HOW MUCH LONGER MUST I PUT UP WITH YOU [1847d]

Jesus may have been referring to His disciples or simply to those standing by regarding their lack of faith when He said this, but it is just part of the bigger picture concerning His exasperation when dealing with the religious error of the day. Not only were the Pharisees, the biggest religious group of the time, distorting the existing scriptures, they were also making up their own by adding to the content and extent of the law.

Not satisfied with the status quo regarding the condemnation arising from the law, they were intent on extrapolating and magnifying it to the maximum extreme possible, creating condemnation at every turn. As someone once said, some people see demons in white sugar, but that may be another subject.

So no wonder Jesus was upset with the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and lawyers. The religion of the day had made an artform out of condemning people, using law to do so!

AND SO IT CONTINUES TODAY in the many forms and ways of “Christian” expression which use law as their foundational basis, including not only those known as “sects” and “cults”, but many classed as “denominations” also should be open to question about their fundamental teachings.

[Luke 9:41, Mark 9:19]

HOW MUCH LONGER MUST I PUT UP WITH YOU [1847c]

Jesus may have been referring to His disciples or simply to those standing by regarding their lack of faith when He said this, but it is just part of the bigger picture concerning His exasperation when dealing with the religious error of the day. Not only were the Pharisees, the biggest religious group of the time, distorting the existing scriptures, they were also making up their own by adding to the content and extent of the law.

Not satisfied with the status quo regarding the condemnation arising from the law, they were intent on extrapolating and magnifying it to the maximum extreme possible, creating condemnation at every turn. As someone once said, some people see demons in white sugar, but that may be another subject.

So no wonder Jesus was upset with the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and lawyers. The religion of the day had made an artform out of condemning people, using law to do so!

AND SO IT CONTINUES TODAY in the many forms and ways of “Christian” expression which use law as their foundational basis, including not only those known as “sects” and “cults”, but many classed as “denominations” also should be open to question about their fundamental teachings.

[Luke 9:41, Mark 9:19]

HOW MUCH LONGER MUST I PUT UP WITH YOU [1847b]

Jesus may have been referring to His disciples or simply to those standing by regarding their lack of faith when He said this, but it is just part of the bigger picture concerning His exasperation when dealing with the religious error of the day. Not only were the Pharisees, the biggest religious group of the time, distorting the existing scriptures, they were also making up their own by adding to the content and extent of the law.

Not satisfied with the status quo regarding the condemnation arising from the law, they were intent on extrapolating and magnifying it to the maximum extreme possible, creating condemnation at every turn. As someone once said, some people see demons in white sugar, but that may be another subject.

So no wonder Jesus was upset with the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and lawyers. The religion of the day had made an artform out of condemning people, using law to do so!

AND SO IT CONTINUES TODAY in the many forms and ways of “Christian” expression which use law as their foundational basis, including not only those known as “sects” and “cults”, but many classed as “denominations” also should be open to question about their fundamental teachings.

[Luke 9:41, Mark 9:19]

HOW MUCH LONGER MUST I PUT UP WITH YOU [1847a]

Jesus may have been referring to His disciples or simply to those standing by regarding their lack of faith when He said this, but it is just part of the bigger picture concerning His exasperation when dealing with the religious error of the day. Not only were the Pharisees, the biggest religious group of the time, distorting the existing scriptures, they were also making up their own by adding to the content and extent of the law.

Not satisfied with the status quo regarding the condemnation arising from the law, they were intent on extrapolating and magnifying it to the maximum extreme possible, creating condemnation at every turn. As someone once said, some people see demons in white sugar, but that may be another subject.

So no wonder Jesus was upset with the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and lawyers. The religion of the day had made an artform out of condemning people, using law to do so!

AND SO IT CONTINUES TODAY in the many forms and ways of “Christian” expression which use law as their foundational basis, including not only those known as “sects” and “cults”, but many classed as “denominations” also should be open to question about their fundamental teachings.

