The gospel was preached even to those who are DEAD

[Lizbeth]

Yes.
But what law is that?
1) The law
2) The Law (capital L)
3) God's law
4) Christ's law


Definitions: (my working definitions)
1) The law = the law God gave to the Israelites alone through Moses (the laws, not the books)
2) The Law (capital L) = The Books of the Law, the Pentateuch. the Torah
3) God's law = the universal law written on human conscience (our heart)
4) Christ's law = the commandments Christ gave us

/

It's not complicated or confusing, so we shouldn't complicate and confuse it........ "without law" in both 1 Cor 9 and the Rom 2 passages is referring to unbelieving Gentiles who have neither the law of Christ nor the old covenant Law......"the law" in both passages is referring to Jews under the old covenant......which is often capitalized, though not always and not in these passages, as the Law. In 1 Cor 9 where Paul mentions God and the law of Christ, he is simply qualifying that becoming "as one without law to win those without law" doesn't mean he is going so far as to become as one who is law-less and sinful in God's sight, because he is under and obeying the law of Christ (new covenant).

God's law is only written on the hearts of those who have received a new heart under the new covenant. (Jer 31 and Heb 8) The Rom 2 verses where it goes on to talk about Gentiles who by nature are obeying God's laws....is referring to believing Gentiles, having received a new nature and new heart, and conscience to go with it, not un-believing Gentiles. Unbelieving Gentiles were pagans, and not obeying God's laws. The main point and context of that passage as we can see, is about Jews with respect to Gentiles, that Jews having the Law doesn't give them an edge over believing Gentiles.

Rom 2:9-15

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

For there is no respect of persons with God. (in this context, with respect to Jew and Gentile)

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

(Many Jews sort of arrogantly thought they were in better standing with God merely by having and hearing the Law even though they weren't necessarily obeying it and being doers of it very well. As opposed to Gentiles who didn't have the Law. How I read these verses is that Paul was correcting that prejudiced mindset.)

 

[St. SteVen]

It's not complicated or confusing, so we shouldn't complicate and confuse it........ "without law" in both 1 Cor 9 and the Rom 2 passages is referring to unbelieving Gentiles who have neither the law of Christ nor the old covenant Law......"the law" in both passages is referring to Jews under the old covenant......which is often capitalized, though not always and not in these passages, as the Law. In 1 Cor 9 where Paul mentions God and the law of Christ, he is simply qualifying that becoming "as one without law to win those without law" doesn't mean he is going so far as to become as one who is law-less and sinful in God's sight, because he is under and obeying the law of Christ (new covenant).

Something to consider from my topic on the subject.

What's the difference between the law and the Law? (capital L)

Thanks to the NIV for differentiating these two.

Basically a capital L indicates the Books of the Law, as opposed the law itself.
This sheds light on the fulfillment of the law in Matthew 5:17.

Matthew 5:17 NIV
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

COMPARE - Jesus explains Matthew 5:17 (note "the Prophets" in verse 17 above)

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:
Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in
the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Furthermore, these references illustrate more capital L usages that refer to the Books of the Law.

• Matthew 11:13
  For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
  
  
• Matthew 22:40
  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
  
  
• Matthew 23:29
  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
  You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
  
  
• Luke 24:44
  He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:
  Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
  
  
• John 1:45
  Philip found Nathanael and told him,
  “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—
  Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
  
  
• Acts 13:15
  After the reading from the Law and the Prophets,
  the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying,
  “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”
  
  
• Acts 24:14
  However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors
  as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in
  accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,
  
  
• Acts 28:23
  They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers
  to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening,
  explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets
  he tried to persuade them about Jesus.
  
  
• Romans 3:21
  But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
  to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

(Many Jews sort of arrogantly thought they were in better standing with God merely by having and hearing the Law even though they weren't necessarily obeying it and being doers of it very well. As opposed to Gentiles who didn't have the Law. How I read these verses is that Paul was correcting that prejudiced mindset.)

But who was the book of Romans written to?
Why would they need to be corrected about a Jewish mindset?

/

 

[JunChosen]

I thought Apokatastasis was only a theological term from the early church. Now I come to find out that it is in the Bible as a word in the NT Greek text. Thanks to my good friend and dear brother @Chadrho for pointing it out. Here it is. Acts 3:21 NIV Heaven must receive him until the time...

