Romans 6:12-18 reads,

6:14 is open to ambiguity! Nevertheless, Paul moves quickly in 6:15 in an effort to shut out the ambiguity, stating clearly that he does not mean by his comments that sin should proliferate!

Then WHY utter ambiguous comments?

The phrase "are not under law" suggests that those under grace and not under law are not subject to the requirements of the law. But if they are not subject to the requirements of the law they are not to live by those requirements. If they are not to live by those requirements they do not sin when they do not live by those requirements. In other words, it is IMPOSSIBLE for one who is not under law to sin, seeing that he is not subject to law!

But if one then says, as Paul does in 6:15, that it is possible to sin even when one is not under law, that one is CONTRADICTING oneself! For the only way one can sin is when one is under law and violates it. But if one is not under law there is no law for one to violate, and therefore it is impossible for one to sin!

It appears to me that Paul's phraseology or language in his message is his own enemy! For by using such ambiguous and contradictory language in his message he gives his opponents the ammunition with which to attack his message and affirm that he is teaching licence to sin, even when he expressly denies it!

Seeing that Paul expressly denies that he is teaching licence to sin, then HOW should he have phrased 6:14 and 6:15?

6:14 should have read something like, "For sin will not have dominion over you. For you are not under sin, but under grace". If it so read there wouldn't even have been a need for 6:15, for the question posed in 6:15 would not have been brought out by 6:14?

Alternatively, 6:14-15 should have read something like, "For sin will not have dominion over you. For you are not under the death penalty of sin, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the death penalty of sin, but under grace? May it never be!"

Romans 7:1-6 reads,

7:1 shows that Paul is now clearly speaking to his Jewish brethren in Rome, it is these, when contrasted to the Gentiles, who know the law of Moses.

Paul states in 7:1 that the law of Moses has dominion over a man for as long as he lives. To back up this statement he gives the example of a woman being bound by law to her husband while he lives, but is discharged from "the law of the husband". In other words, Paul is here extrapolating application of "the law of the husband" to the entire law of Moses, and trying to apply a principle inherent in "the law of the husband" to the entire law of Moses. Is Paul right in this application and extrapolation?

Technically speaking, Paul's statement with respect to "the law of the husband" is NOT CORRECT! For a woman can indeed be discharged from what Paul calls "the law of the husband" while the husband is still alive!

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 reads,

The law of Moses clearly shows that death of the husband is NOT the ONLY manner a woman can be discharged from being under her husband's authority. She can cease to be under his authority if he divorces her on account of some unseemly thing in her. And once he has divorced her, and she has ceased to be under his authority, she can become another man's wife and sexually enjoin herself to the other man. Because the law of Moses allows the woman to be sexually enjoined to her new husband, even while the former husband is alive, the woman is NOT committing adultery by being wife to her new husband, for she is no longer the wife of her first husband!

It is therefore the case that the example Paul has used in Romans 7:1-3 is not technically correct according to the law of Moses!

Paul then uses his technically incorrect example in an effort to establish a principle affecting all believers in Yah'shuah! But, seeing that his example has already been ascertained to be technically incorrect, it is not suitable as the logical premise for the principle he attempts to establish affecting all believers in Yah'shuah. Taken together, it is found that the process that Paul has used here is logically invalid, on account of the technical incorrectness of the premise example that he uses!

In 7:4 Paul compares believers in Yah'shuah to a wife, and compares Yah'shuah to a new or second husband. If Yah'shuah is the second or new husband, then WHO was the first husband that believers in Yah'shuah were previously married to? And WHEN did this first husband die, in order to release believers in Yah'shuah from being under his authority, thereby freeing them to become wife to Yah'shuah?

Frankly speaking, Paul DOES NOT identify the first husband that believers in Yah'shuah were married to! He also doesn't show when this husband died, thereby freeing believers in Yah'shuah to become wife to Yah'shuah! The MOST that he does is to say that it is believers in Yah'shuah who died to the law!

Now, if a wife dies she remains dead! She doesn't rise from the dead to become wife to another man! She remains dead!

There is therefore EXPOSED another LOGICAL FALLACY or INCONSISTENCY in Paul's argument. For he is not consistent in the premise example that he gives with its principle that he attempts to establish affecting all believers in Yah'shuah? If Paul had given a suitable example from the law of Moses of a wife dying, being raised from the dead, and becoming wife to another man, then the logical consistency of his argument might have been kept. But that he has failed to produce such an example from the law, yet has attempted to so deduce in his principle for application affecting the entire assembly of believers in Yah'shuah, has exposed the logical fallacy and inconsistency in his argument! His argument is therefore INVALID and should be CAST ASIDE!

