Tag-Archive for » nomos «

One for Many

Saturday, March 02nd, 2013 | Author:

Then what becomes of our boasting?  It is excluded.  By what law?  The law of works?  No, but by the law of faith.  Romans 3:27  ESV

Law – It is so unfortunate that Paul uses a word (nomos) that has become so stripped of its original complexity that we now think of its meaning basically as “rules.”  That often leaves us with the impression that Paul uses nomos as the equivalent of Torah, and for that reason, we often hear the claim that Paul did away with the obligation of Torah for believers.  But this simplification in translation belies the wide range of meanings associated with nomos in Paul’s Greek usage and forces us to think of only the single association nomos = torah.  What a disaster this has caused!  In the contemporary world of faith where very, very few believers have any real knowledge of the original languages and where most Christian worship is conducted without any deep ties to the original community, it’s no wonder that we tend to believe what we are told by the religious professionals.  We are no longer very Berean.  We just don’t look for ourselves.

Perhaps that’s why Michael Winger wrote his doctoral dissertation on the subject of Paul’s use of nomos.  Winger outlines seven different, and not necessarily related, uses of this word in Pauline material – and this does not include the rich metaphorical uses Paul also employs.  Winger’s list includes:  nomos as verbal (nomos is action), as a standard for judgment, as a guide for conduct, as something that controls or commands or rules, as an identification qualification of a particular people, as a source that is received, and as something that some people subject themselves to.  Some of these uses are related.  Some are not.  The question for any individual verse in Paul’s written material becomes:  Which use of nomos best fits the context of this text?  It is not always obvious.

I am not here to tell you what Paul means every time he writes the word nomos.  I am here to tell you that you simply cannot assume that the translation committee got it right or that you know what he means before you place his words in their context.  I am here to plead that you will continue to ask yourself, “What would this have meant if I understand the author to be a Torah-observant Jewish rabbi writing to Torah-observant Messianic synagogues?”  In other words, the assumption that Paul is writing to sola fide Christians is neither theologically warranted nor historically accurate.  Therefore, we will have to discover what Paul means from within Paul’s frame of reference.

Law and grace!  Oh, the cataclysm that this juxtaposition has perpetrated.  The needless agony and confusion that has been the result of Augustine’s view that Romans 7 is the standard account of conversion.

Let’s make a vow.  Let’s vow to stop all the argument and debate about the “law vs. grace” stuff until we really know how Paul uses nomos.  Let’s investigate and stop listening to the theological pundits (including me, by the way).  Let’s be Berean.

Topical Index:  law, nomos, Romans 3:27, Michael Winger

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 24 Comments

Principios Principales

Thursday, September 24th, 2009 | Author:

Porque la ley del Espíritu de vida en Cristo Jesús te ha libertado de la ley del pecado y de la muerte. Romanos 8:2

Ley – una te hace más grande; la otra más pequeño. Como Alicia en el País de las Maravillas. Es evidente que Sha´ul no se refería a Alicia. Habla de dos principios muy diferentes; dos tipos de nomos (reglas). Una te deja vivir; la otra te mata. La diferencia principal entre a estas dos es la vida y la muerte. Una nos mantiene cautivos a la muerte inevitable. La otra nos libera para vivir. Estas dos son las reglas más importantes de la existencia humana. Pero si no sabemos lo que son, deambularemos creando nuestros propios principios de vida, y eso casi siempre es desastroso.

Sha´ul establece estos dos principios en oposición: libertad y vida por un lado; pecado y muerte por el otro. Sabemos lo que piensa Sha´ul sobre el principio del pecado y muerte. Es un intento de operar en nuestros propios términos. Es la desobediencia a las instrucciones reveladas de Dios. Es dar la espalda a la fuente de la vida. Claro que con toda la actividad en el mundo ciertamente no parece como si la ley del pecado y muerte mantiene prisioneros a tantas persona. Pareciera que solo hacen lo mejor que pueden, acumulando lo que suple sus anhelos e intentando ser felices. La realidad del pecado y muerte se disfraza de expresiones angelicales de deleite. Solo Dios puede remover la ceguera y cuando lo hace, el mundo ciertamente parece un lugar muy trágico.

