and works.

(Rom 4:3) For what does the scripture say? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.
(Rom 4:4) Now to the man being employed, the wage is not reckoned according to grace, but according to obligation.
(Rom 4:5) But to the man not being employed, but who believes in him who likes watching horses, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

I changed the verse as a way of explanation. (brown)
The 3 verses are only about the worker/believer.
The brown part is just some extra information. It's a fact God likes watching horses but it has no relevance on how He views the worker/believer.
The brown part can safely be removed and you will still fully understand God's views/actions toward the worker/believer.
But you are missing some extra information about God's action/views on the ungodly.

Now replace the brown part with the the original words and you understand my view.


My view is b.
I don't know how such extra words are called in English but they are not uncommon. The same structure is used when Jesus stands before Pilate.

[jabcat]

I'm probably going to move this into the other 'context' thread.  I'm going to study your response more carefully.  It seems complicated, it might take me some time to get my head around it  :)

In the meantime, 1-4 does indeed seem to me to be talking about justification by faith. 

Thanks.  Now I'm going to try to digest your post. 

[jabcat]

What translation is that you're quoting?

Here's the ESV (gonna check TCB)

   What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
   
(Romans 4:1-5 ESV)

[WhiteWings]

What translation is that you're quoting?

Title
A Conservative Version
Creator
Jens Grabner
Subject
holy bible
Date
2009-01-20
Source
http://www.e-sword.net/usermods/
Right
www.stillvoices.org

[WhiteWings]

I'm probably going to move this into the other 'context' thread.

Do so now while it's still easy :-)
I won't reply until you split the thead or write you won't split the thread.

[jabcat]

Hmm, hadn't heard of that translation..thanks.

Haha, I think we've found another way to discuss grace/faith/works  :laughing7:  I promise (I think lol) that I'm not going to pursue this very long.  We've been here, done this.  LOL   :handshake:

However,

The TCB is quite interesting here;  also, adding more of the context of Romans is as well.  I'll highlight some places for ease of scanning;

So then, what shall we declare that Abraham, our forefather
according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified on the
basis of his works, he has something to boast about, but not when facing
God. 3 For what does the Writing say? "And Abraham had faith in
God, and it was regarded to him as being right [and just before God]"
[Gen.J5:6J. 4 Now to the person who is continually working, his wage
isn't regarded as a favor [GIFT], but as a debt. 5 Yet to the person who isn't
continually working, yet is continually having his faith in the One who is
justifying the undevoted person [THE ONE WHO ISN'T WORKING], his faith is regarded to him as being
right [and just before God]. 6 It is just like when David tells about the
happiness of the human whom God regards as being right [and just
before Him] apart from works: 7 "Happy is the person whose lawless
ways have been forgiven, and whose wrongdoings have been covered [BY THE BLOOD APPLIED].
8 Happy is the man whose wrongdoing the Master shall by no means
regard" [Psa. 32:1-21. 9 So then, is this happiness only for those who are
circumcised, or is it also for those who are uncircumcised? For we say;
"Faith was regarded to Abraham as being right [and just before God]."

>>>IMO, this next section ties into that works can be evidence of being spiritually reborn, but not the thing that does the birthing.  He wasn't made righteous by being circumcised, he was made right by faith/believing - then he got circumcised.  THE WORKS WEREN'T BAD, THEY WERE GOOD!  BUT NOT THE THING THAT MADE HIM RIGHT BEFORE GOD.
10 So then, under what circumstances was it regarded as being made_right and
just before God]? While he was circumcised or uncircumcised? It
wasn't while he was circumcised, but while he was uncircumcised.
11 Now he obtained the sign of circumcision as a seal of his being right
[and just before God] by the faith that he had while he was uncircumcised,
so that he might be the father of all the uncircumcised people who
are continually having faith, so that their faith might be regarded to them
as being right [and just before God]; 12 and the father of the circumcised
people who are not only circumcised, but who are also continually
walking a straight line in the footprints of the faith that our father
Abraham had while he was uncircumcised.

>>Now into how the keeping of the Law doesn't save, but again, faith...

13 For the promise to Abraham or to his seed [descendants], that he
would inherit the world, wasn't by means of the Law, but by means of his
being right [and just before God] through faith. 14 For if those who are
depending on the Law are heirs, faith has come to be nothing and the
promise has been nullified; 15 for the Law produces anger; yet where
there is no Law, there is no stepping beyond its boundaries.