In 7:4 one might presume to say that Paul meant that the first husband of believers in Yah'shuah was the law of Moses. And if Paul really meant that the law of Moses was the first husband of believers in Yah'shuah, then he implied that the law of Moses died, thereby freeing believers in Yah'shuah to become wife to Yah'shuah!

But if this is so then he was saying that the law of Moses ceased to have authority over believers in Yah'shuah. And if it has ceased to have authority over believers in Yah'shuah then it ceased to exist with the death of the law of Moses, especially the portion of it defining sin. But Paul has already expressly argued against and asserted against this position. There is therefore a contradiction in the view that Paul meant that the first husband of believers in Yah'shuah was the law of Moses. For this view conflicts with Paul's previously expressed views in Romans 1-6.

It also appears that Paul's argumentation technique in 7:1-4 is UNSOUND. For he uses a single provision in the law of Moses in an effort to establish a principle affecting the entire body of believers in Yah'shuah, without first showing that the particular principle he selected is indeed valid for such a task. For just as he picked up on one provision in the entire law of Moses, someone else can easily pick up on another provision in the entire law of Moses and attempt to assert another principle affecting the entire assembly of believers in Yah'shuah.

For example, Exodus 21:2 reads,

In other words, a Hebrew servant is to be under his master's authority for six years, with freedom to depart in the seventh year, departing without paying any redemption money. If he departs without paying redemption money prior to serving six years he has departed fraudulently.

By the same rationale that Paul used in Romans 7:1-4 one can say that believers in Yah'shuah were previously servants to a master for a period of time. But after the elapse of that time they departed from being under that master, and went and became servants of Yah'shuah, their new master.

But where is the proof that believers in Yah'shuah were previously servants to a given master? Where is the proof of the master they served? Where is the proof of the law governing their master-servant relationship with this master who was over them? Where is the proof that they departed from him? Where is the proof that this example is suitable for application to believers in Yah'shuah? Where is the proof to all these assumptions?

In other words, Paul has made several assumptions without proving their validity prior to putting them into application in his effort to establish a principle affecting the entire body of believers in Yah'shuah. His approach is completely logically invalid, and therefore the conclusion that he arrives at cannot be accepted on the basis of his approach in arriving at it!

In 7:5 Paul talks about "sinful passions which were through the law". In other words he says that sinful passions existed through the law. Going by his earlier comments a rational interpretation of these comments of his is that there are passions that are opposed to the law and seek to disobey the law. For the only manner those passions can be sinful is if they disobey the law or violate the law. Therefore Paul is saying that there are passions that seek to disobey the law and thereby violate it.

Seeing that he talks about passions existing through the law he implies that if the law did not exist these passions contrary to the law would not exist. For he suggests that they are brought about by the law.

Does the law of Moses bring about passions that are contrary to it? Isn't the law of Moses simply an exposition of what sin is? Is an exposition of sin equivalent to bringing about what causes sin? Is knowledge of sin equivalent to causing one to sin?

This is another fallacy! For knowledge of sin is not equivalent to causing one to sin! For if one says that the law of Moses brought about sin - sinful passions - then one is also saying that the person, the Mighty One, who delivered the law of Moses is the one who really brought about sin - sinful passions! In other words, this is an accusation against the Mighty One himself for bringing about sin - sinful passions - where sin did not previously exist!

I'll tell you my opinion - this is a SATANIC ARGUMENT! It is Satanic argumentation to accuse the Mighty One of bringing about sin, seeing that it is the Mighty One who delivered the law of Moses to the children of Israel! Yes - those saying that the law of Moses brings about sinful passions are implicitly saying that the Mighty One brings about sinful passions, seeing that he is the one who delivered the law of Moses - the law that defines sin!

It is a monumentally fallacious argument to assert that knowledge of sin is equivalent to bringing about sinful passions!

In 7:6 Paul clearly says, "now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held". In other words, going also by his comments immediately preceding, Paul says that now we are no longer under the authority of the law, having died to that which had authority over us!

This is a plain CONTRADICTION of his argumentation in Romans 1-5. For whereas in Romans 1-5 he was clearly asserting that believers in Yah'shuah should continue to observe the law of Moses, especially the portion of it defining sin, now he is saying that they no longer need to observe the provisions of the law of Moses! For just as a widow does not need to observe the provisions of her husband's law while he lived, so also believers in Yah'shuah no longer need to observe the provisions of the law of Moses, seeing that they have been discharged from it!

