Galatians 4 two opposing covenants.

[GDL]

But isn't God's Law defining sin, the fence God places His People in to protect them?

It was a fence, but is it any longer? Gal3:19-25

 

[Clare73]

This is where I asked you about the phrase "law [of] fleshly commandment" which is going to be even more technical than what epi means.

Does the text use sarkines, would that make it "of fleshly commandment"?

So. . .how can "not according to law of a fleshly commandment" in the context of Heb 7:11-19 and the High Priesthood by human descent, not mean the human descent law on which the Levitical priesthood was based, and particularly when it is contrasted there with the law on which Christ's priesthood is based; i.e., the power of an indestructible (everlasting, Ps 110:4) life (Heb 7:16)?

I see below that you are interpreting its meaning to some degree. It looks like @Studyman is taking issue with some of this and I would expect him to do so. This is one of the places in Hebrews that I was interested in getting into with @Studyman.
If I asked you and @Studyman and anyone else reading this (like @ralliann) to just interpret this one phrase - which I am now asking - without yet connecting it to any other Scripture, what does the ever-ambiguous word "of" mean? How would you explain what this one phrase is telling us about law & fleshly commandment? What is the relationship between the 2?

I don't see it as telling us anything about "law and fleshly commandment," nor the relation between the two.
In its context, that is something which has to be read into it (i.e., eisegesis).
I see it as telling us about law/commandment related to/based on a standard of fleshly human descent.

It's telling us that the law by which the Levitical High Priesthood is maintained is based on weak natural human descent,
which by definition of "human" means "flesh," so that
such law can be called a "fleshly" commandment (i.e., based on a weak order of descent through natural human/flesh), whereas
the law by which the High Priesthood in the order of Melchizedek is maintained is based on power of a supernatural everlasting life. . .
a contrast between weakness and power, natural and supernatural, mortal and immortal, human and divine. . .
all in the context of the book of Hebrews, the purpose of which is the superiority of Christ in every way. . .
not a book on the nature of the law.

 

[GDL]

Does the text use sarkines, would that make it "of fleshly commandment"?

So. . .how can "not according to law of a fleshly commandment" in the context of Heb 7:11-19 and the High Priesthood by human descent, not mean the human descent law on which the Levitical priesthood was based, and particularly when it is contrasted there with the law on which Christ's priesthood is based; i.e., the power of an indestructible (everlasting, Ps 110:4) life (Heb 7:16)?

I don't see it as telling us anything about "law and fleshly commandment," nor the relation between the two.
In its context, that is something which has to be read into it (i.e., eisegesis).
I see it as telling us about law/commandment related to/based on a standard of fleshly human descent.

It's telling us that the law by which the Levitical High Priesthood is maintained is based on weak natural human descent,
which by definition of "human" means "flesh," so that
such law can be called a "fleshly" commandment (i.e., based on a weak order of descent through natural human/flesh), whereas
the law by which the High Priesthood in the order of Melchizedek is maintained is based on power of a supernatural everlasting life. . .
a contrast between weakness and power, natural and supernatural, mortal and immortal, human and divine. . .
all in the context of the book of Hebrews, the purpose of which is the superiority of Christ in every way.

There's a textual variant in the manuscripts re: sarkines vs. sarkikes that I don't currently see as too meaningful. So, yes, it uses sarkines the base of which is sarkinos.

The issue here that @Studyman is standing on is what was annulled. The answer to this IMO is found mainly in the one small word I've asked for opinions on, and then in context & grammar. You've identified another important word and there is elaboration to that which clarifies it all a bit more and IMO ties it into Romans.

I can pretty much guaranty you that I am not eisegeting. To double-check myself I've just spent the last few+ hours looking at the wording I've asked about and the flow through this section of Scripture and further into Hebrews.

I don't know if you read this, but IMO it's important to all this argument.

 

[GDL]

I don't see it as telling us anything about "law and fleshly commandment," nor the relation between the two.
In its context, that is something which has to be read into it (i.e., eisegesis).
I see it as telling us about law/commandment related to/based on a standard of fleshly human descent.