@Chadrho. I know not. Who is he?? But, I'm sure you've heard of Origen and Eusebius. Both say that it is Jesus who must be restored back to His original being (as God) since He took upon Himself the form of a man when He came to earth (Luke 24:45).

You should have continued reading to Acts 3:23 to get the gist.

If you are going to follow someone else's theology make sure he is faithful to the word of God (Matthew 1:23).

Myself, I like Origen's teachings.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Lizbeth]

But who was the book of Romans written to?
Why would they need to be corrected about a Jewish mindset?

/

Did you read what followed the part about Gentiles showing the law written on their heart? That part about the Gentiles was only parenthetic to Paul correcting and rebuking a wrong mindset (sinful attitude) that many Jews were adhering to.

 

[Lizbeth]

Something to consider from my topic on the subject.

What's the difference between the law and the Law? (capital L)

Thanks to the NIV for differentiating these two.

Basically a capital L indicates the Books of the Law, as opposed the law itself.
This sheds light on the fulfillment of the law in Matthew 5:17.

Matthew 5:17 NIV
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

COMPARE - Jesus explains Matthew 5:17 (note "the Prophets" in verse 17 above)

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:
Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in
the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Furthermore, these references illustrate more capital L usages that refer to the Books of the Law.

• Matthew 11:13
  For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
  
  
• Matthew 22:40
  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
  
  
• Matthew 23:29
  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
  You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
  
  
• Luke 24:44
  He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:
  Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
  
  
• John 1:45
  Philip found Nathanael and told him,
  “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—
  Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
  
  
• Acts 13:15
  After the reading from the Law and the Prophets,
  the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying,
  “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”
  
  
• Acts 24:14
  However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors
  as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in
  accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,
  
  
• Acts 28:23
  They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers
  to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening,
  explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets
  he tried to persuade them about Jesus.
  
  
• Romans 3:21
  But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
  to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

/

Don't have time to look up every place where the word law is used. But in the original Greek it isn't ever capitalized from what I've seen, we just sometimes capitalize it when we are talking about the old covenant Law of Moses that the Jews were UNDER and obligated by God to observe.

The NIV caps look arbitrary to me......in Rom 3:21 they didn't capitalize the first mention of the law, but did capitalize it in the second instance when actually both mentions are referring to the same thing, ie, the old covenant Law of Moses that Jews were under and obligated to observe. So that appears to be an error on the part of the NIV. Which wouldn't surprise me.

Anyhow not sure I want to go down this rabbit hole, it seems like a whole other topic.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
But who was the book of Romans written to?
Why would they need to be corrected about a Jewish mindset?

Did you read what followed the part about Gentiles showing the law written on their heart? That part about the Gentiles was only parenthetic to Paul correcting and rebuking a wrong mindset (sinful attitude) that many Jews were adhering to.

Sure, but my question still seems valid.
Why would gentiles need to corrected about a Jewish mindset?
They weren't Jewish.

/

 

[quietthinker]

the gospel was preached even to those who are DEAD​

Yep, that's us....struggling to tell our left hand from our right.

 

[St. SteVen]

Don't have time to look up every place where the word law is used. But in the original Greek it isn't ever capitalized from what I've seen, we just sometimes capitalize it when we are talking about the old covenant Law of Moses that the Jews were UNDER and obligated by God to observe.

The NIV caps look arbitrary to me......in Rom 3:21 they didn't capitalize the first mention of the law, but did capitalize it in the second instance when actually both mentions are referring to the same thing, ie, the old covenant Law of Moses that Jews were under and obligated to observe. So that appears to be an error on the part of the NIV. Which wouldn't surprise me.

Anyhow not sure I want to go down this rabbit hole, it seems like a whole other topic.

As you would say, no need to complicate this, it's simple to understand. - LOL

And Romans 3:21is a perfect example. Look at the corresponding Greek below.
Notice that the definite article (the - τοῦ/τῶν) is used when referring to the Books of the Law and the Prophets.
And there is no definite article before law when not referring to the books.



/

 

[Lizbeth]

St. SteVen said:

But who was the book of Romans written to?
Why would they need to be corrected about a Jewish mindset?

Sure, but my question still seems valid.
Why would gentiles need to corrected about a Jewish mindset?
They weren't Jewish.

/

No, we must have gotten our wires crossed somehow.....the Gentiles didn't need correcting of this particular mindset/attitude (though they were corrected and admonished in another way, in Rom 11) - obviously Gentiles weren't feeling superior to themselves .....but this particular correction in Romans 2 was being addressed to Jews.