What is Paul really teaching?

On the one hand he is saying that believers should continue to observe the law of Moses, especially the portion that defines sin. On the other hand he is saying that believers have been discharged from the law of Moses, thereby implying that they no longer need to observe the law of Moses.

So which is which Paul?

Should believers observe the law of Moses, and thereby avoid sin, seeing that the law of Moses defines sin, or should they disregard observing the law of Moses, seeing that the law of Moses had been abrogated and therefore no one sins by not observing the law of Moses? In other words Paul, should believers disregard the law of Moses, seeing that they are now under grace, and therefore do not sin when they disregard the law of Moses? Or should they still observe the law of Moses, seeing that it defines sin, and believers should not sin, even though they are under grace?

The one consistent message of Paul amidst all this CONFUSION is that those under grace should not sin! The issue therefore is - is their life devoid of sin arising on account of there being no law and therefore no sin, or on account of their living according to the law because the law still exists and sin still exists?

Paul is basically saying BOTH!

But this is IMPOSSIBLE!

Paul is asking believers in Yah'shuah to do the impossible! For on the one hand he is telling them to live according to the law and thereby not sin. On the other hand he is telling them that the law no longer exists, and therefore sin no longer exists, implying that no one should bother living according to the law, seeing that living according to it is irrelevant!

MADNESS! ABSOLUTE MADNESS!

This is a message of UTTER CONFUSION! It should be DISCARDED!

Earlier on, in examining Paul's life, it was noted that Israelites accused Paul of teaching Israelites living among Gentiles to forsake circumcision and the law of Moses. It has now been observed that Paul indeed addressed Israelites living in Rome, and therefore among non-Israelites. It has also been observed that part of Paul's message of utter confusion involves teaching the abrogation of the law of Moses, thereby teaching Israelites to forsake circumcision and the law of Moses. This is the evidence that Paul's accusers failed to produce when they arraigned Paul before the authorities. Had they produced this evidence they might have succeeded in Paul being found guilty as they charged him!

It should also be noted that Paul denied, in Acts 25:8, having taught against the law of Moses or that of the Jews. Nevertheless, the evidence of Romans 7 is crystal clear that he indeed taught against the law of Moses. Paul's words, therefore, cannot be relied upon!

Romans 3:8 reads,

Based on the examination of above message of Paul's, in Romans 7:1-6, it is indeed the case that those who affirmed that Paul was teaching "let us do evil, that good may come", were not speaking falsehood! For when Paul uttered words such as "we have been discharged from the law", clearly referring to the law of Moses, that law which came by "letter", he was simply giving licence to his audience to do whatever they felt like!

In 7:6 Paul says "we serve in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter". In this he implies that there is a conflict or contrast between serving in the spirit and serving in the letter. Nevertheless, in Romans 2:25-29 Paul clearly showed that those who do the law and keep the ordinances of the law are the ones who fulfil the law and are indeed spiritually circumcised and not just circumcised in the letter. In other words, Paul showed that spiritual service involved doing the law and keeping the ordinances of the law. But now he contrasts service in the spirit and service in the letter, yet earlier on he had showed that service in the spirit is indeed service in the letter.

So again Paul, which is which? Should believers in Yah'shuah observe the law and thereby be spiritually circumcised, or should they disregard the law, seeing that it is possible to be spiritually circumcised while disregarding the law?

Confusion amidst confusion! One CANNOT rely on Paul's words for a proper living standard in one's life! For by relying on Paul's words one goes NOWHERE! For on the one hand he says, "go left". On the other hand he says, "go right". If one attempts to both go left and right one will end up STUCK at that point, going NOWHERE! Paul's words on the law are an UNRELIABLE spiritual guide!

Romans 7:7-12 reads,

In 7:7 Paul again speaks in a manner characteristic of his style. For he expressly denies what his previous words have suggested and implied, and fails to give a reason for his denial!

Which is which, Paul? Should one rely on Paul's previous comments, with all of their implications and suggestions, or should one rely on Paul's express words, the very opposite of his implications and suggestions? In other words, which of Paul's conflicting and contradictory words should one rely upon? And why does Paul speak in a conflicting and contradictory manner, thereby confusing his audience, causing them not to know what they ought to do? Which is which, Paul? Why doesn't Paul speak clearly, without contradiction?