Por el otro lado, Sha´ul se regocija en la ley del Espíritu de vida en Yeshua. Esta ley me libera. Tiene el poder de transformar mi existencia trágica en un peregrinaje con Yeshua y paz con Dios. ¿Pero notaste que no me libera de las reglas? Me libera de las reglas que me matan, pero no me libera de todas las reglas. Aun permanezco bajo la ley del Espíritu de vida. ¿Y cuál es esa ley? lo que Sha’ul tiene en mente debería ser evidente. El es fariseo de fariseos, seguidor del Mesías observante de la Tora, erudito de la Tanak, pecador salvado por gracia, ciudadano de Israel. ¿Cuál ley provee vida a esta comunidad? La Tora, evidentemente. Eso es lo que Dios dijo que haría, y eso es lo que hace. Cuando vivimos según la Tora, Dios lo utiliza para cumplir sus propósitos y somos llenos del Espíritu – todo porque Yeshua nos redimió.

Sha´ul no dice que la ley del pecado y la muerte es removida puesto que toda ley ha sido removida. EL no dice que el principio de “ámense los unos a los otros” ha remplazado las instrucciones previas de Dios. El no dice que la Tora era deficiente y necesitaba ser remplazada, o que era temporal y ahora ha sido sobrepuesta. El dice que Yeshua nos ha sacado de debajo de una ley que nos mataba para que fuésemos capaces de vivir bajo una ley que nos completa. ¿Cómo va el dicho? “Si es bueno para Pablo, es bueno para mí.”  Aparentemente, la ley del Espíritu de vida en Yeshua HaMashiach era bastante buena para Sha´ul.

Ley, principio, nomos, Tora, vida, muerte, Romanos 8:2

Category: La Palabra de Hoy  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | Comments off

Principal Principles

Thursday, September 24th, 2009 | Author:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Yeshua HaMashiach set me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2

Law – Sometimes it seems like Sha’ul could have written about Alice in Wonderland.  One pill makes you bigger (one law gives you life) and the other pill makes you small (one law gives you death).   Of course, Sha’ul isn’t speaking like Alice or singing like Grace Slick. He’s talking about two different principles; two types of nomos (rules). One lets you live; the other kills you. The principal difference between these two is life and death. One held us captive to inevitable death. The other set us free to live. These two are the most important governing rules of human existence. But if we don’t know what they really are, we will flounder around trying to come up with our own principles for living, and that is almost always disastrous.

Sha’ul sets these two principles in opposition: freedom and life on one hand; sin and death on the other. We know Sha’ul’s thinking about the sin and death principle. It’s the attempt to operate on our own terms. It’s being disobedient to God’s revealed instructions. It’s turning away from the source of life. Of course, with all the activity in the world it certainly doesn’t appear as though the law of sin and death holds so many hostage. It looks like they are just doing the best they can, accumulating what fulfills their desires and trying to be happy. The reality of sin and death is disguised as an angelic expression of light. Only God can remove the blinders and when He does the world looks like a very tragic place.

On the other hand, Sha’ul rejoices in the law of the Spirit of life in Yeshua. This law sets me free. It has the power to transform my tragic existence into a journey with Yeshua and peace with God. But did you notice that it does not set me free from rules? It sets me free from the rules that kill me, but it doesn’t set me free from every rule. I still am under the law of the Spirit of life. And what is that law? It should be obvious what Sha’ul has in mind. He is a Pharisee of the Pharisees, a Torah-observant follower of the Messiah, a scholar of the Tanakh, a sinner saved by grace, a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel. What law provides life to his community? It is Torah, of course. That’s what God said it would do, and that’s what it does. When we live according to Torah, God uses us to fulfill His purposes and we are filled with the Spirit – all because Yeshua redeemed us.

Sha’ul does not say the law of sin and death is removed because all law is removed. He does not say that the principle of “love one another” has replaced all of God’s previous instructions. He does not say the Torah was deficient and needed to be replaced, or it was temporary and has now been superseded. He says Yeshua got us out from under a rule that was killing us so we could live according to a rule that will fulfill us. How does the saying go? “If it’s good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me.” Apparently, the law of the Spirit of life in Yeshua HaMashiach was pretty good for Sha’ul.  Keeping the rules results in life.  That’s what you think too, right?

Topical Index: law, principle, nomos, Torah, life, death, Romans 8:2

Today’s photo?  Click here – Abaco

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 5 Comments

¿Tienes Experiencia?

Saturday, May 16th, 2009 | Author:

¿Entonces lo que es bueno vino a ser causa de muerte para mí? ¡De ningún modo! Al contrario, fue el pecado, a fin de mostrarse que es pecado al producir mi muerte por medio de lo que es bueno, para que por medio del mandamiento el pecado llegue a ser en extremo pecaminoso. (Rom 7:13 LBLA)

¿Tienes Experiencia?

