I have been taught all my Christian life that the uniquely Pauline expression "the works of the law" found in the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatians refers to acts of righteousness, good works and keeping God's commandment. So when Paul denounces the works of the law as lacking justification value, it is taught that it is acts of righteousness, good works and obedience to God's commandments that he denounces. Even though I often wrestled with this identification when I read some passages of Scripture that seem to contradict it, I generally accepted it as the truth. I have however studied the expression and the context in which it is used by Paul and have found it to be referring to circumcision and contingent works and not to righteousness, good works or acts of obedience to God's moral law. I am now curious to find out the origin of the interpretation. I want to be sure I have not missed anything that was considered to arrive at it which makes my conclusion to differ. Has anyone done a study on this or come across any exposition giving the background to this interpretation?

This is certainly not found in the New Covenant of Jesus yet it is prevalent in Christian teachings, media, and reading materials.

I'm doing a study on grace and the fulfilment of the Law at present, and wonder if someone can assist: some texts definitely state that it is not humanly possible to perfectly keep the Law. Thus Paul in Romans 7:14-23, 9:31-32, Peter’s words in Acts 15:10, that the Law was a burden that the Israelites could not bear, etc. However, other texts seem to indicate that keeping the Law was possible. For instance, concerning the Law and the choice between obedience and disobedience proffered to the Israelites, Moses says (Deuteronomy 30:11), > ‘Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or > beyond your reach.’ In other words, they have no excuse for disobedience. Also, in Philippians 3:6 Paul, in giving his credentials as an impeccable Pharisee, avers that he was, ‘as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.’ There is also the argument and thrust from Romans 7 to 8 that, as heeding of the Law is not possible, the solution is through the power of the Holy Spirit (thus 8:1-4). A related query might be, then: did the OT Israelites for over 1,000 years go through the same sense of guilt, frustration, and inability to keep the Law as did Paul (cf. Romans 7), because of the absence of the indwelling Spirit? This would seem unfair, but would be in line with the Romans 7 theology of difficulty in keeping the Law. However, how would this square with Moses’ parting exhortation that the Law was ‘not difficult’ (Deut 30.11)? A thought: might Paul's (and Peter's) comments perhaps have something to do with an attempt at perfectionism, which is attested in the Talmud among first century rabbis?

I understand there are state-sanctioned churches in China, but that implies that Bibles in China are edited by the CCP. Would an Anglican Bible be legal, or at least easy, to bring into China?

As per Acts 21:24, Paul keeps the law. If Paul keeps the law, why does he say that he is not under the law in 1 Corinthians 20-21? If he is not under the law, then why did he perform the nazirite vow in Acts 21? I am confused

Jesus said in Mat 5:17-18 (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. For truly I tell you, **until heaven and earth disappear**, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until **everything is accomplished**. If we stop reading the paragraph at the first bolded sentence, we'll get the impression that the law is eternal (well... until heaven and earth disappear). But if we keep reading until reaching the second bolded text, we'll get a different understanding: somehow the law will end after "everything is accomplished" (i.e. when Christ's earthly duties are done?). So it's not eternal, after all. Isn't this a contradiction? I'm still having a hard time understanding this passage.

## Background The Hebrew bible and New Testament make numerous references to the concept of marriage (Exodus 21:10; Genesis 2:24) and even include stories involving weddings such as the famous Wedding at Cana . The NT also includes numerous commands for married couples such as Ephesians 5:22-33. However neither the Hebrew bible nor NT define what is involved in getting married, or what constitutes a wedding. In contrast, Jewish laws of *kiddushin* describe three ways a marriage can occur: sexual intercourse, a legal document, or the exchange of money . ## Question How have Protestants as *Sola Scriptura* proponents defined the boundaries of acceptable weddings without a corresponding biblical definition? Do they rely wholly on the state? How do they define when a couple is religiously considered married?

I know the Seventh Day Adventist church is known for following certain Old Testament laws found in Leviticus such as the food/dietary laws. However I'm also under the impression that they don't follow all 600+ Levitical laws either. Is there a reason why they follow certain Levitical laws like food/dietary but don't follow others, such as wearing clothing made of two different materials (Lev 19:19) or cutting the hair at the sides (Lev 19:17)? To what extent do they keep the laws?