In 7:8 Paul clearly blames his sinful passions for his sin, and doesn't blame the law. Nevertheless he also states that the power inherent in his sinful passions arises on account of the law. In other words, where there is no law his sinful passions cannot cause him to sin. But where law exists his sinful passions, which are contrary to law, act contrary to law and cause him to sin - to violate law. Therefore a clear way for Paul to avoid sin is by EITHER being devoid of his sinful passions or by the law no longer existing.

Which should it be? Should humans refrain from sin by the law being abrogated, or by their being cleansed of their sinful passions? Which is Yahweh's way of dealing with the matter? Does Yahweh abrogate his law, leaving humans with their sinful passions, or does he cleanse humans of their sinful passions, leaving his law intact?

In 7:9 Paul states that there was once a time when he was alive apart from the law, prior to the commandment coming.

WHEN was this?

Is Paul suggesting that he was once in existence prior to the issuance of the law that defines sin? That he was once in existence prior to the time of Adam, seeing that earlier on he had argued that the law that defines sin has been in existence even from the time of Adam? Is Paul stating that he is older than the person known to have been the first human? Is Paul stating that he is the first human, quite contrary to what he had implied in his earlier comments? Or is he saying that he is an angelic being who had existence prior to human beings having existence? If not, then what really is Paul saying? Why isn't he clear in what he is saying?

Without beating about the bush, it is my opinion that Paul is a frustrating writer!

The truth of the matter is that Paul was never in existence when the law of Moses, especially the portion of it that defines sin, was not in existence. His existence commenced at a time when the law of Moses had already been issued. He had therefore always been subject to the provisions of the law of Moses.

In 7:10 Paul expressly says that the purpose of the commandment is life! In other words, its purpose is not death or to kill!

Then why were his previous words suggesting the very opposite? Why was he giving suggestions and implications the very opposite of his express words, thereby creating confusion?

In 7:12 Paul expressly affirms that the law of Moses is holy, and the commandment holy, righteous and good.

What is the point of denigrating the law of Moses in suggestions and implications only to expressly assert that it is holy, righteous and good? Aren't the opposed and contrary messages those of confusion? Aren't Paul's words creating confusion among those who listen to them?

Romans 7:13-25 reads,

In 7:13-25 Paul again reverts to the line he had taken in Romans 1-5. For he here affirms the goodness and spirituality of the law of Moses, and instead attacks his sinful passions. Nevertheless, there is still a twist in his words here from those in Romans 2:17-29. For in Romans 2 he showed that it is the doers of the law, the keepers of the ordinances in the law, who indeed fulfil the law and are spiritually circumcised. But here he is suggesting that it is possible to serve the law of the Mighty One with one's mind - spiritually, while not doing the law, not keeping the ordinances of the law. Isn't this a contradiction?

Is it possible to be spiritually circumcised while not observing the law of Moses, while not keeping the ordinances of the law of Moses and thereby not fulfilling the law of Moses? Paul's words in Romans 2 clearly suggest that it is not. But his words in Romans 7 suggest that it is possible to do so! Again, Paul contradicts himself and thereby confuses his audience!

What is Paul's purpose in his letter to the Romans? Is it to be a guide to the blind, to shed light to those in darkness, to correct the foolish and to teach babies, or is it to misguide the blind, to cast more darkness to those already in darkness, to leave the foolish in their folly and to refrain from teaching babies, leaving them ignorant? Which is which, Paul? Why aren't you being consistent, but are instead speaking with a forked tongue?

[Previous Section] [Contents] [Next Section]

Your comments on this article

Click here to inform a friend about this article

Return to Servants of Yahweh Site Contents page.

Go to Home Page

© 2000, Isaac Aluochier, All rights reserved. Published by Servants of Yahweh, P O Box 22855, London, NW9 8ZF, United Kingdom. E-mail: servantsofyahweh@serveyahweh.org. Permission is hereby GRANTED to reproduce this and other publications in the Servants of Yahweh web site, http://www.serveyahweh.org, unless otherwise stated.

Financial contributions, payable to Servants of Yahweh, and sent to P O Box 22855, London, NW9 8ZF, United Kingdom, are welcome and gratefully received. These facilitate the effective distribution of the word Yahweh has given us, both in electronic and hard copy formats. Not all have easy access to the Internet and therefore cannot easily access our web site, http://www.serveyahweh.org, for this information where it is freely available. These need hard copies of the information published on our web site. Production and distribution of books and booklets is significantly more costly than publishing and distributing material over the Internet. In this regard your financial contributions, whether by way of tithes and/or freewill offerings, go a great way in disseminating the word Yahweh has given us to the people he wills it to reach. May Yahweh richly bless you for your financial contributions to Servants of Yahweh.