It's telling us that the law by which the Levitical High Priesthood is maintained is based on weak natural human descent,
which by definition of "human" means "flesh," so that
such law can be called a "fleshly" commandment (i.e., based on a weak order of descent through natural human/flesh), whereas
the law by which the High Priesthood in the order of Melchizedek is maintained is based on power of a supernatural everlasting life. . .
a contrast between weakness and power, natural and supernatural, mortal and immortal, human and divine. . .
all in the context of the book of Hebrews, the purpose of which is the superiority of Christ in every way.

I'm not going to speak for you, but if you're saying the Law is weak and useless based upon what is said here without using Romans as a backup, then IMO you're missing what I see as important. Remember, what Paul speaks of in Rom8 re: the weakness of the Law is not about sacrifices and offerings. As I said earlier, Law is a big topic with many lessons being applied to it. And even when Paul speaks in Romans of the Law being weak, he also speaks of the law being holy - the commandment holy, righteous and good. This is what law proponents and opponents repeatedly point out to one another. I think the answer is in a 2 letter word inserted into the Text (and of course letting each lesson re: law stand and know any seeming conflict is in us and not His Word).

Seriously, look at "of" in an English Dictionary & maybe a Thesaurus. Consider its range of meaning. Then let's talk about the Greek.

 

[Studyman]

2 questions:

• Are you meaning that the phrase "works of [the] law" applies only to the sacrifices?

In the Context of Paul's use of it, it applied to "Works of the Law" for "Justification".

• If you are, can you show with Scripture why you are?

Paul teaches in Romans 2: 5, addressing the Pharisees and Scribes, "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in "well doing" seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

He goes on to say, 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

This is essentially the Gospel of Christ found in the Law and Prophets, summed up in one sentence as it is written.

Ez. 18: 30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

This was the First Step the Christ of the Bible taught towards justification. (For all men have sinned, 1 Kings 8:48, Ecc. 7:20, etc.)

Matt. 4: 17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Paul continues in Romans 3, Speaking about the Pharisees, "who sit in Moses Seat" and had access to the Oracles of God, like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, (See Luke 1&2) but didn't believe them.

These men, who had corrupted the Covenant of Levi, who had killed the Prophets, and then the very Son of God, who taught for doctrines the commandments of men, who laid aside the commandment of God so they could keep their own religious traditions, who didn't believe Moses who gave them God's Law, but they didn't keep them, were promoting their version of the Levitical Priesthood for Justification.

They were telling lies about Paul, accusing him of doing evil that good may come, (And Paul said their damnation was just)

These “workers of iniquity” are bad news, as Paul points out through David’s words.

It’s really easy to determine what “works of the law” Moses required for justification. Just ask yourself, in the Law of Moses, when a man transgressed the commandments of God, what “works” was he required to do?

Did Moses say, “If and man’s sins, he shall love the Lord and Love his neighbor, for the remission of his sin?

And yet, mainstream Christianity implies in their philosophy that these are the “works” the children of the devil were requiring for justification.

Paul just told us, as did Peter before him (Acts 5:29 - 32.) and Jesus before him (Matt 19:17)

That men are to repent, turn to God, and “do” works suitable for repentance.

Not take a goat to the Levite Priest and kill it, “works of the law” that had become old, and were ready to vanish away when the Lamb of God had come, as prophesied.

 

[Clare73]

I'm not going to speak for you, but if you're saying the Law is weak and useless based upon what is said here without using Romans as a backup, then IMO you're missing what I see as important. Remember, what Paul speaks of in Rom8 re: the weakness of the Law is not about sacrifices and offerings. As I said earlier, Law is a big topic with many lessons being applied to it. And even when Paul speaks in Romans of the Law being weak, he also speaks of the law being holy - the commandment holy, righteous and good. This is what law proponents and opponents repeatedly point out to one another. I think the answer is in a 2 letter word inserted into the Text (and of course letting each lesson re: law stand and know any seeming conflict is in us and not His Word).

