Galatians 3: Under The Law?

[Shimshon]

Again you ignore Paul and the bible that says there was sin before the Law and the law was added BECAUSE of Transgression.

Think about what you just said. "there was sin before the law" What constituted sin? If not a command that was not adhered to. More, you misunderstand, or misrepresent why the law was added. No, you present a circular argument at best. First, the law was not added as if it had begun because of sins (transgressions). It was added 'to'. It did not come about because of sin, it was proliferated because of sin. Second, as you just admitted, sin was there before the 'added' laws were given. So you simply do not understand that a law was given before the 'laws' you are speaking of. And namely one, that blows your position out of the water, which is that of keeping the 7th day holy.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Think about what you just said. "there was sin before the law" What constituted sin? If not a command that was not adhered to. More, you misunderstand, or misrepresent why the law was added. No, you present a circular argument at best. First, the law was not added as if it had begun because of sins (transgressions). It was added 'to'. It did not come about because of sin, it was proliferated because of sin. Second, as you just admitted, sin was there before the 'added' laws were given.

No I don't do such as we see that God could have given Abraham the law but didn't choose to do so. The Bible attests that Abraham didn't have the Law of Moses otherwise it may have been called the Law of Abraham instead.

 

[Shimshon]

Thanks for verifying that sin IS apart from the Law (exists regardless of it existing).

right...... sin, which is transgression of the law, or a law, exists even without the law. (face palm)

 

[Shimshon]

No I don't do such as we see that God could have given Abraham the law but didn't choose to do so.

Yes you just did, in this very post. Hashem DID give Abraham commands and instructions.

 

[Shimshon]

The Bible attests that Abraham didn't have the Law of Moses otherwise it may have been called the Law of Abraham instead.

So your angst is with the Laws added to the Jewish people through Moses? Right?

 

[Sophrosyne]

right...... sin, which is transgression of the law, or a law, exists even without the law. (face palm)

"the law" for sake of argument here by those who are trying to bind us to it IS the Law of Moses which includes front and center the 10 commandments. I'm going to ignore laws that aren't instituted at sinai for sake of argument here just as I'm pretty much going to ignore any discussion that uses the Torah concept as such tactics are using the vague to bind us to the specific or using the unrelated to bind us to the related.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Yes you just did, in this very post. Hashem DID give Abraham commands and instructions.

Abraham wasn't given the 10 commandments which is what is being promoted upon those in this thread. We have specific arguments that ALL sin is related to the 10 commandments and arguments that insinuate Christians must keep the 10 based upon faulty premises that the 10 were binding prior to their being given.

 

[Shimshon]

"the law" for sake of argument here by those who are trying to bind us to it IS the Law of Moses which includes front and center the 10 commandments. I'm going to ignore laws that aren't instituted at sinai for sake of argument here just as I'm pretty much going to ignore any discussion that uses the Torah concept as such tactics are using the vague to bind us to the specific or using the unrelated to bind us to the related.

Well, I believe both sides of this argument are missing the mark and the true application of our Torah. To focus only on the law is to blur out our Messiah, yet to deny the existence of it's application upon ones soul is to blot out Messiah! Because Messiah is the representation of the Torah as given by hashem. He is the Word that has gone out from Zion as living water. One can not accept Messiah and deny the application of hashem's Torah upon ones soul and still be considered one of His. Because Messiah and hashem are one, and what occurs is you pit one against the other. Messiah did not come to do away with the law, he came to make it full, accomplish it as according to the will of hashem. And Messiah's witness is that if you believe He will come live within you as hashem lived within He. So, if He took on the embodiment of the law, by becoming a sacrifice for us all, then why would you fight tooth and nail against it?

Messiah did not come to make all believers live by the laws given Moses. Agreed. But He did come first and foremost to redeem those who do. The nations are the bounty, the harvest begins with the children of God, namely Yisrael. And without the law, our Torah, we are not Yisrael. Because hashem used his word to establish us, in love and in honor. And he will redeem us in love and in honor. Both arguments here obscure or deny this Truth.