[Luke 9:41, Mark 9:19]

HOW MUCH LONGER MUST I PUT UP WITH YOU [1847]

Jesus may have been referring to His disciples or simply to those standing by regarding their lack of faith when He said this, but it is just part of the bigger picture concerning His exasperation when dealing with the religious error of the day. Not only were the Pharisees, the biggest religious group of the time, distorting the existing scriptures, they were also making up their own by adding to the content and extent of the law.

Not satisfied with the status quo regarding the condemnation arising from the law, they were intent on extrapolating and magnifying it to the maximum extreme possible, creating condemnation at every turn. As someone once said, some people see demons in white sugar, but that may be another subject.

So no wonder Jesus was upset with the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and lawyers. The religion of the day had made an artform out of condemning people, using law to do so!

AND SO IT CONTINUES TODAY in the many forms and ways of “Christian” expression which use law as their foundational basis, including not only those known as “sects” and “cults”, but many classed as “denominations” also should be open to question about their fundamental teachings.

[Luke 9:41, Mark 9:19]

YOU WHO WANT TO BE UNDER LAW [1844a]

Galatians 5:21 : “Tell me, you who want to be under law…” And there lies the problem, that people WANT to be under law, it is far more comfortable for them to remain under law than to step out in faith and receive the Spirit. It is far safer in their mind, to remain with the ordinary people than to join with the people of God. It is far easier to join or remain with a church or group of people who profess Christ yet deny His Spirit.

The old testament says something like “I will annul your covenant with death” and so it is, that to remain under law is to remain in a covenant of death, to remain under sin, to remain in the old covenant.

Gal.3:2 “This is the only thing I want to find out from you; did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or, by hearing with faith? 3:5 Does He then who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

YOU WHO WANT TO BE UNDER LAW [1844]

Galatians 5:21 : “Tell me, you who want to be under law…” And there lies the problem, that people WANT to be under law, it is far more comfortable for them to remain under law than to step out in faith and receive the Spirit. It is far safer in their mind, to remain with the ordinary people than to join with the people of God. It is far easier to join or remain with a church or group of people who profess Christ yet deny His Spirit.

The old testament says something like “I will annul your covenant with death” and so it is, that to remain under law is to remain in a covenant of death, to remain under sin, to remain in the old covenant.

Gal.3:2 “This is the only thing I want to find out from you; did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or, by hearing with faith? 3:5 Does He then who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

THE ERROR OF THE T.P.T. “THE PASSION TRANSLATION” [1818b]

I saw this translation being lauded in someone else’s blog post, and checked it out in relation to Romans 7. Although it seemed to have a lot going for it, the fine print, the details, revealed some important discrepancies and differences to that which I have come to understand about this very important chapter.

The major error people fall into with this chapter is that they end up believing that Paul is describing himself and his behaviour, as an apostle, as a Christian, of his Christian experience. And they get from this that the law is still relevant. This is not the case, as he is talking about the law covenant and our failure under it, necessitating a change of covenant, which is not empowered in his description until chapter 8 where the “setting free” from the law of sin is pronounced as being the result of the “law of the Spirit of life”. There is no mention of Spirit in 7 other than verse 6 which announces that there has now been a change of covenant but that is the end of the matter before he then launches into “What was the law all about then” (paraphrase).

Prior to that, Paul has concluded that there are two laws in operation (v25) that are in fact what composes the duality of human nature from which our internal conflict arises, but which 8:2 frees us from the law of sin.

So although the last TPT section of Romans 7 starts as “Life under the law”, it pulls a couple of tricks which alter the relationship between the relevant factors. Verse 25 has the two conditions, the two laws, swapped around positionally so that instead of the law of sin being the last of the chapter, it is now the ‘law of his mind’, but it is not called ‘law’ or just ‘mind’ but it is changed to BUT NOW my RENEWED mind which brings in the idea that his mind has been renewed, and that by the Spirit; the so called ‘renewed mind law’ which then becomes the last line mentioned as if it were the final conclusion.