Seriously, look at "of" in an English Dictionary & maybe a Thesaurus. Consider its range of meaning. Then let's talk about the Greek.

The law is good, but it was "weak and useless" to make righteous, not because of the nature of the law, but because of the sinful nature of man.

 

[Studyman]

It was a fence, but is it any longer? Gal3:19-25

Certainly "many" of this world's religious men, "Who call Jesus Lord", use Gal. 3 to promote the religious theory that Jesus "Freed" us from God's Fence.

In my understanding, it wasn't the fence that was to lead Israel to Christ. When they were in God's Fence, where the Christ, the Rock of Israel was, they were safe, (Joshua and Caleb) and were not in need of saving, as Jesus Himself said. It was the LAW ADDED to show Israel Mercy when they jumped the fence, that was to lead them to Him. And why? Is it not so HE could lead them back into God's fence, after going astray?

And so it is by HIM, that they were "Reconciled" to God.

As Hebrews also points out.

14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; 15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all (Caleb, Joshua) that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, (Jumped the fence) whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

Heb. 4: Continues the teaching.

1 Let us (The Body of Christ, under God's High Priest) therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith (belief) in them that heard it.

But the Word Preached profited those who heard it "and believed". As the Examples of Faith given specifically us, for "OUR" admonition, by inspiration of God, clearly show. At least according to Paul, a prisoner of the Lord, who became a Servant of God's Righteousness, not His own.

 

[Studyman]

The law is good, but it was "weak and useless" to make righteous, not because of the nature of the law, but because of the sinful nature of man.

1 John 3: 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

 

[GDL]

In the Context of Paul's use of it, it applied to "Works of the Law" for "Justification".



Paul teaches in Romans 2: 5, addressing the Pharisees and Scribes, "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in "well doing" seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

He goes on to say, 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

This is essentially the Gospel of Christ found in the Law and Prophets, summed up in one sentence as it is written.

Ez. 18: 30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

This was the First Step the Christ of the Bible taught towards justification. (For all men have sinned, 1 Kings 8:48, Ecc. 7:20, etc.)

Matt. 4: 17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Paul continues in Romans 3, Speaking about the Pharisees, "who sit in Moses Seat" and had access to the Oracles of God, like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, (See Luke 1&2) but didn't believe them.

These men, who had corrupted the Covenant of Levi, who had killed the Prophets, and then the very Son of God, who taught for doctrines the commandments of men, who laid aside the commandment of God so they could keep their own religious traditions, who didn't believe Moses who gave them God's Law, but they didn't keep them, were promoting their version of the Levitical Priesthood for Justification.

They were telling lies about Paul, accusing him of doing evil that good may come, (And Paul said their damnation was just)

These “workers of iniquity” are bad news, as Paul points out through David’s words.

It’s really easy to determine what “works of the law” Moses required for justification. Just ask yourself, in the Law of Moses, when a man transgressed the commandments of God, what “works” was he required to do?

Did Moses say, “If and man’s sins, he shall love the Lord and Love his neighbor, for the remission of his sin?

And yet, mainstream Christianity implies in their philosophy that these are the “works” the children of the devil were requiring for justification.

Paul just told us, as did Peter before him (Acts 5:29 - 32.) and Jesus before him (Matt 19:17)

That men are to repent, turn to God, and “do” works suitable for repentance.

Not take a goat to the Levite Priest and kill it, “works of the law” that had become old, and were ready to vanish away when the Lamb of God had come, as prophesied.

You seem to bring everything back to animal sacrifices.