 

[Mb_C]

I'm sorry but the Bible speaks differently it says that the Law was given exclusively to Israel and proof that it wasn't binding to anyone but Israel is written down as no other nation was held accountable to it by the historical documentation in the Bible itself.

Micah 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

I don't understand why you keep viewing the law of God with the point of view of "being accountable to it". The law of God was revealed so we would know we're in sin's grasp. Anything God did was for benefit. You say He only gave it to Israel, but there was no command by God that Israel had monopoly of it. Again, the purpose of God writing His law down was to identify sin in Israel, because they were to be a nation of priests, ergo, pure. How is "knowing when we sin" something monopolized by one nation? By the way, once you are aware of the 10C, your conscience is already bound to it. It's simple - you can't say you don't know it. Therefore, you are accountable to it because its sole purpose is to point out when sin happens.

Gentiles in the Bible in the New Testament were not subjected to the Law either and the council of Jerusalem itself attests that that.

Actually, almost all those laws they brought up at that council were all pre-Sinai. Circumcision was given via Abraham. Blood ("meat juice" more accurately) restriction was given via Noah. Abstaining from food offered to idols was not given by God anywhere in the Old Testament. As for "the law of Moses", that was a broad term meaning everything in Exodus-Deuteronomy, including what to do after [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], after having a period, how to identify different types of skin lesions, how to treat slaves, rules about incest and bestiality, etc. While the council didn't go into making a distinction between the laws in the law of Moses, it is clear the apostles considered differences. Most famously quoted, "the royal law of love" which Paul and James specifically advocated, is part of the law of Moses.

I'm glad you admit that those who don't know the law get judged differently that concludes that the Law is truly NOT the arbiter of sin because if it was then ALL would be treated the same by the Law knowing it or NOT.

En contrare, the Law is what God uses to judge whether there has been transgression - what is different is "the extent of guilt". It is the same way today with murder. There are different classifications in most countries' laws about murder.

It would be like breaking the speed limit without knowing the speed limit - the police officer can take that into account in determining whether you get away with a warning or get ticketed. Did you break the law by speeding above the speed limit? YES. Did you know about that particular speed limit? No. Are you still guilty of breaking the speed limit? Yes. Is your punishment as severe as if you had actually known about it? No.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Well, I believe both sides of this argument are missing the mark and the true application of our Torah. To focus only on the law is to blur out our Messiah, yet to deny the existence of it's application upon ones soul is to blot out Messiah! Because Messiah is the representation of the Torah as given by hashem. He is the Word that has gone out from Zion as living water. One can not accept Messiah and deny the application of hashem's Torah upon ones soul and still be considered one of His. Because Messiah and hashem are one, and what occurs is you pit one against the other. Messiah did not come to do away with the law, he came to make it full, accomplish it as according to the will of hashem. And Messiah's witness is that if you believe He will come live within you as hashem lived within He. So, if He took on the embodiment of the law, by becoming a sacrifice for us all, then why would you fight tooth and nail against it?

Messiah did not come to make all believers live by the laws given Moses. Agreed. But He did come first and foremost to redeem those who do. The nations are the bounty, the harvest begins with the children of God, namely Yisrael. And without the law, our Torah, we are not Yisrael. Because hashem used his word to establish us, in love and in honor. And he will redeem us in love and in honor. Both arguments here obscure or deny this Truth.

I've not a problem with any of this as to us Gentiles we have no Messiah, we do have a Savior and the Torah isn't needed for us as the New Testament lays out what we are to do with Paul as our guide for the most part. I do however have serious issues with those who deceptively try to first bind us to the 10 commandments in order to bind us to keeping a Sabbath Day that wasn't ours to keep to begin with.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Micah 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

And your point is? I see no commandment for nations to come, nor do I see a punishment for them to not come in this scripture.