The TPT author also (verse 25) says “If left to myself” but this is followed by BUT NOW suggesting that the “left to myself” has also changed, implying that he has been speaking as one already changed, IE of his CHRISTIAN self.

He says “BUT NOW” my RENEWED mind is fixed on and submitted to “God’s righteous principles”. But just a minute, his mind was ALWAYS submitted, via the law, to “God’s righteous principles” which the law expressed and taught, and which he is obviously speaking about. “God’s righteous principles” cannot here be expressed in terms of the Spirit which came at Pentecost, but only as LAW which came through MOSES.

His “but now” reverses the intention of the “but on the other hand” (NASB) and “the law of sin”, by removing the duality of the two laws. Back in verse 18 he says that his will power is not enough to accomplish it. So what has changed since then? Right up until verse 24 he is still in captivity to sin. Paul has said in verse 22, 23 that the “law of his mind” which concurs with the law of God is defeated by, and made captive to, the “law of sin” in his flesh. And the TPT author’s final line is that his ‘renewed’ mind is fixed on and submitted to “God’s righteous principles”. But we are not to serve “God’s righteous principles,” but CHRIST through the power of His SPIRIT.

Although attempting to maintain the position that Paul has been describing himself as a Christian simply looking back through past experience [which he was, but get the context right please] he ultimately is trying to say that the change from slavery to sin to slavery to God has occurred only from the mention of the name of Jesus.

What has to be seen is that Paul’s mind is in agreement with God’s law, and in principle is subservient to it, but that he is powerless to enact it or to perform it under the law which actually empowers sin and slavery to it. “For the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law, but thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Christ”.

Verse 25 simply reiterates this principle of the duality of the human condition and is where chapter 7 leaves the matter, to enter into chapter 8 where in verse 2, by the SPIRIT, we are now “set free from the law of sin (and death)”, in conjunction with 8:1 (Because of the foregoing in chapter 7) “There is THEREFORE now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.

8:1,2 are the conclusion to chapter 7 which does NOT conclude at 7:25, which simply describes Paul’s findings in relation to the matter being investigated as being that in natural man there are two laws (one of which, the law of sin as empowered by the law is the main subject matter of chapter 7) and the other being the “law of my mind” which wants to “do” the law but is prevented from this by the law of sin in his members. [flesh].

These two laws as described in 7:25 are as they are in their latent or passive state, but which when provoked by law, spring into action as (as in 7:5,9) 1/ the mind wishing to “perform” the law, but 2/ the “law of sin” overriding the law of his mind in accordance with the law of sin and death. [When these two laws are presented with the grace of chapter 8, the “law of sin” is disabled, empowering the “law of his mind”].

In addition to the changes to 7:25 as mentioned above, whoever did this has really “done a number” on it, saying, “…So if left to myself, the flesh is aligned with the law of sin, BUT NOW my RENEWED mind is FIXED ON (inferring the “mindset” of 8:6) and SUBMITTED TO God’s righteous principles”.) But as I said before, the only submission of the mind that exists in 7 was the one always over-ridden by the flesh, by captivity to the “law of sin” in it.

The broad scope of this deception could perhaps be seen to lie in the terminology of “RENEWED mind” in conjunction with the SUBMISSION TO “God’s righteous principles”. In other words, THE LAW.

So we are back to keeping the law. THERE IS NO SPIRIT HERE.

[By saying “if left to myself” and then following it with “but now my renewed mind” he is insinuating that Paul was now NOT “left to himself”, IE that he had Jesus and the SPIRIT (by which his mind was renewed)][This leaves us NOT with the duality of the natural man, but the duality of a Christian, (7:25 NASB) ‘BUT still serving with my flesh the law of sin’.][He says “my RENEWED mind is FIXED on and SUBMITTED TO”, not in relation to the law, but in relation to “God’s righteous principles” thereby claiming allegiance and performance (victory) to God by the Holy Spirit, while simultaneously maintaining the status of old covenant law][When he says “my renewed mind” he is wrongly claiming that this means one who is renewed in Christ][By “God’s righteous principles” he is claiming them as spiritual principles and therefore as spirit.]