Romans 4:16-5:10
16 For this reason, it [inheritance] is on the basis of faith, so that it
might be as a favor [GIFT], so that the promise might be confirmed to all his seed
[descendants], not only to those who are depending on the Law, but also to
those who are depending on the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us
all, 17 (just as it has been written, "I have appointed ybu to be a father of
many nations" [Gen.l7:5J). Facing God, he had faith that God can bring
the dead to Life and can call into existence things that don't exist.
18 Though being beyond hope, he had faith with hope that he would
become the father of many nations, according to what had been declared,
"This is what your seed [descendants] will be" [Gen. 15:51. 19 Now he didn't
become weak in faith when he considered that his own body was already
deadened (since he was somewhere around a hundred years old), and that
Sarah's uterus was also deadened. 20 Yet he didn't doubt the promise of
God in unbelief, but was invigorated in faith and gave glory to God,
21 since he was fully assured that whatever He has promised, He is also
able to do. 22 For this reason also, "it was regarded to him as being right
[and just before God]" [Gen.I5:6J.
23 Now this "it was regarded to him" wasn't written only for him,
24 but also for us. For it is going to be regarded to us who are continually
having our faith in the One who has awakened from among the dead Yesu
our Master 25 who has been delivered over for our offenses, and has been
awakened for our justification.
5 So then, since we have been justified on the basis of faith, we are
going to have peacewhen-facing God-by means of ourMaster Yesu (the
Anointed One), 2 by means of whom also by our faith, we have come to
have access to this favor in which we stand,

[jabcat]

Merged into this topic, had to go in each post and change the Subject though, didn't know how else to do it.  So each post shows I edited it, but I didn't change your posts :)...just the title.    :Yeahright:

[jabcat]

I've got to go get on my "neck straightening" machine to work on my bulging cervical discs.  Too much time on the computer's not good for us, you know :).

Maybe someone else will have things to add.  I'll try to soon move on to other "contextual" verses/phrases as in the OP.

Have a great night!  (Going to bed soon, it's 2:35 AM here in the Bible Belt  :mrflo:)    :high5:

[WhiteWings]

Hi James,

Do you really want to rekindle a faith/works discussion?
I think such a discussion is out of context here :-)
Or at least not of primary importance in the verse I quoted.
The primary question is simple: Are the references to faith and works including the ungodly or excluding the ungodly.
I gave my view on that. (excluding)

[jabcat]

Hi James,

Do you really want to rekindle a faith/works discussion?

No more than we've done - unless it's necessary :)

Haha, I think we've found another way to discuss grace/faith/works  :laughing7:  I promise (I think lol) that I'm not going to pursue this very long.  We've been here, done this.  LOL   :handshake:

[jabcat]

Hi James,

Do you really want to rekindle a faith/works discussion?

No more than we've done - unless it's necessary :)

Haha, I think we've found another way to discuss grace/faith/works  :laughing7:  I promise (I think lol) that I'm not going to pursue this very long.  We've been here, done this.  LOL   :handshake:

But I will look at your posts more closely again tomorrow, and would be glad if you'd do the same to mine.  Then we can move on to other "Context" things if we wish.  Thanks. 

[WhiteWings]

Ungodly


ἀσεβής
asebḗs; gen. aseboús, masc.-fem., neut. asebés, adj. from the priv. a (G1), without, and sébomai (G4576), to worship, venerate. Basically it means godless, without fear and reverence of God. It does not mean irreligious, but one who actively practices the opposite of what the fear of God demands. Asebḗs is one characterized by immoral and impious behavior. Often opposite of díkaios (G1342), just (Rom 4:5; Rom 5:6). Asebḗs also occurs in 2Pe 2:5; 2Pe 3:7; Jud 1:4, Jud 1:15.
Deriv.: asébeia (G763), impiety; asebéō (G764), to act impiously.
Syn.: hamartōlós (G268), sinful, sinner; anósios (G462), wicked, unholy; bébēlos (G952), wicked, profane; theostugḗs (G2319), impious, hater of God; hubristḗs (G5197), an insulter.
Ant.: eusebḗs (G2152), pious; sebastós (G4575), august; semnós (G4586), respectful, worthy of respect; hieroprepḗs (G2412), becoming to a sacred place or person; eulabḗs (G2126), devout.