 

[Lizbeth]

As you would say, no need to complicate this, it's simple to understand. - LOL

And Romans 3:21is a perfect example. Look at the corresponding Greek below.
Notice that the definite article (the - τοῦ/τῶν) is used when referring to the Books of the Law and the Prophets.
And there is no definite article before law when not referring to the books.

View attachment 39428

/

I'm not getting what the difference is or why it matters....in both cases "law" is referring to the same thing....the old covenant Law of Moses, is it not?

 

[St. SteVen]

I'm not getting what the difference is or why it matters....in both cases "law" is referring to the same thing....the old covenant Law of Moses, is it not?

It does matter.
There is more found in the Books of the Law than ONLY the laws themselves.

For example, Matthew 5:17 is greatly misunderstood. Is this about the law, or the Books of the law?
Jesus explained what he meant in Luke 24:44, See below. Is this about the law, or the Books of the law?
What is being fulfilled? (prophecy)

Matthew 5:17 NIV
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:
Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

/

 

[Lizbeth]

It does matter.
There is more found in the Books of the Law than ONLY the laws themselves.

For example, Matthew 5:17 is greatly misunderstood. Is this about the law, or the Books of the law?
Jesus explained what he meant in Luke 24:44, See below. Is this about the law, or the Books of the law?
What is being fulfilled? (prophecy)

Matthew 5:17 NIV
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:
Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

/

In general I believe we need to be careful of over-analyzing things.. From what I've seen too much splicing and dicing leads astray....the carnal mind tends to compartmentalize and dissect when what we need is to grasp the truth in a whole with the mind of Christ ,ie, with His Spirit.

What you said about Matthew 5 being greatly misunderstood, I think is just that it is sometimes only partly understood. Because the truth is that Jesus fulfilled everything in every way. He fulfilled the prophecies, as well as He fulfilled the prophetic things of the Law concerning Him - both direct prophecies as well as indirect.....since the things contained in the Law were all allegorically foreshadowing and pointing to Him prophetically, even down to the vessels of the Temple. As well as that He fulfilled the Law in the sense of obeying it....He thus fulfilled all righteousness...all the righteousness of the Law......and also fulfilling all that it was alluding to and foreshadowing.....and He fulfilled the Law in an ultimate sense with His death on the cross, because according to the law without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins as it says in Heb 9:22. And He fulfilled that once for all.

And might as well add that the worshippers had to both bring the lamb or other sacrifice and eat of it in order for the sacrifice to be applied to them. And God has so graciously provided the Lamb for those who will accept it. This unfortunately did and does rule out those who didn't/don't have a Lamb to put on the altar and therefore didn't/aren't "eating" of it. Their sins weren't/aren't remitted.

 

[St. SteVen]

As well as that He fulfilled the Law in the sense of obeying it....

That's debatable.
Was he a Sabbath-keeper? (John 5:18; John 9:16; Matthew 12:1-3)

/

 

[keithr]

That's debatable.
Was he a Sabbath-keeper? (John 5:18; John 9:16; Matthew 12:1-3)

Yes, he kept the Sabbath. The mere cessation from activity is not of the essence of the Sabbath; to cease to do good is not to keep the Sabbath but to sin. Mark 3:1-5 (WEB):

(1) He entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there who had his hand withered.​

(2) They watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him.​

(3) He said to the man who had his hand withered, “Stand up.”​

(4) He said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to kill?” But they were silent.​

(5) When he had looked around at them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored as healthy as the other.​

Jesus also said, Matthew 12:5-8 (WEB):

(5) Or have you not read in the law, that on the Sabbath day, the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless?​

(6) But I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.​

(7) But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you wouldn’t have condemned the guiltless.​

(8) For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”​

It was okay for the priests to work on the Sabbath, to perform temple service, and Jesus said he was greater than the temple. God prefers mercy over sacrifice; healing a person is showing mercy - priests performing sacrifices on the Sabbath are guiltless, and likewise Jesus performing a merciful healing on the Sabbath was guiltless. He also said that he was the lord of the Sabbath, and that therefore he had the right to direct the manner of its observance.

