Galatians 4 two opposing covenants.

[GDL]

There is error in translations, and I do my share of comparing, and working to define the meaning of words. But I am convinced the Scriptures are Spiritual, which require a certain amount of Spiritual understanding given by a Spiritual God. "But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

For example, if I am a serial thief, and I am called, for whatever reason, to seek God and I read His 10 commandments. If I continue stealing as I study, I will learn nothing of consequence, regardless of translations, defining words, etc.

So if there are two thieves who turn to God in study, And one stops stealing, and the other doesn't. I will guarantee two different understandings.

Man is called to repentance first, according to the Jesus of the Bible, in my understanding. There must be a desire of the heart towards God. Not to say I become sinless at the start. But repentance starts someplace. AS it is written;

Duet 7: 22 And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.

This is certainly error in translations. I too am convinced of the Spirit's role in providing understanding and I'll add, at His time and according to God's unfolding Plan for His Creation. On the flip side, I've seen the Spirit used in attempts to justify nonsense.

The ties between obedience and understanding are many. The ties between faith in God and obedience to God are also many.

 

[GDL]

FAITH is the New Covenant conduit to accessing salvation:

I'd like to remain with the beginning of this discussion for now. As you know, faith and faithfulness is not simply a NC issue.

Actually, I just noticed who posted this. Obviously, I can't ask you to not derail what @Studyman and I are discussing. I can only ignore you if you can't be productive in sorting out what we're working through. If you think either one of us - I or @Studyman - do not understand Biblical Faith in The Christ - in our God and Creator - then you're not worth reading at all. Why not assist? I think I read you earlier bring up points of Hebrews to @Studyman. That's a very pertinent point of discussion I'm sure we're heading into if this continues.

 

[Studyman]

Sorry. I'm working on this one but having to switch computers.

Ex24 speaks of the Book of the Covenant with Moses and Israel that Israel agreed to do, and that Moses enacts with blood. The Aaronic Priesthood is dealt with in Ex27-30.

So, you're emphasizing the Covenant language with Levi. What about the Covenant with Moses & Israel?

I have no reason or motive to believe, nor have I found any evidence in Scriptures, that God's Laws, Commandments and Judgments that Abraham were given and obeyed, are any different than God's Laws, Commandments and Judgments that God gave Abraham's Children. Or that Jesus walked in. And that is the foundation of this line of questioning, isn't it?

In fact, the only reason to even think or consider such a thing is not based on anything the scriptures actually say or even imply, but are based on "other voices" outside of the Scriptures which exist in this world that God placed both you and I in. As far as I can see, if these "other voices" didn't exist, this question regarding or implying that God's instruction in righteousness somehow changed between Abraham and Abraham's Children wouldn't even be considered, in my view.

I believe God passed His Covenant with Abraham on to His Children in Egypt.

The reason why there is emphasis on the "works of the Law" of Priesthood Covenant with Levi, is because that Covenant is where the Pharisees and scribes amassed all their power and wealth. Not from the Commandments, Laws and Judgments of God that Noah, Abraham, Caleb and Zacharias respected, honored and obeyed, but by the Sacrificial "Works" of the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, in His Mercy for Israel who had sinned such a great sin.

 

[GDL]

I have no reason or motive to believe, nor have I found any evidence in Scriptures, that God's Laws, Commandments and Judgments that Abraham were given and obeyed, are any different than God's Laws, Commandments and Judgments that God gave Abraham's Children. Or that Jesus walked in. And that is the foundation of this line of questioning, isn't it?

I was just pondering what this all boils down to. I think what I find interesting is a few major points:

1. God's Eternal Law and how we see indications of it before Moses, in any Scripture pointing back to the pre-Moses area, and in any Scriptures dealing with the post-Moses era in Christ.
   1. I find it interesting, and actually a bit refreshing, how you seem to come at it from the opposite direction which I might paraphrase as; Of course, it exists, and I see nothing to prove otherwise.
2. Your view of the Gospel is similar in that you've pointed out a few statements of its existence in the Tanakh and how there are people of Israel in the beginning of the NC Writings that readily accepted their Messiah. IOW, you seem to do very easily what some give lip service to - the ease of flow between the eras.
3. Your notice of the Covenant with Levi and your thoughts re: how these accord with Hebrews (which I need to work through with or apart from you to understand how you work with what Hebrews says).
   1. I see the Law as changed (not done away with) to facilitate the New Priesthood of Jesus Christ, and to be rid of the animal sacrifices, which God seemingly never desired. When I read Heb10:9 I often add my own paraphrase to the effect; He takes away the first - the repetitive sacrifices for repetitive lawlessness to establish the second - the do your will, O God (which takes us back to all the statements throughout history of obeying Him.