En Extremo Pecaminoso – ¡Cuán difícil nos es leer este pasaje en Romanos sin los tapaojos cristianos usuales! Nos hemos convencido tanto que Pablo establece un evangelio de gracia en oposición a las obras de la Ley que ya no leemos lo que dice el texto.  Creemos que la ley causó nuestro pecado y por lo tanto, la ley es una cosa terrible y espantosa. Claro que Pablo niega esta conclusión con firmeza. (¡De ningún modo!), pero simplemente no podemos verlo de otra manera. Pensamos que la gracia significa salir de la ley, así que eso debe significa que la ley debe estar alineada con nuestro pecado, o por lo menos que ya no nos es útil. El problema surge porque Pablo hace un juego de palabras en tres de las formas de utilizar la palabra griega nomos (ley). No somos griegos. No poseemos el trasfondo del creyente gentil del primer siglo. Así que no lo vemos. Veamos lo que sucede cuando recobramos el ingeniosísimo juego de palabras de Pablo.

Nomos tiene tres significados distintos. Primero, puede significar una ley como las leyes de la tierra. Este es el sentido legislativo.   Segundo, puede significar regla o principio. Así se utiliza muchas, muchas veces por le iglesia primitiva en la discusión del canon, otra palabra que significa un estándar o regla. Tercero, en el Nuevo Testamento, nomos puede usarse como sustantivo para referirse a la Torá. Cada vez que vez esta palabra en griego, el contexto indicará cual es el significado que encaja. Por ejemplo, acusaron a Yeshua de quebrar la ley nomos romana en cuanto a la divinidad del emperador (recuerda que declararon que había dicho que él era rey). Ese es el primer significado. Y hay muchos versículos donde el significado numero tres es evidentemente el caso (Torá).  Pero en algunas ocasiones, Pablo utiliza nomos como una regla o principio, Este versículo en Romanos es uno de esos casos. Pablo hace un juego de las palabras griegas. La Torá (significado #3) es buena, pero existe otro nomos (regla – #2) en mi cuerpo, una “ley” que obra contra mí. Esta regla se hace realidad porque cuando comprendo el mandamiento y lo desobedezco, establezco una “regla” para mí – mi propia “torá.”  Por tanto la Torá de Dios se opone contra mi propia torá (la regla que practico). La Torá de Dios no se opone a la gracia de Dios. Lo que se opone a la gracia de Dios son mis reglas, esto es, la manera incorrecta en que utilizo la Torá de Dios para definir mis propias reglas de vida. En las cartas de Pablo, “las obras de la ley” no son la Torá de Dios. Es una versión torcida de las instrucciones de Dios utilizadas para ganar justicia. En otras palabras, mi tora no es más que legalismo. ¡El legalismo se opone a la gracia! Pero las instrucciones de Dios, la Torá, no se oponen a la gracia ni un poco puesto que no tienen nada que ver con gracia. La gracia es un regalo. La Torá son instrucciones después de haber recibido el regalo.

En este verso, Pablo nos dice algo muy importante sobre la relación entre la verdadera Torá y el pecado. Mi propio deseo de manejar mi vida corrompen las instrucciones perfectas de Dios y la convierten en algo que es una torá (regla) perversa. Si fuese obediente, descubriría que las instrucciones de Dios llevan a las bendiciones.  Pero cuando desobedezco, de hecho experimento la tragedia del pecado. Me desvinculo de la fuente de vida. Ya no es un potencial teórico. Ahora ya sé lo que se siente separarse. El pecado se convierte en extremo pecaminoso. En otras palabras, se hace real para mí.

Todo mandamiento me presenta una oportunidad de acercarme a Él. Pero al mismo tiempo, cada mandamiento contiene el potencial de mi desobediencia. Existe un riesgo en cada una de las instrucciones de Dios para la vida. Cuando no hago lo que dice, cambio ese riesgo y lo hago realidad. Entonces sucede que mi regla tuerce Su intención perfecta y lo convierte en algo trágico.  Eso es lo que significa el legalismo – hacer que la Torá haga algo que nunca tuvo la intención de hacer. No se requiere desobediencia abierta para descubrir la pecaminosidad del pecado. Lo único que se necesita es torcer el mandamiento para que  manipular el favor de Dios en vez de hacerlo por la simple razón de amarlo.

¿Cuál es el contexto de nomos en tu vida? ¿Cuál de los tres significados se aplica a ti?

RECORDATORIO

Cómo les informamos ayer, pronto haremos la transición a una comunidad de suscriptores aportantes a éste ministerio. Gran parte del sitio web www.skipmoen.com no ha sido traducido al castellano, pero les recomiendo que visiten la página DONATE y vean algunas imagenes de las obras que se han realizado por medio de las aportaciones a éste ministerio. Este no es un ministerio sólo para lectores, sino un ministerio que reta a los lectores a unirse a la labor de allá afuera, en esos lugares donde las necesidades son de sobrevivencia.