[WhiteWings]

In the NT ungodly has the Stong number G765.
Job 16:11 uses H5760 for the Hebrew text.
The LXX uses G765

עויל
‛ăvı̂yl
BDB Definition:
1) perverse one, unjust one
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: from H5765
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1580d

1580 עוּל ('ûl) II, deviate from, act unjustly. Used only in the Piel 'iwwēl. 
Derivatives
1580a  עָוֶל ( 'āwel) injustice, unrighteousness.
1580b עַוְלָה ('awlâ) injustice, unrighteousness.
1580c עַוְוָל ('awwāl) unjust, unrighteous one.
1580d עֲוִיל ('ăwı̂l) unjust one.
The Arabic cognate 'wl means "to deviate." Likewise in Hebrew the basic meaning of this root means to deviate from a right standard, to act contrary to what is right. The root occurs sixty times, with forty of these found in Job (sixteen times); Psalms (thirteen times) and Ezekiel (eleven times): The rest are distributed throughout the prophetic and legal literature.
The verb is a denominative from 'āwel/'awlâ and occurs only twice in the Old Testament, both times in the Piel stem. In Isa 26:10 it describes the activity of the people of Judah who act unjustly (KJV; "perversely," RSV) in contrast to upright behavior. In Ps 71:4, a prayer of supplication, the verb contrasts the behavior of the unrighteous with that of God and his servant.
'āwel, 'awlâ. Injustice, unrighteousness. Like the antonyms ṣedeq/sedāqâ there is little difference between the masculine segholate 'āwel found twenty times. and its feminineequivalent 'awlâ occurring thirty-three times. Both denote an act or deed that is against what is right. That they express a deed or act is clear in the first place from their frequent use as direct objects of verbs of doing: after 'āśâ (Lev 19:15, 35; Deut 25:16; Ezk 3:20; 18:24; 33:13, 15, 18; Zeph 3:13; Ps 7:4; 37:1); after pā'al (Ps 58:3; 119:3; Job 34:32; 36:23); with tā'ab (Ps 53:2). Secondly, 'āwel is sometimes said to be in one's hand (Ezk 18:8; Ps 7:4; 125:3). By metonymy it stands specifically for speech (cf. Isa 59:3; Mal 2:6; Job 5:16; 6:30; 13:7; 27:4).
That they denote behavior contrary to what is right is shown by their frequent employment as opposites of: ṣedeq/sedāqâ "righteousness" (Lev 19:15, 35f.; Isa 26:10; 59:3f.; Ezk 3:20; 18:8f.; 24; 33:12f., 15f.; Job 6:29), ṣaddı̂q, "one who does righteousness" (Deut 32:4; Ezk 3:20; 18:24, 26; 33:13; Zeph 3:5; Ps 125:3; Prov 29:27), 'ĕmūnâ "faithfulness, truth" (Deut 32:4; Isa 59:3f), yāshār "upright" (Deut 32:4; Ps 107:42), mishpāṭ "justice" (Deut 32:4; Ezk 33:14f.; Zeph 3:5), shāpaṭ "to do justice" (Mic 3:11; Ps 43:1; 82:2); nākōaḥ "upright, right" (Isa 26:10).
This notion is further confirmed by the parallel use with: 'ānâ (Piel) "to afflict" (II Sam 7:10), rāshā'/resha' "wickedness" (Isa 26:10; Ezk 18:24; 33:12f., 15, 18f.; Ps 125:3; Job 27:7; 34:10), pesha' "transgression" (Ezk 33:12f.), ḥāmās "act of violence" (Ezk 28:15f.; Ps 58:3), dām "bloodguilt" (Mic 3:10; Hab 2:12), ḥāmāṣ "ruthlessness" (Ps 7:17 [H 18]), mirmâ "treachery" (Ps 43:1), kāzāb "lie" (Zeph 3:13), rĕmiyyâ "deceitful" (Job 13:7). 'āwôn "iniquity" (Ezk 28:18).
These unrighteous deeds include: partiality in judgment (Lev 19:15; Ps 82:2); dishonest trade dealings (Deut 25:16; Ezk 18:8)—more specifically robbing (Ezk 33:15), murder (II Sam 3:34), oppression (II Sam 7:10; I Chr 17:9; Ps 37:1; 39:22; 125:3; Prov 22:8; Hos 10:9; Mic 3:10; Hab 2:12);—more specifically vicious words (Job 6:30; 11:14; 13:7; 15:16; 27:4 Isa 59:3; Hos 10:13).