So, if I suggest anything at this point, it's dealing with this area of Hebrews and your view of how the Covenant with Aaron & Levi apply. Unless I miss my recollection, this is where you & I first came into contact.

In fact, the only reason to even think or consider such a thing is not based on anything the scriptures actually say or even imply, but are based on "other voices" outside of the Scriptures which exist in this world that God placed both you and I in. As far as I can see, if these "other voices" didn't exist, this question regarding or implying that God's instruction in righteousness somehow changed between Abraham and Abraham's Children wouldn't even be considered, in my view.

I'm not in disagreement. Antinomianism of any kind in regard to the Bible makes no sense to me. I've grown to wonder who and what the antinomians actually are. The issue from the era of the angelic beginnings through all eras of mankind boils down to a 2 word phrase that actually is virtually synonymous IMView; Faith-Obedience AKA Faithfulness just as He is perfectly. Everything else falls into place based upon this, including His Righteousness that we are in part dealing with.

I believe God passed His Covenant with Abraham on to His Children in Egypt.

The reason why there is emphasis on the "works of the Law" of Priesthood Covenant with Levi, is because that Covenant is where the Pharisees and scribes amassed all their power and wealth. Not from the Commandments, Laws and Judgments of God that Noah, Abraham, Caleb and Zacharias respected, honored and obeyed, but by the Sacrificial "Works" of the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, in His Mercy for Israel who had sinned such a great sin.

It's the specifics of your orientation to the "Priesthood Covenant" in relation to the Covenant God made with Moses and Israel that I pointed out as #3 above that is one of the main things I'm seeking to clarify.

The "works of [the] law" is more language that I would need to see being specifically "of the Priesthood Covenant" as you speak of. I've looked at this phrase fairly extensively and recently read a masters dissertation chasing the various views of it through history. Once again, no consensus among the "scholars."

To remain focused on the issue of Covenants, is not the "Priesthood Covenant" adjoined with and thus part of the Mosaic Covenant? I'm sure you know that one of the problems with the varying views of Law has to do with the Mosaic Covenant having ended and with it out went the Law. This is where Law studiers counter with God's Eternal Law that was part of Mosaic Law and all Law since the beginning and until the end.

 

[Studyman]

Is what is called the Mosaic Law the first time the specifics of or including God's Eternal Law are clearly specified? I know we can see bits and pieces of situations where men can be seen to be keeping some of what we see in Mosaic Law before Moses. I think you've posted a few examples. Again, not to slight you in any way, but this is not a unique view. The problem for many is that these examples are fairly sparse even though the language of obeying God is from the Garden on (and forever).

In my experience, it comes back to motive. Why do men study? To justify a preconceived belief or lifestyle? Or for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

God has made it clear, in my view, that men will find what they seek for from their heart. Man has always had a problem with God's Laws. Whether it's 1 simple command, or a few examples are given them, or spoken to them in Person by the Very God who created them, or are written down on Tables of Stone by the Finger of this same God, or written in a Book for our admonition and delivered into our very homes. Jesus tells men why this is so in John 3:19-21. But men don't really believe Him. I'm not ashamed that I do.

 

[GDL]

In my experience, it comes back to motive. Why do men study? To justify a preconceived belief or lifestyle? Or for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

God has made it clear, in my view, that men will find what they seek for from their heart. Man has always had a problem with God's Laws. Whether it's 1 simple command, or a few examples are given them, or spoken to them in Person by the Very God who created them, or are written down on Tables of Stone by the Finger of this same God, or written in a Book for our admonition and delivered into our very homes. Jesus tells men why this is so in John 3:19-21. But men don't really believe Him. I'm not ashamed that I do.

With respect, this does not answer specific questions about "doctrine (teachings), reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness." If the Scriptures are to do such things, and they clearly are, then increasingly as one learns more in Christ in Spirit, the meaning from the Scriptures needs to and will ever be more and more clear. The seeking never stops for some of us and IMO the arguments are in part from lack of understanding at various levels. This is why Eph4 for example speaks of maturing in all things into Him - the Head of His Body. It speaks of unity of faith & knowledge so we're not getting tossed around by all the error.

Again, with respect, you seem to be backing off from explanation of Scripture and into a self-justification for your belief and obedience, neither of which I'm questioning in any way. What you believe Scripture says I'd like to better understand because I see it as a refreshing point of view to consider vs. all the theological bickering that goes on in this forum and among professing Christians and all the various camps including their scholars. You've given me a few things to carry into my studies as I continue to sort through all of the Text. At this moment, your views of the Priesthood Covenant, may or may not work out with Hebrews apart from some tweaking or application of the concept together with other Covenant considerations. Also, your tie to the golden calf may be a little off, but I don't know this without more discussion. But none of this IMO makes your views of God's Eternal Law wrong and you are not the only one who thinks as you do about this concept. None of us who believe as you do (as much as I know) about His Law are ashamed of our consideration and respect for & obedience to Him and His Law under His Great Hight Priesthood and with His Spirit.