[This TPT interpretation/translation has obviously been constructed to promote the wrong view that Paul was speaking as a Christian]

 

THE ERROR OF THE T.P.T. “THE PASSION TRANSLATION” [1818a]

I saw this translation being lauded in someone else’s blog post, and checked it out in relation to Romans 7. Although it seemed to have a lot going for it, the fine print, the details, revealed some important discrepancies and differences to that which I have come to understand about this very important chapter.

The major error people fall into with this chapter is that they end up believing that Paul is describing himself and his behaviour, as an apostle, as a Christian, of his Christian experience. And they get from this that the law is still relevant. This is not the case, as he is talking about the law covenant and our failure under it, necessitating a change of covenant, which is not empowered in his description until chapter 8 where the “setting free” from the law of sin is pronounced as being the result of the “law of the Spirit of life”. There is no mention of Spirit in 7 other than verse 6 which announces that there has now been a change of covenant but that is the end of the matter before he then launches into “What was the law all about then” (paraphrase).

Prior to that, Paul has concluded that there are two laws in operation (v25) that are in fact what composes the duality of human nature from which our internal conflict arises, but which 8:2 frees us from the law of sin.

So although the last TPT section of Romans 7 starts as “Life under the law”, it pulls a couple of tricks which alter the relationship between the relevant factors. Verse 25 has the two conditions, the two laws, swapped around positionally so that instead of the law of sin being the last of the chapter, it is now the ‘law of his mind’, but it is not called ‘law’ or just ‘mind’ but it is changed to BUT NOW my RENEWED mind which brings in the idea that his mind has been renewed, and that by the Spirit; the so called ‘renewed mind law’ which then becomes the last line mentioned as if it were the final conclusion.

The TPT author also (verse 25) says “If left to myself” but this is followed by BUT NOW suggesting that the “left to myself” has also changed, implying that he has been speaking as one already changed, IE of his CHRISTIAN self.

He says “BUT NOW” my RENEWED mind is fixed on and submitted to “God’s righteous principles”. But just a minute, Paul’s mind was ALWAYS submitted, via the law, to “God’s righteous principles” which the law expressed and taught, and which he is obviously speaking about. “God’s righteous principles” cannot here be expressed in terms of the Spirit which came at Pentecost, but only as LAW which came through MOSES.

His “but now” reverses the intention of the “but on the other hand” (NASB) and “the law of sin”, by removing the duality of the two laws. Back in verse 18 he says that his will power is not enough to accomplish it. So what has changed since then? Right up until verse 24 he is still in captivity to sin. Paul has said in verse 22, 23 that the “law of his mind” which concurs with the law of God is defeated by, and made captive to, the “law of sin” in his flesh. And the TPT author’s final line is that his ‘renewed’ mind is fixed on and submitted to “God’s righteous principles”. But we are not to serve “God’s righteous principles,” but CHRIST through the power of His SPIRIT.

Although attempting to maintain the position that Paul has been describing himself as a Christian simply looking back through past experience [which he was, but get the context right please] he ultimately is trying to say that the change from slavery to sin to slavery to God has occurred only from the mention of the name of Jesus.

What has to be seen is that Paul’s mind is in agreement with God’s law, and in principle is subservient to it, but that he is powerless to enact it or to perform it under the law which actually empowers sin and slavery to it. “For the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law, but thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Christ”.

Verse 25 simply reiterates this principle of the duality of the human condition and is where chapter 7 leaves the matter, to enter into chapter 8 where in verse 2, by the SPIRIT, we are now “set free from the law of sin (and death)”, in conjunction with 8:1 (Because of the foregoing in chapter 7) “There is THEREFORE now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.

8:1,2 are the conclusion to chapter 7 which does NOT conclude at 7:25, which simply describes Paul’s findings in relation to the matter being investigated as being that in natural man there are two laws (one of which, the law of sin as empowered by the law is the main subject matter of chapter 7) and the other being the “law of my mind” which wants to “do” the law but is prevented from this by the law of sin in his members. [flesh].