Si no leíste el blog sobre las razones de la transición, presiona AQUI.

Les recuerdo las opciones de contribución:

Opciones de Donación

Tarjetas de crédito: Puedes donar por medio de PayPal (el medio seguro para pagos con tarjetas de crédito ó cuenta bancaria) que ofreceremos pronto. Ësta cuenta aún no está lista, así que tendrán unos días gratuitos adicionales. Dentro de esa opción, existen diferentes alternativas de aportación única, o en mensualidades de diferentes cantidades.

Cheques: Los suscriptores en español pueden enviar cheques en cualquier moneda a:

Bessy Bendaña
Apartamentos Turcios #A3, Zona Americana
La Lima, Cortes, Honduras

POR FAVOR ADJUNTEN SU DIRECCION ELECTRONICA EN EL CHEQUE. Eso nos permitirá agregarlo o dejarlo en la lista de suscriptores.

Transferencia Electrónica Bancaria: Si deseas hacerlo por ésta vía, escríbenos a bessy@skipmoen.com para proveer la información pertinente.

Category: La Palabra de Hoy  | Tags: , , , , ,  | Comments off

Are You Experienced?

Saturday, May 16th, 2009 | Author:

Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. Romans 7:13

Utterly Sinful – How difficult it is for us to read this passage in Romans without the usual Christian blinders! We have been so convinced that Paul sets the gospel of grace in opposition to the works of the law that we no longer read what the text says. We think that Paul is telling us that the law caused us to sin and therefore, the law is a terrible, awful thing. Of course, Paul firmly denies this conclusion (“May it never be!”), but we just can’t see it any other way. We think that grace means being out from under the law, so that must mean that Paul thinks that the law has to be aligned with sin , or at least no longer useful for us. The problem comes because Paul is making a word play on three different uses of the Greek nomos (law). We’re not Greek. We don’t have that first century Gentile believer background. So, we miss it. Let’s see what happens when we recover Paul’s ingenious word play.

Nomos has three different meanings. First, it can mean a law like the laws of the land. This is its legislative sense. Second, it can mean a rule or principle. It is used this way many, many times by the early church in the discussion of the canon, another word that means a standard or rule. Third, in the New Testament, nomos can be used as a proper noun to mean the Torah. Each time you read this word in Greek, you have to determine from the context which meaning fits. For example, Yeshua was accused of breaking the Roman nomos regarding the divinity of the emperor (remember that they claimed that he said he was a king). This is meaning number one. Then there are many verses where meaning number three is clearly the case (Torah). But sometimes Paul uses nomos as a rule or principle. This verse in Romans is one of those times. Paul makes a play on the Greek word. The Torah (meaning #3) is good, but there is another nomos (rule – #2) in my body, a “law” that works against me. This rule comes into being because once I understand the commandment, I am presented with the possibility of disobeying the commandment and when I disobey, I set a “rule” for myself – my own “torah”. So, God’s Torah is set against my own torah (my rule of practice). God’s Torah is not in opposition to God’s grace. They are two sides of the same coin. What is in opposition to God’s grace is my rules, that is, the way that I incorrectly use God’s Torah to define my own rules for living. In Paul’s letters, “works of the law” is not God’s Torah. It is the twisted version of God’s instructions used to earn righteousness. In other words, my torah is nothing more than legalism. Legalism is opposed to grace! But God’s instructions, His Torah, is not opposed to grace at all because it has nothing to do with grace.  Grace is a gift. Torah is instructions after I have received the gift.

In this verse, Paul tells us something very important about the relationship between the real Torah and sin. My own desire to run my life twists God’s perfect instructions into something that is a perverse torah (rule). If I were obedient, I would discover that God’s instructions lead to blessings. But when I disobey, I actually experience the tragedy of sin. I am cut off from the source of life. It is no longer a theoretical potential. Now I know what it means to be separated. Sin becomes utterly sinful. In other words, it becomes real for me.

Every commandment presents me with the opportunity to draw closer to Him. But, at the same time, every commandment contains the potential that I will disobey. There is risk in each one of God’s instructions for life. When I don’t do what He asks, then I change that risk into reality. Then I find that my rule twists His perfect intention into something tragic. That’s what legalism is all about – making Torah do something it was never intended to do. It doesn’t take outright disobedience to discover the sinfulness of sin. All it takes is twisting the commandment so that I do it in order to manipulate God’s favor instead of doing it simply because I love Him.

What is the context of nomos in your life? Which of the three meanings applies to you?