 

[BrotherJJ]

I'd like to remain with the beginning of this discussion for now. As you know, faith and faithfulness is not simply a NC issue.

Actually, I just noticed who posted this. Obviously, I can't ask you to not derail what @Studyman and I are discussing. I can only ignore you if you can't be productive in sorting out what we're working through. If you think either one of us - I or @Studyman - do not understand Biblical Faith in The Christ - in our God and Creator - then you're not worth reading at all. Why not assist? I think I read you earlier bring up points of Hebrews to @Studyman. That's a very pertinent point of discussion I'm sure we're heading into if this continues.

I began this thread, my view is you & studyman are derailing it. I don't believe either one of you understands the NT doctrine of FAITH or gospel of Jesus Christ. Finally, I'd like nothing better then you & studyman to ignore me & start your own post. Best wishes, JJ

 

[Studyman]

This is obviously the point you are making and I'm working to see clarified. I know you're aware that most take this language to mean the Mosaic Cov then the New Cov.

Yes, "Many" who come in Christ's Name, who preach that Jesus is truly the Christ, preach Jesus came and abolished or "Took away" God's commandments Judgments and Laws. So let's actually read what the Scriptures actually teach, together. Not for the purpose of justifying a certain religion, or religious lifestyle, but to simply "hear" what God actually Inspired to be Written about HIS New Covenant.

Jer. 31: 33 (KJV) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD

Jer. 38 (Brenton) 33 For this is my covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord

Jer. 31: (CLV) 33 For this [is] the covenant that I make, With the house of Israel, after those days, An affirmation of Yahweh,

OK, so here is the Inspired Word of God, 3 different translations, that Paul teaches is for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:, defining for me, the New Covenant HE promised to make, "after those days". I should be able to trust these Words as Paul did. So lets read them and see if the "Many" that you referred to, are reflecting the Truth of the scriptures, when they preach that God promised to "take away" God's Laws HE gave to Moses.

Here are His Word's Defining His New Covenant.

KJV , "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Brenton, "I will surely put my laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people."

CLV, "I have given My law in their inward part, And on their heart I do write it, And I have been to them for Elohim, And they are to me for a people."

Where is the teaching, or even implication, that God Promises to "Take away" His Laws given to Moses, or Abraham for that matter?

Now this is serious stuff for me, so I want to continue on to the rest of this Prophesy. And then I'll have a couple of questions for you, that I hope you won't ignore, as "many" who profess to know God, have done in my inquiries.

God continues.

KJV., 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Brenton, 34 And they shall not at all teach every one his fellow citizen, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them: for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.

CLV. 34 And they do not teach any more Each his neighbor, and each his brother, Saying, Know you Yahweh, For they all know Me, from their least unto their greatest, An affirmation of Yahweh; For I pardon their iniquity, And of their sin I make mention no more."

Here is my questions for you.

#1. In Moses Time, "How did the People receive God's Laws"? Did they take the "Book of the Law" home and study it like you and I do? Or were they commanded to go specifically to a Levite Priest, who alone had access to God's Commandments, and Hear Moses from them?

#2. In Moses Time, "How were men's sins forgiven"? Did they pray to God in repentance, confess their sins, and their sins are forgiven, as you and I do? Or were they commanded to take a goat specifically to a Levite Priest, and Kill it, before the Priest provided forgiveness for their sins?

So then, in my understanding, the NEW Covenant that the God of the Bible Promised, pertained only to 2 things.

#1. The manner in which God's Law was received.

#2. The manner in which Sins were forgiven.

So, it's back to my previous questions about the language re: Covenants being that of with Moses and Israel in correlation to the Covenant with Levi.

I think if you would answer my questions, as I have answered yours, my understanding on this issue would be clear.

 

[Clare73]

I was just pondering what this all boils down to. I think what I find interesting is a few major points:

1. God's Eternal Law and how we see indications of it before Moses, in any Scripture pointing back to the pre-Moses area, and in any Scriptures dealing with the post-Moses era in Christ.
   1. I find it interesting, and actually a bit refreshing, how you seem to come at it from the opposite direction which I might paraphrase as; Of course, it exists, and I see nothing to prove otherwise.
2. Your view of the Gospel is similar in that you've pointed out a few statements of its existence in the Tanakh and how there are people of Israel in the beginning of the NC Writings that readily accepted their Messiah. IOW, you seem to do very easily what some give lip service to - the ease of flow between the eras.