Before I proceed, I want to say that just because I see parts of your interpretations as wrong, does not mean I think everything you're saying is wrong. So:

• I worked through Gal3 re: the issue of why the law was added and IMO tying it strictly to the golden calf is too narrow and is incorrect.
• I think you're also too narrow on what "works of law" means to Paul

Works of [the] Law:

1. In Rom9:32 Israel is doing works of law - they're pursuing law of/for righteousness but not reaching righteousness because their pursuit was not from faith.
2. In Gal2:16 the context of justification from Christ's Faith and belief in Christ being contrasted to no justification from works of law is compelling gentiles to live as Jews, setting aside God's grace, and again falling into the trap that righteousness is through law (vs. faith)
3. In Gal3 the Spirit (the Abrahamic promise) is received from believing a message (faith from hearing - righteousness is from faith (like Abraham) in the good news (spoken to Abraham) - justification is from faith - and all this is contrasted to works of law which is tied to being under a curse for not remaining in & doing all things which had been written in the Book of the Law (Moses).

This again, just as parabasis in Gal3:19, is far from a narrow focus on animal sacrifices under a previous Priesthood.

This interpretation on what works of law means to Paul does not go against the "endurance of good work" or any concept of required obedience to God.

 

[GDL]

The law is good, but it was "weak and useless" to make righteous, not because of the nature of the law, but because of the sinful nature of man.

Again, Heb7 dealing with Priesthood & sacrifice matters is not the same lesson as Rom8 dealing with the example of the commandment not to covet and Christ's sentencing sin in the flesh.

Rom8:3 does say the Law (obviously Moses) was weak through the flesh of man. But Paul has already established that the Law is holy and the commandment (from the Decalogue) to not covet is holy, righteous and good. The description of how the Law teaches and reveals sin hardly mean the Law is useless.

Heb7 certainly says something is weak and useless and it's very clear what it's speaking of. Since no one really wants to get into what a seemingly simple, taken for granted, 2 letter English word means, here's my analysis of this area of Heb7 but I'm going to begin with the English word "of":

BRITISH DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS FOR OF (1 OF 2)

of / (ɒv, unstressed əv) /​

​

---

preposition​

used with a verbal noun or gerund to link it with a following noun that is either the subject or the object of the verb embedded in the gerund: the breathing of a fine swimmer (subject); the breathing of clean air (object)​

used to indicate possession, origin, or association: the house of my sister; to die of hunger​

used after words or phrases expressing quantities: a pint of milk​

constituted by, containing, or characterized by: a family of idiots; a rod of iron; a man of some depth​

used to indicate separation, as in time or space: within a mile of the town; within ten minutes of the beginning of the concert​

used to mark apposition: the city of Naples; a speech on the subject of archaeology​

about; concerning: speak to me of love​

used in passive constructions to indicate the agent: he was beloved of all​

informal used to indicate a day or part of a period of time when some activity habitually occurs: I go to the pub of an evening​

US before the hour of: a quarter of nine​

I just grabbed this dictionary. There are others that elaborate more. So even in English "of" is capable of being more specific than I'm pretty certain most of us consider in our daily chatter.

The literal translation of the Greek phrase of Heb7:16 is "...law commandment fleshly..." Due to the Greek parsing, "of" is very commonly just thrown at a genitive phrase like "commandment fleshly". After adjusting word order for English it is translated by many as "law of fleshly commandment".

The problem for we English readers is we don't even think through what "of" is telling us. The problem in Greek is this genitive wording has 33 (per one Greek Grammar text book) different ways it can be translated. It's pretty easy to narrow this down to a few choices but still a choice needs to be made and "of" is really not a meaningful choice.

IMO one of the choices that most fits here tells us the "fleshly commandment" is a content (not the content) of the law. We can see this meaning in English for "of" that I underlined from the Dictionary.

Going back to Exodus we can see God repeatedly saying Aaron and his sons will be a priest to God. So, this is not talking about a later Covenant of Peace God gave to Aaron's grandson to make this Aaronic Priesthood last until Christ came

So, the translation in Heb7:15-16 would be telling us that Jesus did not come according to law that contains [a] fleshly commandment [concerning the Levitical / Aaronic Priesthood].