I don't understand why you keep viewing the law of God with the point of view of "being accountable to it". The law of God was revealed so we would know we're in sin's grasp. Anything God did was for benefit. You say He only gave it to Israel, but there was no command by God that Israel had monopoly of it. Again, the purpose of God writing His law down was to identify sin in Israel, because they were to be a nation of priests, ergo, pure. How is "knowing when we sin" something monopolized by one nation? By the way, once you are aware of the 10C, your conscience is already bound to it. It's simple - you can't say you don't know it. Therefore, you are accountable to it because its sole purpose is to point out when sin happens.

This is deceptively inaccurate in that you aren't continuing on the thought of "sin's grasp" as you equate it. Paul says the LAW brought knowledge of sin, in order to bring us to realize we need Jesus as our savior. Paul also said after we are saved we no longer need the law to teach us about sin which you ignore his words upon that premise. Paul also says that Gentiles who have not the Law are in a sense not sinning because they are a "law unto themselves" or simply put they aren't sinning without the Law as their guide in the first place.

Actually, almost all those laws they brought up at that council were all pre-Sinai. Circumcision was given via Abraham. Blood ("meat juice" more accurately) restriction was given via Noah. Abstaining from food offered to idols was not given by God anywhere in the Old Testament. As for "the law of Moses", that was a broad term meaning everything in Exodus-Deuteronomy, including what to do after [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], after having a period, how to identify different types of skin lesions, how to treat slaves, rules about incest and bestiality, etc. While the council didn't go into making a distinction between the laws in the law of Moses, it is clear the apostles considered differences. Most famously quoted, "the royal law of love" which Paul and James specifically advocated, is part of the law of Moses.

WRONG, absolutely there is no use to force circumcision upon anyone to be less sinful it means nothing to those who are not part of Israel the only reason to circumcise people is to bind them to Israel's laws or the Law of Moses. The Royal Law is NOT the Mosaic Law there is no reason for this logic as James could have easily called it the Law of Moses as James himself equates we are NOT supposed to "part out" the Law of Moses it is all or nothing.

En contrare, the Law is what God uses to judge whether there has been transgression - what is different is "the extent of guilt". It is the same way today with murder. There are different classifications in most countries' laws about murder.

It would be like breaking the speed limit without knowing the speed limit - the police officer can take that into account in determining whether you get away with a warning or get ticketed. Did you break the law by speeding above the speed limit? YES. Did you know about that particular speed limit? No. Are you still guilty of breaking the speed limit? Yes. Is your punishment as severe as if you had actually known about it? No.

God used the Law to judge those who were under its domain, he never judged the nations around Israel using the Law when he declared Israel should attack them because their inequity had risen to much for too long (they were sinning too much).
The problem with your logic is that only Israel was judged by the Law and NO others..... NONE. One had to become part of Israel to be under the Law and that required circumcision for that to be finalized.

 

[BobRyan]

"Where is is no law there is no sin" Romans 4
"SIN IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
Thus there was LAW in Genesis -

"Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”" Genesis 26:5

Thanks for admitting that there has BEEN law as long as there has been sin -- as even Lucifer found out - as we are informed in Genesis.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm sorry but the Bible speaks differently it says that the Law was given exclusively to Israel.

Not a wild speculation acceptable to New Covenant Christians- who read Romans 2, Jer 31:31-33, Heb 8:6-10.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Not a wild speculation acceptable to New Covenant Christians- who read Romans 2, Jer 31:31-33, Heb 8:6-10.

So I've read all of Paul and Paul never binds the Law to Gentile Christians regardless of how much you torture his writings. One has to IGNORE the Old Testament itself where it DOES say that the Law was given to Israel ONLY.

 

[BobRyan]

So I've read all of Paul and Paul never binds the Law to Gentile Christians

Until you read Rom 3:31 "Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God" Rom 3:31

1Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

1 John 3:4 "SIN IS transgression of the LAW"

Romans 6
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
...
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
...
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[BobRyan]

One has to IGNORE the Old Testament itself where it DOES say that the Law was given to Israel ONLY.