. . .3.Your notice of the Covenant with Levi and your thoughts re: how these accord with Hebrews (which I need to work through with or apart from you to understand how you work with what Hebrews says).

1. I see the Law as changed (not done away with) to facilitate the New Priesthood of Jesus Christ, and to be rid of the animal sacrifices, which God seemingly never desired.

This is not to derail your discussion, but an aside you can address when you have time.
And it's about God having "seemingly never desired" the sacrifices. This statement seems to me out of context. So let me review.

Displeasure with sacrifice seems to all have begun with Saul's disobedience to Samuel in offering the sacrifice (1 Sa 13:9)
instead of waiting for Samuel to arrive (1 Sa 10:8),
which disobedience Saul defended (1 Sa 13:11-12) and Samuel condemned (1 Sa 13:13-14).
The issue continues among the Israelites themselves, wherein God stated that
he took no pleasure in their sacrifices (Ps 40:6, Jer 6:20, Is 1:11) and prayer (Is 1:15),
not because the sacrifices were undesirable to him (for his own law required them to be made, Heb 10:8)
but because of the evil (Is 1:13-16) of the hearts that were hypocritically offering them.
The deficiency in which God took no pleasure was not in the sacrifices themselves, but in the evil and hypocritical hearts which offered them.

I do not see the Scriptures presenting God as changing his mind about the sacrifices he legislated as a proto-type of the redemption, which from the foundation of the world he ordained (Rev 13:8), that his one and only begotten Son would secure on the cross for his bride, the church (Eph 5:30-31, Rev 21:9).

 

[Studyman]

Thanks. I saw this and some others, so Jer7:23 rather than being a very specific quote seems to be a general reference to such obedience statements.

Again, it's about motive it seems. If a man's motive is to prove or justify a preexisting religious theory or philosophy he has adopted, then these scriptures, and many more, can easily be ignored or labeled irrelevant. I have no reason or motive to do that, as it seems clear to me that there was no Law commanding a common man to take a goat to a Levite Priest, and Killing it for their sins, until after the Golden calf, when Moses went up to God a 2nd time because of Israel's great Transgression. You provide no scriptural evidence to support your seeming unbelief in my understanding of Jer. 7, other than you don't believe it is true on its face.

I'm OK with that. You are asking me questions regarding my Faith, and I am answering them as clearly and honestly as I can. I may be wrong, but not because someone says so. I would have to be shown in the Scriptures where this understanding is wrong. Lord knows it has happened many times in the past, but not to my hurt, only to my edification.

 

[GDL]

I began this thread, my view is you & studyman are derailing it. I don't believe either one of you understands the NT doctrine of FAITH or gospel of Jesus Christ. Finally, I'd like nothing better then you & studyman to ignore me & start your own post. Best wishes, JJ

Too bad you can't take your ball and go home. Do you not note that much of our discussion is about Covenants, the topic of the thread?

A few of you attacked the @Studyman views of Covenants that I found interesting, so I'm pursuing them. Your only view when it comes to God's Law is the antinomian pretense that those who don't share your antinomian views don't understand faith or the Gospel. I saw this in your interjection into our discussion about Covenants and Law and the Gospel. Your belief in my (or our) understanding of faith and the Gospel has been discussed in brief between us and we both know there's little point to furthering it. I've little interest in your opinion. It's a common one when it comes to the Christian's relationship with God's Law when we are in Christ walking in Spirit having His Law written in our minds and on our hearts with Him conforming us willingly to His righteousness.

 

[Studyman]

Could I ask you to post verse references to make this a bit easier? I can find them if you miss one.

Part of the atonement issue is likely that animal sacrifices for sin and atonement can be seen in Ex19:14; Ex29:36; Ex30:30 prior to the golden calf idolatry of Ex32. The atonement Moses was seeking was for "a great sin" of basically the nation.

Can you show me, other than Passover, which was instituted prior to Levi being separated by God to administer before Him in the Priesthood, where it is was required that a common man bring a goat to a Levite Priest, and Kill it for his sins to be forgiven?

It would be helpful in the discussion regarding Paul's statement about an "ADDED" Law if you could show me where this "Work" was instituted before Moses went up the 2nd time.

 

[GDL]

Yes, "Many" who come in Christ's Name, who preach that Jesus is truly the Christ, preach Jesus came and abolished or "Took away" God's commandments Judgments and Laws. So let's actually read what the Scriptures actually teach, together. Not for the purpose of justifying a certain religion, or religious lifestyle, but to simply "hear" what God actually Inspired to be Written about HIS New Covenant.