These two laws as described in 7:25 are as they are in their latent or passive state, but which when provoked by law, spring into action as (as in 7:5,9) 1/ the mind wishing to “perform” the law, but 2/ the “law of sin” overriding the law of his mind in accordance with the law of sin and death. [When these two laws are presented with the grace of chapter 8, the “law of sin” is disabled, empowering the “law of his mind”].

In addition to the changes to 7:25 as mentioned above, whoever did this has really “done a number” on it, saying, “…So if left to myself, the flesh is aligned with the law of sin, BUT NOW my RENEWED mind is FIXED ON (inferring the “mindset” of 8:6) and SUBMITTED TO God’s righteous principles”.) But as I said before, the only submission of the mind that exists in 7 was the one always over-ridden by the flesh, by captivity to the “law of sin” in it.

The broad scope of this deception could perhaps be seen to lie in the terminology of “RENEWED mind” in conjunction with the SUBMISSION TO “God’s righteous principles”. In other words, THE LAW.

So we are back to keeping the law. THERE IS NO SPIRIT HERE.

[By saying “if left to myself” and then following it with “but now my renewed mind” he is insinuating that Paul was now NOT “left to himself”, IE that he had Jesus and the SPIRIT (by which his mind was renewed)][This leaves us NOT with the duality of the natural man, but the duality of a Christian, (7:25 NASB) ‘BUT still serving with my flesh the law of sin’.][He says “my RENEWED mind is FIXED on and SUBMITTED TO”, not in relation to the law, but in relation to “God’s righteous principles” thereby claiming allegiance and performance (victory) to God by the Holy Spirit, while simultaneously maintaining the status of old covenant law][When he says “my renewed mind” he is wrongly claiming that this means one who is renewed in Christ][By “God’s righteous principles” he is claiming them as spiritual principles and therefore as spirit.]

[This TPT interpretation/translation has obviously been constructed to defend the wrong view that Paul was speaking as a Christian]

 

THE ERROR OF THE T.P.T. “THE PASSION TRANSLATION” [1818]

I saw this translation being lauded in someone else’s blog post, and checked it out in relation to Romans 7. Although it seemed to have a lot going for it, the fine print, the details, revealed some important discrepancies and differences to that which I have come to understand about this very important chapter.

The major error people fall into with this chapter is that they end up believing that Paul is describing himself and his behaviour, as an apostle, as a Christian, of his Christian experience. And they get from this that the law is still relevant. This is not the case, as he is talking about the law covenant and our failure under it, necessitating a change of covenant, which is not empowered in his description until chapter 8 where the “setting free” from the law of sin is pronounced as being the result of the “law of the Spirit of life”. There is no mention of Spirit in 7 other than verse 6 which announces that there has now been a change of covenant but that is the end of the matter before he then launches into “What was the law all about then” (paraphrase).

Prior to that, Paul has concluded that there are two laws in operation (v25) that are in fact what composes the duality of human nature from which our internal conflict arises, but which 8:2 frees us from the law of sin.

So although the last TPT section of Romans 7 starts as “Life under the law”, it pulls a couple of tricks which alter the relationship between the relevant factors. Verse 25 has the two conditions, the two laws, swapped around positionally so that instead of the law of sin being the last of the chapter, it is now the ‘law of his mind’, but it is not called ‘law’ or just ‘mind’ but it is changed to BUT NOW my RENEWED mind which brings in the idea that his mind has been renewed, and that by the Spirit; the so called ‘renewed mind law’ which then becomes the last line mentioned as if it were the final conclusion.

The TPT author also (verse 25) says “If left to myself” but this is followed by BUT NOW suggesting that the “left to myself” has also changed, implying that he has been speaking as one already changed, IE of his CHRISTIAN self.