• Besides all the clear information that this is speaking of the Mosaic Law that contained the fleshly commandment, Moses is specifically identified in Heb7:14.
• Heb17:18 is very specific in its wording to say the former commandment is annulled because it - the former commandment - is weak and useless. This obviously and based in the structure of the grammar ties back to the fleshly commandment [establishing the Levitical / Aaronic Priesthood] which is contained in Law.
• In Heb17:19 "for the law made nothing perfect" is explaining why the former weak & useless commandment was annulled - The Law perfected nothing with the weak and useless former fleshly commandment establishing the Levitical / Aaronic Priesthood.
• With all this specificity and context and the clear statement that the law was changed when the Priesthood was changed - IMO it's saying nothing about the Law of Moses going away - it is saying this fleshly commandment concerning the old Priesthood was annulled - Law being changed clearly says Law continues - it's a matter of what Law is that continues in the new Priesthood.
• Hebrews as it continues will explain the fleshly Priesthood and why it had to go.
• This is all in the context of God wanting His creation - man at minimum & more specifically man's conscience and consciousness of sins - perfected/brought to completion. This could not be accomplished under Law - Law that contained commandment for a fleshly Priesthood, so He sent Jesus Christ. IN His Priesthood perfection/completion is taking place and will be completed.

FWIW:

• If someone is saying these verses say the Law was weak and useless and annulled - I disagree.
• If someone is saying the fleshly commandment for the old Priesthood contained in the Law was weak & useless and annulled - I agree.
• This is clearly just a focused lesson about Law. There are many more.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You seem to bring everything back to animal sacrifices.

Before I proceed, I want to say that just because I see parts of your interpretations as wrong, does not mean I think everything you're saying is wrong. So:

• I worked through Gal3 re: the issue of why the law was added and IMO tying it strictly to the golden calf is to narrow and is incorrect.
• I think you're also too narrow on what "works of law" means to Paul

Works of [the] Law:

1. In Rom9:32 Israel is doing works of law - they're pursuing law of/for righteousness but not reaching righteousness because their pursuit was not from faith.
2. In Gal2:16 the context of justification from Christ's Faith and belief in Christ being contrasted to no justification from works of law is compelling gentiles to live as Jews, setting aside God's grace, and again falling into the trap that righteousness is through law (vs. faith)
3. In Gal3 the Spirit (the Abrahamic promise) is received from believing a message (faith from hearing - righteousness is from faith (like Abraham) in the good news (spoken to Abraham) - justification is from faith - and all this is contrasted to works of law which is tied to being under a curse for not remaining in & doing all things which had been written in the Book of the Law (Moses).

This again, just as parabasis in Gal3:19, is far from a narrow focus on animal sacrifices under a previous Priesthood.

This interpretation on what works of law means to Paul does not go against the "endurance of good work" or any concept of required obedience to God.

Hope you don’t mind if I chime in, but isn’t the works of the law in Galatians referring to circumcision? Circumcision is mentioned several times Gal 2:12 Gal 5:6 Ga; 5:11 Gal 6:15 and the Jews were teaching it was a requirement for salvation to the Gentiles Acts 15:1. Paul was addressing this in Galatians not justified by the works of the law i.e. circumcision but faith in Christ. We are not justified by any law, but it’s seems in context the works of the law in Galatians was circumcision and sacrifical laws.

 

[GDL]

Hope you don’t mind if I chime in, but isn’t the works of the law in Galatians referring to circumcision? Circumcision is mentioned several times Gal 2:12 Gal 5:6 Ga; 5:11 Gal 6:15 and the Jews were teaching it was a requirement for salvation to the Gentiles Acts 15:1. Paul was addressing this in Galatians not justified by the works of the law i.e. circumcision but faith in Christ. We are not justified by any law, but it’s seems in context the works of the law in Galatians was circumcision and sacrifical laws.

I never mind when you chime in.

The way I read it; circumcision was just part of the entrance into the Jewish faith for the proselyte & covered in the Law. But Paul says circumcision is just the start of this wayward adventure out of Christ and back under law (including sacrifices administered by a then annulled Priesthood) for righteousness and perfection. Keeping the whole law is more than sacrifices. This is a wayward trip back out of faith and grace and trying to keep law in flesh apart from Christ and the promised Spirit.