Jer. 31: 33 (KJV) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD

Jer. 38 (Brenton) 33 For this is my covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord

Jer. 31: (CLV) 33 For this [is] the covenant that I make, With the house of Israel, after those days, An affirmation of Yahweh,

OK, so here is the Inspired Word of God, 3 different translations, that Paul teaches is for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:, defining for me, the New Covenant HE promised to make, "after those days". I should be able to trust these Words as Paul did. So lets read them and see if the "Many" that you referred to, are reflecting the Truth of the scriptures, when they preach that God promised to "take away" God's Laws HE gave to Moses.

Here are His Word's Defining His New Covenant.

KJV , "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Brenton, "I will surely put my laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people."

CLV, "I have given My law in their inward part, And on their heart I do write it, And I have been to them for Elohim, And they are to me for a people."

Where is the teaching, or even implication, that God Promises to "Take away" His Laws given to Moses, or Abraham for that matter?

Now this is serious stuff for me, so I want to continue on to the rest of this Prophesy. And then I'll have a couple of questions for you, that I hope you won't ignore, as "many" who profess to know God, have done in my inquiries.

You're preaching to the choir as they say. I doubt you take this any more seriously than I and some to many others do. But you seem to be drifting off course into Law, which I so far see as being in agreement with you about, and away from detailing the issues of Covenants.

FWIW, I don't need several translations. I have 11 English translations and 2-3 Greek manuscripts and a Hebrew manuscript on screen whenever I'm dealing with Scripture.

God continues.

KJV., 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Brenton, 34 And they shall not at all teach every one his fellow citizen, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them: for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.

CLV. 34 And they do not teach any more Each his neighbor, and each his brother, Saying, Know you Yahweh, For they all know Me, from their least unto their greatest, An affirmation of Yahweh; For I pardon their iniquity, And of their sin I make mention no more."

Here is my questions for you.

#1. In Moses Time, "How did the People receive God's Laws"? Did they take the "Book of the Law" home and study it like you and I do? Or were they commanded to go specifically to a Levite Priest, who alone had access to God's Commandments, and Hear Moses from them?

At minimum they heard it read from Scripture and they discussed it. Every 7 years the nation was to assemble and hear it read by the Priests. Kings were to copy from the scroll the Priests had - to write their own copy and read it every day. And so on.

Is "God's Laws" synonymous with the Law of Moses?

Are we as Christians responsible for all of the Law of Moses?

#2. In Moses Time, "How were men's sins forgiven"? Did they pray to God in repentance, confess their sins, and their sins are forgiven, as you and I do? Or were they commanded to take a goat specifically to a Levite Priest, and Kill it, before the Priest provided forgiveness for their sins?

The people were to sacrifice various things for various reasons.

So then, in my understanding, the NEW Covenant that the God of the Bible Promised, pertained only to 2 things.

#1. The manner in which God's Law was received.

#2. The manner in which Sins were forgiven.

#1 Do we not also read it and have it read to us from God's Word? Do we need a Priest? No.
#2 Agree. No more sacrifices. 1 John 1 and other Scriptures apply for forgiveness of sins and cleansing from all unrighteousness.

I think if you would answer my questions, as I have answered yours, my understanding on this issue would be clear.

But you haven't answered all of my questions, nor have you responded to points of sacrificial atonement for sins prior to Moses' later trip up the mountain for atonement of the great sin of the nation. and prior to that great sin.

Are there any other questions you'd like me to answer?

Just because I'm asking you for some details does not mean that I'm attacking you. You make a lot of points. They should stand up under questioning based in and from Scripture. Honestly, I'd like to see you have some understanding that would plug some holes and lead to some solid conclusions of age-old debate.

FWIW, I don't care where Truth comes from as long as it is Truth. This is not meant towards you as it can just as easily be towards me and all of us, but God spoke through a donkey once to get His point across. We have a few in our neighborhood. Sometimes I walk past them and seek some insight from them after I've been on this forum too long.

 

[Studyman]

This is what I'm scrutinizing as I said earlier. Your last sentence here is what we just started discussing above in regard to the golden calf and atonement, as best I understand at this point.

When we have many dots connected in our thinking, we can put forth those many connections in a long stream or put forth a seemingly big puzzle with many pieces as being complete. It either is or is not and that one piece that has been eisegeted can undo what to us was complete. That's where the Socratic Method and Heb11 I mentioned comes into play and the completed puzzle and connected dots come under scrutiny.

I'm obviously wondering about some of the content of your faith, but not your faith overall. The fact that you seem to be grounded in obedience to God speaks leagues to me about your faith. The fact that you see something you call God's Eternal Law adds to my positive view of your faith, for what my view is worth.

I didn't see a question in here, but have to tell you, I relish real discussion about the scriptures. And this conversation with you is right up my wheelhouse. It is both Rare and Refreshing to have an engagement such as this. I would only apologize up front if I might seem a little testy from time to time. AS it is written, I am in a fight against powers of the air which exist in my mind (High Places). It's a good fight, but a fight just the same. I have become a little hardened as a result.