Thus the words have an important theological significance for they refer to behavior contrary to God's character and against which he must respond. Some texts explicitly state that 'āwel/'awlâ is not found with him. Moses sings, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all his ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice" ['āwel], righteous and upright is he (Deut 32:4). Elihu expostulates, "Therefore, listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do wickedness, and from the Almighty to do wrong ('āwel)" (Job 34:10). Jehoshaphat instructs his judges: "For there is no injustice ['awlâ] with our God" (II Chr 19:7). In Jer 2:5 the Lord asks the fathers to search their history and see "what injustice ['āwel] they have found in him." Accordingly he will save the oppressed (Job 5:16). Men who practice injustices are abomination to him (Deut 25:16; Prov 29:27), and even if a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits injustice he must die (Ezk 3:20).
Though man may choose injustice (Ezk 18:26; 33:13, 18) and thus become culpable (Ezk 3:20; 28:18; 33:13, 18 etc.) he need not become fixed in that condition for he may renounce it (Job 34:32), confess his condition (Ps 7:3; Ezk 33:15), and put it far from him (Job 11:14; 22:23). God, on his part, will respond with salvation.
'awwāl. Unjust, unrighteous one. This masculine noun is a close synonym to 'āwel, but is used more specifically as a label of persons. Its five occurrences mostly refer to oppressive rulers. Bildad declared that such a person's dwellings were headed for disaster (Job 18:21), and Job claimed that this kind of man was his enemy (Job 27:7) and he was not one of them (Job 29:17). In a statement of personal commitment. Job agreed that an 'awwāl had punishment coming to him from God (Job 31:3) and then challenged anyone to prove he was such a person. The prophet Zephaniah affirmed that God was righteous and not an 'awwāl, in sharp contrast to man.
'awlâ. Injustice, unrighteousness, wrong. This feminine noun carries a more abstract meaning. It often refers to violent deeds, such as murder (II Sam 3:34), oppression (II Sam 7:10; I Chr 17:9; Ps 37:1; 89:22 [H 23]; 125:3; Hos 10:9; Mic 3:10; Hab 2:12) and also vicious words (Job 6:30; 13:7; 27:4; Isa 59:3). This quality was the opposite to God's character (II Chr 19:7; Job 36:33; Ps 92:15 [H 16]; 107:42; Isa 61:8). Likewise, this quality must not be in the character of God's followers (II Chr 19:7; Job 6:29–30; Ps 119:3; Zeph 3:13; Mal 2:6). In fact, God had made man free of this quality, but he became this way later (Ezk 28:15).
As with 'āwel, there is a way to be rid of 'awlâ. Man may put it away (Job 11:14; 22:23), not be envious of those who do 'awlâ (Ps 37:1), but seek God and walk in his ways (Ps 119:2–4). And God must act in deliverance, for the Psalmist knew he could not be rid of it in his own power (Ps 43:1). 'ăwı̂l. Unjust one, Clearly used once, in Job 16:11, as a label for Job's enemies from whom God had delivered him.
It is highly probable that four occurrences of 'ôlâ come from this same root. In three instances the term designates the character of God's enemies (Job 5:16; Ps 58:2 [H 3]; 64:6 [H 7]). Once in Ps 92:15 [H 16], the term is the contrast to God's character, for he is upright.
Bibliography: Gelin, Albert, Sin in the Bible, Desclee, 1964. Porubcan, Stefan, Sin in the Old Testament, Rome: Herder, 1963. Quell, G., Sin, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1951. Smith, C. R., The Bible Doctrine of Sin, London: Epworth, 1953. THAT, II, pp. 224–27.
G.H.L.