NKJ Gal5:2-4 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

 

[Studyman]

You seem to bring everything back to animal sacrifices.

Only when Paul is speaking to "works of the law" for justification, forgiveness or "Receiving the Spirit of God".

What other "Works of the LAW" did Moses require for the remission of Sins, that he defined as:

Lev. 4:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:

I am open to discuss any other means of atonement given by Moses. And maybe there is something I missed.

Before I proceed, I want to say that just because I see parts of your interpretations as wrong, does not mean I think everything you're saying is wrong. So:

• I worked through Gal3 re: the issue of why the law was added and IMO tying it strictly to the golden calf is to narrow and is incorrect.
• I think you're also too narrow on what "works of law" means to Paul

Works of [the] Law:

1. In Rom9:32 Israel is doing works of law - they're pursuing law of/for righteousness but not reaching righteousness because their pursuit was not from faith.

Isn't Paul talking about his Jewish brethren?

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

And didn't Paul also tell us they HAD the Oracles of God, but didn't believe them? I will ask you a question, did Caleb and Joshua " attained to the law of righteousness."? What about Zacharias, Simeon, Anna? Did they "Attain"?

Consider these Word's inspired by God.

Is. 43: 22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. 23 Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense. 24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities. 25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. 26 Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

Why was Jesus so angry at the Pharisees in the temple? Was it because they were teaching the people how to love each other, and Glorify God? Was HE angry at them because they were teaching Israel how to Love the Gentile stranger, and have compassion on him? Are these not the "Law of Righteousness"?

No my friend, the Jews had omitted these important parts of God's Laws, and had created a religious business, which promoted the selling of sacrificial animals for justification. All their power, all their praise of men, being called Rabbi, all their wealth came through their corrupted version of the Levitical Priesthood. And when they were confronted with the true Lamb of God, their prophesied High Priest, they seen their power, their wealth, their fame disappear if they accepted Him as the Prophesied Christ. And they couldn't accept it. Truly they Stumbled at the Rock of Israel, a stumbling Stone and Rock of offence for the house of Israel, just as Prophesied.

Choosing to continue in their version of the sacrificial "works of the Law" for remission of Sins, and not Faith in the Rock of Israel, who watered and fed their fathers in the wilderness for 40 years. (1 Cor. 10)

 

[Clare73]

Again, Heb7 dealing with Priesthood & sacrifice matters is not the same lesson as Rom8 dealing with the example of the commandment not to covet and Christ's sentencing sin in the flesh.

Rom8:3 does say the Law (obviously Moses) was weak through the flesh of man. But Paul has already established that the Law is holy and the commandment (from the Decalogue) to not covet is holy, righteous and good. The description of how the Law teaches and reveals sin hardly mean the Law is useless.

"Useless" is not in reference to what it reveals, but to righteousness which it does not accomplish.

Likewise, the word used in Heb 7:18 is "unprofitable;" i.e., law was not profitable to them because of their weak sinful nature.

And the law that teaches and reveals sin is all law, the Decalogue as well as the laws in Leviticus.

However, keep in mind what the word of God states in regard to the law of the Decalogue:
"For the impossible thing of the law, in which it was weak through the flesh, God sending the Son of himself in likeness of flesh of sin and concerning sin (in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin) condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the ordinance of the law may be fulfilled in us the (ones) not according to flesh walking but according to Spirit." (Ro 8:3-4).

Therefore: the law of Ro 8:3-4 that was weak through the flesh (same language as Heb 7:18) and fulfilled in us (NT saints)" according to Spirit refers to the Decalogue, not to laws in Leviticus.

The language of Heb 7:18 regarding the unprofitableness of law,
(which law is both Leviticus and Decalogue, with Lev establishing the High Priest descent to sons in Lev 8:1-6)
is the same language as Ro 8:3-4 regarding the weakness of the Decalogue.