I'm not so much sold on the Socratic Method of study, when discussing a Spiritual issue like the Holy Scriptures. Not in any way to slight you, but to use such a method requires considering many beliefs, and basically choosing one, or a mixture of several to determine truth.

"The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs."

"commonly held beliefs" of this world compared to other "commonly held beliefs" of this world are a red flag, in my view.

It seems this method would change in every generation, and every geographic location depending on the popular philosophies that ruled the day.

Nevertheless, the exercise is good for me on this chilly Sabbath Day and causes me to clearly understand why I understand the way I do, where this understanding comes from and articulate it in a manner which is understood, **** hopefully. LOL.

Thanks for the discussion as it fit perfectly with the topic of this thread, about the "ADDED" Law in Gal. 3 and 4.

 

[GDL]

This is not to derail your discussion, but an aside you can address when you have time.
And it's about God having "seemingly never desired" the sacrifices. This statement seems to me out of context. So let me review.

Displeasure with sacrifice seems to all have begun with Saul's disobedience to Samuel in offering the sacrifice (1 Sa 13:9)
instead of waiting for Samuel to arrive (1 Sa 10:8),
which disobedience Saul defended (1 Sa 13:11-12) and Samuel condemned (1 Sa 13:13-14).
The issue continues among the Israelites themselves, wherein God stated that
he took no pleasure in their sacrifices (Ps 40:6, Jer 6:20, Is 1:11) and prayer (Is 1:15),
not because the sacrifices were undesirable to him (for his own law required them to be made, Heb 10:8)
but because of the evil (Is 1:13-16) of the hearts that were hypocritically offering them.
The deficiency in which God took no pleasure was not in the sacrifices themselves, but in the evil and hypocritical hearts which offered them.

I do not see the Scriptures presenting God as changing his mind about the sacrifices he legislated as a proto-type of the redemption, which from the foundation of the world he ordained (Rev 13:8), that his one and only begotten Son would secure on the cross for his bride, the church (Eph 5:30-31, Rev 21:9).

Thanks for the respect Clare.

Re: sacrifice for sin, as @Studyman has brought out in a few places, God's desire was and is always man's faithful obedience. Also, we can see just by doing a search on "sacrific*" that men were sacrificing and offering to God early on for various reasons.

I agree with what you've posted. I would just note that sacrifice for sins cannot have been His ultimate desire since His ultimate desire was and is for faithful obedience. Blood sacrifice for sins was a legal grace given, was instructional, and ultimately for our salvation the way I read things.

 

[GDL]

I didn't see a question in here, but have to tell you, I relish real discussion about the scriptures. And this conversation with you is right up my wheelhouse. It is both Rare and Refreshing to have an engagement such as this. I would only apologize up front if I might seem a little testy from time to time. AS it is written, I am in a fight against powers of the air which exist in my mind (High Places). It's a good fight, but a fight just the same. I have become a little hardened as a result.

Thanks. Same for me.

I fully understand the battle-weary syndrome especially when one wants to discuss Scripture and the majority of responses are denominationally based with many variations within a few major frameworks.

I'm not so much sold on the Socratic Method of study, when discussing a Spiritual issue like the Holy Scriptures. Not in any way to slight you, but to use such a method requires considering many beliefs, and basically choosing one, or a mixture of several to determine truth.

"The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs."

I used the connection because, as I pointed out, the writer of Hebrews used in one sentence 2 of the main words used in that method to describe that method. I think I can see a slight attack against Greek Philosophy in those verses as I and others see in the Logos discussions from John.

Both of these take a point where Greek Philosophy deals with some "deep" concept of existence and separates it from God. John brings the Logos back to God and essentially says it's not some philosophical theory of beginnings that we can't know, but He's a Person we walked and talked with and touched.

Hebrews 11:1-3 not only use these words from the Socratic Method but also use a word that speaks of Christ's essence in Heb1:3 and it speaks of seeing unseen things and the words of God preparing the ages.

These verses say that this is what our Faith is. This is some deep thinking that IMO stands up against the theoretical deep thinkers of the age and ties all the truly deep thought to Biblical Faith and the reasoning in Faith that can understand these things. It therefore also says we of the Faith should consider that these things of God will hold up under scrutiny and not be eliminated through human reasoning if they are Biblically accurate.

That was my point. Whether you know it or not, I think you have pulled back from what you call "religions" to seek what these verses speak of. It's back to the concept of the Bereans testing what they heard by comparing it to Scripture no matter who came to town professing to be the authority.

"commonly held beliefs" of this world compared to other "commonly held beliefs" of this world are a red flag, in my view.

It seems this method would change in every generation, and every geographic location depending on the popular philosophies that ruled the day.