I'm studying Reformed theology. In looking at a collection of Reformed creeds, I'm finding a repeated theme of dividing the Old Testament (OT) commandments into three types: - moral - ceremonial - judicial This classification to my knowledge has not been articulated in the Scriptures, but seems to have been started by the church fathers (and later formalized by Aquinas) in an effort to discern which of the requirements of the OT law were "binding" on Christians and which were "abrogated" by Jesus' death on the cross. Leaving out (for the purposes of my questions) the so called "judicial" commandments, I'm seeking to reconcile the historical Reformed theology within its own boundaries on its stance on the division between moral and ceremonial requirements of the law as pertaining to observing a weekly day of rest by Christians. The 4th Commandment of the Decalogue is usually classified as part of "ceremonial" law. For example, the Geneva Catechism, 1542 (quoted from Ligonier Ministries, “We Believe.” ) states regarding the 4th Commandment: > 168. M. But does he [God] forbid us any labour on that day [Saturday]? C. This commandment has a distinct and peculiar reason. In so far as the observation of rest was a part of the ceremonial law; it was abrogated at the coming of Christ. > 169. M. Do you say that this commandment respected the Jews only, and was therefore merely temporary? C. Yes, so far as it was ceremonial. In other words, "ceremonial" requirements seem to be equated with "abrogated" (non-binding on Christians) as opposed to "moral" requirements that are still binding. The Geneva Catechism doesn't spell out what nullifies the mandate of the 4th Commandment to observe the original Sabbath for Reformed Christians, but other Reformed confessions do. They seem to follow the interpretation of Paul's words (e.g., Romans 14:5, Galatians 4:10) that teaches that observation of days "as such" is contrary to Christian teaching. For example, the Second Helvetic Confession, 1566 (ibid.) states: > Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day or to any superstitions. For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself liked of God. However, as we read texts of other (later) Reformed creeds, we find that observation of days is not at all abrogated. For example, on one hand, when it comes to its views on the law of God writ large, the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646-47 still supports the classification/division of the OT commandments noted earlier (ibid.): > 2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. > 3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament. However, when addressing the 4th Commandment specifically, the Westminster Confession, 1646-47 (ibid.) states, emphasis supplied: > 7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, **moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages**, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him... In other words, while maintaining that portions of the Ten Commandment (i.e., the 4th Commandment) are "ceremonial," Westminster Confession (as well as the Savoy Declaration, 1658 and the Second London Baptist Confession, 1677/1689 that followed it) seems to seek to impose its mandate (albeit altering the day which they propose to be kept) on Christians. So the questions that I have are these: 1. Is Westminster's stance on the subject of 4th Commandment still an authoritative view in the Reformed churches? If not, what superseded it and how does it differ from Westminster on the subject? 2. If the 4th Commandment is considered to be "ceremonial," why would it be extended to Reformed Christians as "moral" and binding (even if applied to another day)? 3. If the 4th Commandment is viewed to be both "ceremonial" and "moral" at the same time (held to be teaching/binding Christians to observe one day per week, just not the original Sabbath), how are Paul's words (e.g., Romans 14:5 or Galatians 4:10) not taken to condemn observation of any other day as the Lord's Day in the same way they are taken to condemn observing the original Sabbath?

Are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John related to the Old Covenant (Old Testament, Hebrew Bible) since the Testator (Jesus), who lived, preached, and performed miracles within it, had not yet died? Hebrews 9:16-17 King James Version > For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

William Huntington (1745 – 1813) preached in London to many hundreds, sometimes thousands, in the latter part of his life. After his death a number of preachers followed in his footsteps, such as William Gadsby, John Kershaw, William Tiptaft and, notably, J C Philpot. The movement changed its name in order to separate from what was considered erroneous and in order to define what was seen to be true and the names ‘Strict Baptist’ then ‘Gospel Standard Strict Baptist’ were applied. Huntington, and those who followed, denied that the Christian was under law (whether ‘moral’ or ‘ceremonial’) and he advanced a variety of texts to support this : I am crucified with Christ, Galatians 2:20 ; Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth, Romans 10:4 ; ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, Romans 7:4. Aside from these texts (which are not the subject of this question) Huntington also argued with regard to Old Testament believers - who lived before Moses' delivery of the law, and before the enunciating of the ten commandments to Israel at Sinai. If no law had yet been delivered, he argues, how then did these saints live ? Such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph ? They are specifically said to be justified and accounted righteous in the sight of God, but how did they live, thereafter, without law to guide them ? In his book *Law and Grace Contrasted* Huntington says : >By faith Enoch had this testimony that he pleased God, Hebrews 11:5 ; but without faith it is impossible to please him, Hebrews 11:6. Then faith is a rule that God approves of, and is pleased with. If the ten commandments be the believer’s only rule of a righteous life, what then of Abel who obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts, Hebrews 11:4, an entire dispensation before the commandments were given ? > >Noah, who became heir of the righteousness of faith, Hebrews 11:7, was certainly without the legal rule of works, when he prepared an ark and condemned the world, by faith, without a law to guide him. > >Abraham, the friend of God and the father of the faithful and heir of the world must also walk uncertainly [if only law could truly guide him (edit)]. I think it is important to notice that Mr Huntington is not arguing about justification by faith (and how it is achieved), he is arguing regarding a sanctified life, thereafter. This argument, regarding saints who died before the law was laid down, is that which engages me and I would be interested to know what Protestants have made of it. I am aware that some Protestants have not accepted what Mr Huntington preached and indeed many have called him, inaccurately, an ‘Antinomian’. But what do they make of this argument regarding Old Testament saints ?