He says “BUT NOW” my RENEWED mind is fixed on and submitted to “God’s righteous principles”. But just a minute, Paul’s mind was ALWAYS submitted, via the law, to “God’s righteous principles” which the law expressed and taught, and which he is obviously speaking about. “God’s righteous principles” cannot here be expressed in terms of the Spirit which came at Pentecost, but only as LAW which came through MOSES.

His “but now” reverses the intention of the “but on the other hand” (NASB) and “the law of sin”, by removing the duality of the two laws. Back in verse 18 he says that his will power is not enough to accomplish it. So what has changed since then? Right up until verse 24 he is still in captivity to sin. Paul has said in verse 22, 23 that the “law of his mind” which concurs with the law of God is defeated by, and made captive to, the “law of sin” in his flesh. And the TPT author’s final line is that his ‘renewed’ mind is fixed on and submitted to “God’s righteous principles”. But we are not to serve “God’s righteous principles,” but CHRIST through the power of His SPIRIT.

Although attempting to maintain the position that Paul has been describing himself as a Christian simply looking back through past experience [which he was, but get the context right please] he ultimately is trying to say that the change from slavery to sin to slavery to God has occurred only from the mention of the name of Jesus.

What has to be seen is that Paul’s mind is in agreement with God’s law, and in principle is subservient to it, but that he is powerless to enact it or to perform it under the law which actually empowers sin and slavery to it. “For the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law, but thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Christ”.

Verse 25 simply reiterates this principle of the duality of the human condition and is where chapter 7 leaves the matter, to enter into chapter 8 where in verse 2, by the SPIRIT, we are now “set free from the law of sin (and death)”, in conjunction with 8:1 (Because of the foregoing in chapter 7) “There is THEREFORE now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.

8:1,2 are the conclusion to chapter 7 which does NOT conclude at 7:25, which simply describes Paul’s findings in relation to the matter being investigated as being that in natural man there are two laws (one of which, the law of sin as empowered by the law is the main subject matter of chapter 7) and the other being the “law of my mind” which wants to “do” the law but is prevented from this by the law of sin in his members. [flesh].

These two laws as described in 7:25 are as they are in their latent or passive state, but which when provoked by law, spring into action as (as in 7:5,9) 1/ the mind wishing to “perform” the law, but 2/ the “law of sin” overriding the law of his mind in accordance with the law of sin and death. [When these two laws are presented with the grace of chapter 8, the “law of sin” is disabled, empowering the “law of his mind”].

In addition to the changes to 7:25 as mentioned above, whoever did this has really “done a number” on it, saying, “…So if left to myself, the flesh is aligned with the law of sin, BUT NOW my RENEWED mind is FIXED ON (inferring the “mindset” of 8:6) and SUBMITTED TO God’s righteous principles”.) But as I said before, the only submission of the mind that exists in 7 was the one always over-ridden by the flesh, by captivity to the “law of sin” in it.

The broad scope of this deception could perhaps be seen to lie in the terminology of “RENEWED mind” in conjunction with the SUBMISSION TO “God’s righteous principles”. In other words, THE LAW.

So we are back to keeping the law. THERE IS NO SPIRIT HERE.

[By saying “if left to myself” and then following it with “but now my renewed mind” he is insinuating that Paul was now NOT “left to himself”, IE that he had Jesus and the SPIRIT (by which his mind was renewed)][This leaves us NOT with the duality of the natural man, but the duality of a Christian, (7:25 NASB) ‘BUT still serving with my flesh the law of sin’.][He says “my RENEWED mind is FIXED on and SUBMITTED TO”, not in relation to the law, but in relation to “God’s righteous principles” thereby claiming allegiance and performance (victory) to God by the Holy Spirit, while simultaneously maintaining the status of old covenant law][When he says “my renewed mind” he is wrongly claiming that this means one who is renewed in Christ][By “God’s righteous principles” he is claiming them as spiritual principles and therefore as spirit.]

[This TPT interpretation/translation has obviously been constructed to defend the wrong view that Paul was speaking as a Christian]