Nevertheless, the exercise is good for me on this chilly Sabbath Day and causes me to clearly understand why I understand the way I do, where this understanding comes from and articulate it in a manner which is understood, **** hopefully. LOL.

Thanks for the discussion as it fit perfectly with the topic of this thread, about the "ADDED" Law in Gal. 3 and 4.

Hopefully what I said above will clarify. We're dealing with Scripture and Faith and God, not the chaotic waves of teaching that change with the times.

I once heard a dedicated teacher say, 'Teaching is the last phase of learning.' Time and experience proved this to be true. If one cannot articulate it, then they do not really understand it. It's easy to convince ourselves otherwise when it remains circulating in our head. Moses in essence told Israel to put the instruction in their minds and in their mouths. IMO, this is what he meant by that. We must understand what Scripture means. If we do, then we can articulate it. The better the understanding the fewer words it may take to explain it.

Thanks also for your last sentence. That's the way I saw this discussion also.

 

[BrotherJJ]

Too bad you can't take your ball and go home. Do you not note that much of our discussion is about Covenants, the topic of the thread?

A few of you attacked the @Studyman views of Covenants that I found interesting, so I'm pursuing them. Your only view when it comes to God's Law is the antinomian pretense that those who don't share your antinomian views don't understand faith or the Gospel. I saw this in your interjection into our discussion about Covenants and Law and the Gospel. Your belief in my (or our) understanding of faith and the Gospel has been discussed in brief between us and we both know there's little point to furthering it. I've little interest in your opinion. It's a common one when it comes to the Christian's relationship with God's Law when we are in Christ walking in Spirit having His Law written in our minds and on our hearts with Him conforming us willingly to His righteousness.

I've paid zero attention to your conversation with studyman. Sad the pair of you make every post about yourselves. My post #58 is directed to the new covenant believer & is related to the OP.

It's you Mosaic law promoters & your personal, unscriptural, pedagogue dogma of OT Mosaic law (now obsolete Gal 3:17, 19, 2 Cor 3:13, Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24) & trying to place everyone under its adherence. No place in this or any post have I claimed there are no God given laws (antinomian).

No person alive today is or has ever been under Mosaic law. Post #58 declares FAITH is the New Covenant conduit to accessing salvation & I stand behind it's scriptural content.

 

[GDL]

I've paid zero attention to your conversation with studyman. Sad the pair of you make every post about yourselves. My post #58 is directed to the new covenant believer & is related to the OP.

It's you Mosaic law promoters & your personal, unscriptural, pedagogue dogma of OT Mosaic law (now obsolete Gal 3:17, 19, 2 Cor 3:13, Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24) & trying to place everyone under its adherence. No place in this or any post have I claimed there are no God given laws (antinomian).

No person alive today is or has ever been under Mosaic law. Post #58 declares FAITH is the New Covenant conduit to accessing salvation & I stand behind it's scriptural content.

That would be "God's Law" promoters. IOW promoters of the eternal righteousness of God that His Son - our first-born Brother and Lord - exemplified and that God is conforming us to in His Son in Spirit pursuant to His New Covenant writing of His Law in our minds and on our hearts as He who is Love makes us more and more like Himself. And yes, this is through Faith in Him.

Actually, you've paid enough attention to our posts to erroneously think you needed to give us part of the Gospel (which Gospel BTW also covers things @Studyman and I are discussing), but not enough for you to know we've made our discussion more about the things of the Scriptures than about ourselves.

Thanks for starting the thread that brought us together. You have been productive. An unintended good work, maybe.

 

[BrotherJJ]

FAITH/BELIEF is the New Covenant conduit to accessing salvation continued:

Jn 3:
14 Just as Moses lifted up the [bronze] serpent in the desert [on a pole], so must the Son of Man be lifted up [on the cross],

15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life [after physical death, and will actually live forever].

16 “For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] [a]only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Jn 3:36 He who believes and trusts in the Son and accepts Him [as Savior] has eternal life [that is, already possesses it]; but he who does not believe the Son and chooses to reject Him, [disobeying Him and denying Him as Savior] will not see [eternal] life, but [instead] the wrath of God hangs over him continually.”

Jn 5:24 “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, the person who hears My word [the one who heeds My message], and believes and trusts in Him who sent Me, has (possesses now) eternal life [that is, eternal life actually begins—the believer is transformed], and does not come into judgment and condemnation, but has passed [over] from death into life.

Jn 6:29 Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe [adhere to, trust in, rely on, and have faith] in the One whom He has sent.

Jn 6:40 For this is My Father’s will and purpose, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him [as Savior] will have eternal life, and I will raise him up [from the dead] on the last day.”

Jn 7:39 39 But He was speaking of the [Holy] Spirit, whom those who believed in Him [as Savior] were to receive afterward. The Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (raised to honor).