 

[Lizbeth]

That's debatable.
Was he a Sabbath-keeper? (John 5:18; John 9:16; Matthew 12:1-3)

/

Yes He actually was. Not all the traditions of what man had made of the Law, but He kept the principles of what God meant by them. For example doing no work on the Sabbath did not mean it was against the Law to do what was necessary, such as obtaining food. He Himself gave the example of pulling your livestock out of a pit if it fell into one on the Sabbath....and healing on the Sabbath......and circumcising on the sabbath if it happened to fall on the eighth day of the infant's life. The Sabbath law was more about not conducting business of whatever business one was in....doing unnecessary work and buying and selling, etc, on that day. And being prepared as much as one could be to minimize what had to be done on the Sabbath. He was found in synagogue or Temple on the Sabbath and feast days. But He was more than a Sabbath keeper...He was a Sabbath fulfiller. Not to mention being Lord of the Sabbath!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Yep, that's us....struggling to tell our left hand from our right.

Speak for yourself!

 

[Chadrho]

@Chadrho. I know not. Who is he?? But, I'm sure you've heard of Origen and Eusebius. Both say that it is Jesus who must be restored back to His original being (as God) since He took upon Himself the form of a man when He came to earth (Luke 24:45).

You should have continued reading to Acts 3:23 to get the gist.

If you are going to follow someone else's theology make sure he is faithful to the word of God (Matthew 1:23).

Myself, I like Origen's teachings.

To God Be The Glory

Origen believed all humanity would be restored. Commenting on Acts 3:21, Eusebius says, " For, what else does 'until the times of universal restoration' signify to us, if not the aeon to come, in which all beings must receive their perfect restoration?...On the occasion of the restoration (apokatastasis) of absolutely all beings, Paul said that creation itself will be transformed from slavery into freedom." from Contra Marcellum 2:4:11

Apokatastasis, understood as the restoration of all beings to their intended (by God) perfection, was ubiquitous in the early centuries of Christian faith. If you need a primer, I suggest Ilaria Ramelli's A Larger Hope? You don't have to agree with the large number of early church Fathers and Mothers who believed in universal restoration, but in this day and age, ignorance is no excuse.

Here's a list of some of those who believed in apokatastasis: Origen, Anthony the Great, Methodius of Olympus, Eusebius, Didymus, Macrina the Younger, Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius, Cassian, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John of Jerusalem, the "Tall Brothers," Melania, Rufinus, Isaac of Nineveh, Maximus the Confessor, John Scotus Eriugena. It is only around the 5th century that eternal damnation takes precedence, sadly.

@St. SteVen

 

[Lizbeth]

Isn't this restoration, when all the wicked and those who do iniquity (tares) are rooted out of God's kingdom and destroyed....? While the righteous are gathered into the barn to be spared from the destruction. No more sin and evil = restoration. I would think...?


Mat 13:39-43

The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[Chadrho]

Isn't this restoration, when all the wicked and those who do iniquity (tares) are rooted out of God's kingdom and destroyed....? While the righteous are gathered into the barn to be spared from the destruction. No more sin and evil = restoration. I would think...?


Mat 13:39-43

The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

I wouldn't consider annihilation the same as restoration. It's elimination. So, yes, it is the elimination of evil since evil resides in the will and those who will evil are destroyed. That's a more reasonable position than eternal damnation, imo.

Does God utterly destroy the good that God creates? Maybe. Apokatastasis assumes God destroys all evil by destroying the evil will, i.e., restoring the will to love of the good, thus saving the good creature God created.

Pace Gregory of Nyssa, "Evil must necessarily be eliminated, absolutely in every respect, once and for all, from all that is, and since in fact evil does not exist neither will it have to exist. For, as evil does not exist in its nature outside the will, once each will has come to be in God, evil will be reduced to complete disappearance, because no receptacle will be left for it."

We are created to love good. The fire of the divine love is both our ultimate desire and a catharsis that tears from the soul the evil to which it is united. Hell, so to speak, causes suffering for those who love something other than the source, guide, and goal of goodness.

Again Nyssan, "It is not the case that God's judgment has as its main purpose that of bringing about punishment to those who have sinned. On the contrary, the divinity on its part does exclusively what is good, separating it from evil, and attracting the soul to itself, with a view to its participation in beatitude, but the violent separation of what is united and attached to the soul (i.e., evil) is painful for the soul."

As @St. SteVen often points out, we will all be salted with fire. I think for some, the catharsis will be joyous because we will finally be fully healed by the divine presence, which is what a life of repentance and love seeks. For others, it will cause great suffering as the illusion dies and we learn what true goodness and love are. But all will be healed. God does not destroy God's creatures but brings them to fulfillment.