Topical Index: law, nomos, rule, legalism, Torah, Romans 7:13

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 6 Comments

Schizophrenia

Friday, March 20th, 2009 | Author:

Let your women be silent in the churches, for it is not allowed to them to speak, but let them be submissive, as also the law says.  1 Corinthians 14:34

The Law – Some weeks ago, one reader wrote, “Perhaps at some point you could give a clear explanation as to what the thorough explanation of “let the women keep silence in the church” is. I do believe it was a cultural statement to women who, realizing their new freedom in CHRIST, were interrupting the preacher/teacher at church. However, I’d like the verification of a “scholar” like yourself. I had a ‘good’ Baptist tell me today that it wasn’t proper for a woman to lead in prayer in a public service, because that was tantamount to her ‘teaching’ men. He didn’t appreciate my comment that prayer was not teaching, but rather communication directly to and with GOD.”

There’s hardly a more controversial Pauline verse (except perhaps 1 Timothy 2:12).  So, let’s see if we can sort out some of the issues.  By the way, I am so glad that this reader put “scholar” in quotation marks since it would take someone far more gifted than I am to provide the final answer on this problem.  Nevertheless, we can at least make a few comments that might help.

Right off the top, we must admit that there is no scholarly agreement on Paul’s motivation or meaning.  Even the best Greek scholars in the world can’t come to unified understanding of this verse.  That should tell you something.  Anyone who says, “This is what Paul means,” must have a direct, divine revelation because the best Pauline exegetes still can’t come to a solid conclusion.  This is one of those verses that you dare not build a doctrine on.  There are a lot of things in Paul’s letters that are crystal clear and unambiguous.  This is not one of them.  Caution is the proper approach.

Secondly, we know that Paul was a superior student of Scripture.  As a Pharisee of the Pharisees, he undoubtedly memorized huge portions of Scripture, perhaps the entire Old Testament.  One thing is for sure.  He knew the Law.  He had no problem citing Scripture as the final authority on matters of faith and practice.  His letters are full of Scriptural quotations.  In fact, when he really wants to make a point, his usual practice is to say, “As it is written,” followed by the Old Testament passage.  But in this most crucial verse, Paul makes a huge “mistake”.  You see, there is no Scripture at all that says women must be silent in the synagogue.  Not one verse of the Law says anything like this.  Furthermore, it is completely out of character for Paul to say, “as the Law says,” and then not give us the reference.  Whatever is happening here, it is not anything like Paul’s normal writing.  On this basis, Bilezikian suggests that this statement is not from Paul at all.  How could it be?  It doesn’t sound like him.  It doesn’t read like him, and it has a serious flaw about the claim of Scripture.  Bilezikian believes that Paul is actually quoting the claim of his opposition.  They are telling the churches that women should be silent, and Paul is reminding his readers of their bogus claim before he attacks their error.  Bilezikian offers further proof of this reading in the details of the Greek text.  He makes a powerful argument, but even if you reject it, you must admit that this passage doesn’t look anything like Paul’s usual writing.  Once again, caution is the watchword.

Finally, for now, if we think that Paul actually issued this command, then we are faced with another serious problem.  If Paul really said this, then he must have experienced a schizophrenic episode, because just a few verses before this edict, Paul exhorts everyone (men and women) to speak in tongues, prophesy, and participate in the edification of the whole congregation.  How can he enthusiastically endorse the verbal activity of tongues and prophecy with one breath and then tell women to shut up in the next?  If there is anything we believe about God’s Word, it is that it is not self-contradictory.  If God inspired Paul to say that the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues (verse 23), then that same God cannot inspire the same author to tell half the congregation that they cannot open their mouths.  It’s a problem, isn’t it?  Caution, my friends, caution.

Of course, there is a lot more.  There is the Jewish background where women openly participated in the synagogue (and Paul certainly knew that).  There is the issue with the cultural concerns of Corinth.  There is the fact that a woman is the one who reported these difficulties to Paul (see 1:11).  There is the teaching of Jesus that there is no discrimination in the Kingdom.  And finally, there is the overwhelming evidence of Genesis and the role of the ‘ezer.  But those are for another day.

Your church may have handled this controversy differently.  I am not here to change your mind.  I am here to point to the text and remind all of us that it isn’t quite as clear as we would like it to be.  There are a lot of issues with this one.  In the end, something is happening here that we aren’t sure about, and for that reason alone, we must be very careful.  For what it’s worth, this “scholar” doesn’t see any way that we could build a hard case on this verse.  This one has to fit into much bigger concerns before it can make sense.

Now it’s your turn.  Think about it.

Topical Index:  women, silence, 1 Corinthians 14:34, law, church, nomos

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 10 Comments