Jn 8:24 That is why I told you that you will die [unforgiven and condemned] in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am the One [I claim to be], you will die in your sins.

Jn 11:25 Jesus said to her, “[d]I am the Resurrection and the Life. Whoever believes in (adheres to, trusts in, relies on) Me [as Savior] will live even if he dies;

Jn 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe [with a deep, abiding trust] that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed), the Son of God; and that by believing [and trusting in and relying on Him] you may have life in His name.

Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about Him, that through His name everyone who believes in Him [whoever trusts in and relies on Him, accepting Him as Savior and Messiah] receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Act_15:7 After a long debate, Peter got up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and believe

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we are saved through the [precious, undeserved] grace of the Lord Jesus [which makes us free of the guilt of sin and grants us eternal life], in just the same way as they are.”

Acts 16:31 And they answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus [as your personal Savior and entrust yourself to Him] and you will be saved, you and your household [if they also believe].

Rom 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation [from His wrath and punishment] to everyone who believes [in Christ as Savior], to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Rom 3:22 This righteousness of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ for all those [Jew or Gentile] who believe [and trust in Him and acknowledge Him as God’s Son]. There is no distinction,

Rom 3:26 It was to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus [and rely confidently on Him as Savior].

Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work [that is, the one who does not try to earn his salvation by doing good], but believes and completely trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him as righteousness (right standing with God).

Rom 9:33 As it is written and forever remains written, “Behold I am laying in Zion a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense; And he who believes in Him [whoever adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Him] will not be disappointed [in his expectations].”

Rom 10:
9 because if you acknowledge and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [recognizing His power, authority, and majesty as God], and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

10 For with the heart a person believes [in Christ as Savior] resulting in his justification [that is, being made righteous—being freed of the guilt of sin and made acceptable to God]; and with the mouth he acknowledges and confesses [his faith openly], resulting in and confirming [his] salvation.

1 Cor 1:21 For since the world through all its [earthly] wisdom failed to recognize God, God in His wisdom was well-pleased through the [c]foolishness of the message preached [regarding salvation] to save those who believe [in Christ and welcome Him as Savior].

1 Jn 1:5 Everyone who believes [with a deep, abiding trust in the fact] that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed) is born of God [that is, reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, and set apart for His purpose], and everyone who loves the Father also loves [a]the child born of Him.

Tit 3:
5 He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but because of His own compassion and mercy, by the cleansing of the new birth (spiritual transformation, regeneration) and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

6 whom He poured out richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior,

7 so that we would be justified [made free of the guilt of sin] by His [compassionate, undeserved] grace, and that we would be [acknowledged as acceptable to Him and] made heirs of eternal life [actually experiencing it] according to our hope (His guarantee).

8 This is a faithful and trustworthy saying; and concerning these things I want you to speak with great confidence, so that those who have believed God [that is, those who have trusted in, relied on, and accepted Christ Jesus as Savior,] will be careful to participate in doing good and honorable things. These things are excellent [in themselves] and profitable for the people

Jn 1:17 For the Law was given through Moses, but grace [the unearned, undeserved favor of God] and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Eph 2:
8 For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God;

9 not as a result of [your] works [nor your attempts to keep the Law], so that no one will [be able to] boast or take credit in any way [for his salvation].

 

[Clare73]

ton

Thanks for the respect Clare.

Re: sacrifice for sin, as @Studyman has brought out in a few places, God's desire was and is always man's faithful obedience. Also, we can see just by doing a search on "sacrific*" that men were sacrificing and offering to God early on for various reasons.
I agree with what you've posted. I would just note that sacrifice for sins cannot have been His ultimate desire since His ultimate desire was and is for faithful obedience. Blood sacrifice for sins was a legal grace given, was instructional, and ultimately for our salvation the way I read things.

Good to hear your agreement.

Let me add that sacrifice is not about his desire but about his justice upon sin, which must be satisfied if he is to be just, and
about his pre-figuring in the sacrifices, not only his ultimate solution for the debt owed (Mt 18:25-26, 32-34) to justice (death, Lev 17:11),
but also about his showing the nature of sin as spiritual defilement (the law was given to reveal sin, Ro 3:20, both in act and nature),
and which spiritual defilement must be cleansed by blood (1 Jn 1:7, Heb 9:14, Rev 7:14).

The sacrifices are completely a matter of justice, and
God agreeing with his justice and, therefore, desiring its satisfaction, so much so that he gave his own Son that it could be so,
all so that his love may reign.
God is not conflicted between justice and love regarding obedience, it is man's notions that are conflicted, God is 100% on both teams. . .
so that "his ultimate desire for obedience" can be accomplished.

Yea, God!