[WhiteWings]

H5765

ָעַול
‛āwal: A verb meaning to act wrongfully, to act unjustly, to deviate from the moral standard. The word is derived from the noun meaning injustice or iniquity. It occurs in Isa 26:10, where the prophet bemoaned the fact that despite God's showing grace to the wicked, they continued to act wrongfully. The verb occurs as a substantive participle where the psalmist prayed for deliverance from the clutches of the unrighteous (Psa 71:4). See the noun ‛āwel (H5766).

I think an important question is:
Is unglodly only refering to believers that do evil/wrong or does it also includes unbelievers who do the same wrongs?

[WhiteWings]

There's a scripture where Jesus says he came not to judge the world but to save it.  So we believe that right?  Jesus, Savior of the world!  Amen. In my own mind I've stopped right there at times, leaving it at Jesus didn't come as a judge.  I believe that's true, and it also sounds nice :).   However, if I absolutely do just stop there, I could make the case then that there won't be a judgment, and by extension, it doesn't matter what we do or believe.  However, the very next verse says something very different than that.  It says "The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day."  John 12:48.   Ideas on what that means exactly?  That judgment wasn't then, then was a time for proclaiming and some would believe - but further, there will come a day when every word Jesus spoke will judge us? 

In my mind it's quite simple.
2000 years ago Jesus came to give the Jews (and with the spredaing of the Bible the world) another chance to change behavior.

Just as God 'overlooked' the ancient Jews not giving the land a Sabbath rest seven times He finally took care of it by sending them in exile so the land did have a rest.
So God often 'ignores' sin to give some time to repent. But after a while He'll take action.

[WhiteWings]

I was pondering this tonight, when a member here, Seth, sent me a link on Facebook to his blog, where he said this;

"[Regarding the scripture often translated as "Christ became/was made sin", which is argued by Coy Brock on Is Was Will Be that it means Jesus did in fact sin], L. Ray Smith makes a compelling rebuttal that the translation above should have been translated as Jesus "was made to be a sin offering." There, he rightly asserts that Coy Brock violates the Biblical doctrine that no scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), that is, no single scripture is its own explanation." - end quote Seth

I think it's clear/agreed upun Jesus never sinned personally.
But He was some sort of scapegoat who got stacked sin on Him.
Did the goat (the real animal) sin? No. But according to God's law it was possibly to transfer sin to that goat. Even after that transfer the goat didn't sin. But legally seen the goat sinned, carried the sin, had sin forced upon, or whatever term you want to use.
So perhaps the answer is that Jesus did not personally sin but legally He did.
Again just like the real goats it doesn't mean Jesus broke any law.

The priests put the sin on the goats. In a way they did a very similar thing to Jesus.
Summary: Jesus was made sin = Jesus was made a scapegoat.

:2c:

[WhiteWings]

For those who want a few verses to support my above claim  :winkgrin:


(Lev 4:3) if the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin, which he has sinned, a young bullock without blemish to LORD for a sin-offering.
(Lev 4:23) if his sin, by which he has sinned, be made known to him, he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish.
===> (1Pet 1:19) but by precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted--of Christ,
===> If Jesus was a sinner He would not have been unblemished and therefore His crucifixion would have been a futile act.

(Lev 4:32) And if he brings a lamb as his oblation for a sin-offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.
===> The animal was a substitution for the sinner.

(Lev 4:24) And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt-offering before LORD. It is a sin-offering.
===> Sin is transfered.
===> A purely legal transfer.

[redhotmagma]

James I think the question of Jesus judging or not is tied to the law.  The law is what condemns, it is what accuses,The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

To be carnally minded is death, and to those who are weak it is an offense to themselves to eat meat.  The law was hung on the cross and buried in the ground with Jesus' body.  Sin was condemned in the flesh.  Law-Sin-Death, the fruit of the Tokogae, the fruit of the natural mind, the veil spread over all faces.

[WhiteWings]

Fiery law

[redhotmagma]

The fiery law is what declares righteous.  LOVE. 

"I am not worthy"..."You are my son"
"But I did_____"... "I love you, here put on this robe, wear my signet"

[jugghead]

"The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day."  John 12:48.   

Could this be the way it is to be understood, The judge being the earthly church, (those who believe in the doctrines of men) and in the second part the pronoun "him" is also referring to those who believe in the doctrines of men, Christ's words will judge them on the last day.

Seeing it as, Christ is not the judge, His words are, meaning, did they treat others the way they treat themselves? Did they forgive others as they were forgiven? and so on .....?

Of course, this is my opinion

[jabcat]

Was looking for something else today, and ran across the following from Bob Enyart.  !!  Wow.

Curse God and die! Is that good advice? Word for word, it is in the Bible. Job's wife counsels her husband to "Curse God and die" (Job 2:9). Many verses, if ripped out of context, can ruin lives. Judas "went and hanged himself" (Mat. 27:5) and as Jesus said "Go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37). The believer who lacks a hunger for God's word is susceptible to the most absurd dangers.