"from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" - Is 66:23

Eph 6:2 -- 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" -- and is binding on all the saints. In what "unit of LAW" is the 5th commandment "the FIRST Commandment with a promise"?

 

[disciple1]

To be clear, there is really no such thing as a sin not covered by the 10C if, like Jesus did, the true meaning of the 10C was expanded (the Greek gets translated as 'fulfilled' or 'made complete') to cover intentions. For example, the 10C did not cover it being a sin not to tithe. The explicit wording doesn't cover it. However, God later said in Malachi 3 that not giving tithe = robbing God = breaking the commandment not to steal. And, as Jesus explained, the commandment to not murder covers anger without good cause. As for sins of omission, like standing by and doing nothing when you can see someone in desperate need of help - that falls under "taking the name of the LORD in vain". Taking on the name of the LORD is the equivalent of claiming to represent Him, ergo, you are supposed to do your best to represent His name, which is His character; would you suggest God's character would consider not helping someone in desperate need? [in my opinion this is the broadest of commandments, because it is essentially saying "don't do what God won't do but do the things God would do"]

Hebrews chapter 7
11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.


18. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

 

[bugkiller]

To be clear, there is really no such thing as a sin not covered by the 10C if, like Jesus did, the true meaning of the 10C was expanded (the Greek gets translated as 'fulfilled' or 'made complete') to cover intentions. For example, the 10C did not cover it being a sin not to tithe. The explicit wording doesn't cover it. However, God later said in Malachi 3 that not giving tithe = robbing God = breaking the commandment not to steal. And, as Jesus explained, the commandment to not murder covers anger without good cause. As for sins of omission, like standing by and doing nothing when you can see someone in desperate need of help - that falls under "taking the name of the LORD in vain". Taking on the name of the LORD is the equivalent of claiming to represent Him, ergo, you are supposed to do your best to represent His name, which is His character; would you suggest God's character would consider not helping someone in desperate need? [in my opinion this is the broadest of commandments, because it is essentially saying "don't do what God won't do but do the things God would do"]

Where does the Greek get translated as fulfilled when you think it should be translated as something else? How does expanded come from the Greek? Your post seems to be gibberish.

If I was obligated to the 10 Cs, I might be more interested in your post.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I am not ignoring it. If anything, I actually affirmed it.

Your analogy of "an American cannot be convicted of speeding by a canadian cop if they never venture into Canada as their law doesn't apply it has no jurisdiction" is not the right analogy, because the whole earth is God's domain. The law was added because the sinners did not know that they were sinning. ie. Romans 7:7 "for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET.""

For those who sinned without knowing the law, they get judged differently. What God did was instead reveal that what they were doing was wrong. He just said "it's wrong" without giving the 10C yet. Was Abimelech about to sin when he took Sarah (Abraham's wife and half sister)? YES. Genesis 20:3 says so. But was the 10C given yet? No. God warned him instead by a dream.


If your logic is to be applied to God's actions, God would have been unjust. God destroyed all of humanity by flood except one family. Where was the 10C? Not yet handed down. So, did God punish them while being ignorant of being wicked? By what standard did God judge them as wicked?

You missed the point of his non jurisdiction illustration.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Rom 4 "Where there is no Law there is no sin"
1 Johh 3:4 'sin IS transgression of the LAW"

Adam and Eve sinned. (Romans 5)

Cain - sinned. (Gen 4)

The word transgressions used in the Greek in this verse means

1. a going over
   
   
2. metaph. a disregarding, violating
3. of the Mosaic law
   
   
4. the breach of a definite, promulgated, ratified law
   
   
5. to create transgressions, i.e. that sins might take on the character of transgressions, and thereby the consciousness of sin be intensified and the desire for redemption be aroused

bugkiller