In Nehemiah 6:10-14, Shemaiah tries to get Nehemiah to meet with him in the temple and close the door, alleging (falsely) that people will try to kill Nehemiah at night otherwise. The goal was to get Nehemiah to sin, but Nehemiah refused, saying that someone like himself could never go to the temple to save his life. Would this contradict situation ethics? If Nehemiah followed situation ethics, wouldn't entering the temple to save his life been permissible?

If a Christian kills someone while defending his family in the process, will God hold that person guilty for taking out someone who would have ended that Christian and the Christian's whole family? Apparently God didn't hold Moses guilty after killing the Egyptian who was oppressing the Israelite. He still called him to liberate the Israelites from bondage. Whats the Biblical approach to self defense is not murder?

I understand that certain acts in Catholicism are considered "illicit," or in violation of church law. Is this equivalent to saying that the acts are sinful? Can something be sinful but not illicit, or illicit but not sinful?

Deuteronomy 29:29 KJV >The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children **for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.** Isaiah 59:21 > “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, **on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever**,” says the Lord. Do these verses prove that Old Testament law is still to be followed since it is to be followed forever?

Does the Catholic Church have any *explicit* laws regarding priests and the ownership of or the carrying of firearms? I am under the impression that Canon Law (someplace) forbids for all clerics from anything "unbecoming to their state." But alas, if this is true, such is by no means explicit.

We read in Matt 27 how Jesus was put to trial before the Roman Governor: > Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?” But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed......... For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over. ....... The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” Pilate said to them, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” All of them said, “Let him be crucified!” Then he asked, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified!” So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” The charges levelled against Jesus were blasphemy and misleading of the Jews against Roman empire, calling himself their king. The first one would come under Hebrew law and the trial & punishment was of summary nature, as we see in Jn 8:58-59: > Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. And we see the Jewish leaders saying to Pilate: > The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.” (Jn 19:7) Those days, only the Romans had the power to award death sentence to Jews (Jn 18:31). But blasphemy was not listed by Romans as a crime demanding death sentence. The second charge could not be substantiated, as we see Pilate putting up the sign of INRI over Jesus' cross, much to the embarrassment of the Jewish leaders (Jn 19:22). In effect, Jesus was convicted for allegedly breaking Hebrew laws, but was awarded death sentence under Roman laws. **My question therefore, is**: Under the laws of which regime was Jesus sentenced to death on the cross? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

In Gen. 26:5: > Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my precepts and commandments, and observed my ceremonies and laws. (Douay Rheims) Abraham knew of the obligation to tithe. Noah knew what "clean animals" meant. Abel seemed to know about sacrificing animals (and firstlings). Joseph seemed to know that adultery was a grievous sin. and so forth... What were these precepts, commandments, ceremonies, and laws alluded to in Gen 26:5?? Were they written down? Are they represented in the *natural law*?

I am under the impression that a Roman Catholic parish priest must visit the households of his parish on an annual basis. But is this done anymore? I am sure it has been promulgated somewhere and at some time in the past. Can anyone provide any light on this? Thank you.

This question is motivated by one of the answers given [here](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/93770/24981) for the question [Is religious confession legally privileged](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/93765/is-religious-confession-legally-privileged) . I am under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that if a Catholic priest reveals anything that was told to him during Sacramental Confession---he is automatically excommunicated by the Church. QUESTION: If the penitent involved gives permission for that priest to reveal something from his confession, may the priest do so without ecclesiastical penalty? Or is he still bound to reveal nothing?