So not only is the "fleshly commandment law" of Leviticus unprofitable (Heb 7:18),
but the Decalogue is likewise "weak through the flesh" (Ro 8:3-4).
However, God condemned sin in the flesh in order that the Decalogue may be fulfilled in us walking according to Spirit.

Heb7 certainly says something is weak and useless and it's very clear what it's speaking of. Since no one really wants to get into what a seemingly simple, taken for granted, 2 letter English word means, here's my analysis of this area of Heb7 but I'm going to begin with the English word "of":
BRITISH DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS FOR OF (1 OF 2)

of / (ɒv, unstressed əv) /​

preposition​

used with a verbal noun or gerund to link it with a following noun that is either the subject or the object of the verb embedded in the gerund: the breathing of a fine swimmer (subject); the breathing of clean air (object)​

used to indicate possession, origin, or association: the house of my sister; to die of hunger​

used after words or phrases expressing quantities: a pint of milk​

constituted by, containing, or characterized by: a family of idiots; a rod of iron; a man of some depth​

used to indicate separation, as in time or space: within a mile of the town; within ten minutes of the beginning of the concert​

used to mark apposition: the city of Naples; a speech on the subject of archaeology​

about; concerning: speak to me of love​

used in passive constructions to indicate the agent: he was beloved of all​

informal used to indicate a day or part of a period of time when some activity habitually occurs: I go to the pub of an evening​

US before the hour of: a quarter of nine​

I just grabbed this dictionary. There are others that elaborate more. So even in English "of" is capable of being more specific that I'm pretty certain most of us consider in our daily chatter.
The literal translation of the Greek phrase of Heb7:16 is "...law commandment fleshly..." Due to the Greek parsing, "of" is very commonly just thrown at a genitive phrase like "commandment fleshly". After adjusting word order for English it is translated by many as "law of fleshly commandment".
The problem for we English readers is we don't even think through what "of" is telling us. The problem in Greek is this genitive wording has 33 (per one Greek Grammar text book) different ways it can be translated. It's pretty easy to narrow this down to a few choices but still a choice needs to be made and "of" is really not a meaningful choice.
IMO one of the choices that most fits here tells us the "fleshly commandment" is a content (not the content) of the law. We can see this meaning in English for "of" that I underlined from the Dictionary.

Going back to Exodus we can see God repeatedly saying Aaron and his sons will be a priest to God. So, this is not talking about a later Covenant of Peace God gave to Aaron's grandson to make this Aaronic Priesthood last until Christ came

Agreed. . .

So, the translation in Heb7:15-16 would be telling us that Jesus did not come according to law that contains [a] fleshly commandment [concerning the Levitical / Aaronic Priesthood].

• Besides all the clear information that this is speaking of the Mosaic Law that contained the fleshly commandment, Moses is specifically identified in Heb7:14.

Both the Decalogue and the laws in Leviticus are associated with Moses.

• Heb17:18 is very specific in its wording to say the former commandment is annulled because it - the former commandment - is weak and useless. This obviously and based in the structure of the grammar ties back to the fleshly commandment [establishing the Levitical / Aaronic Priesthood] which is contained in Law.

Agreed. . .this ties back to Lev 8:1-6 and the ordination of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood, with Aaron as the High Priest.

• In Heb17:19 "for the law made nothing perfect" is explaining why the former weak & useless commandment was annulled - The Law perfected nothing with the weak and useless former fleshly commandment establishing the Levitical / Aaronic Priesthood.
• With all this specificity and context and the clear statement that the law was changed when the Priesthood was changed - IMO it's saying nothing about the Law of Moses going away - it is saying this fleshly commandment concerning the old Priesthood was annulled - Law being changed clearly says Law continues - it's a matter of what Law is that continues in the new Priesthood.

Acccording to Ro 8:3-4 it is the law being fulfilled in the NT saints; i.e., the Decalogue.

• Hebrews as it continues will explain the fleshly Priesthood and why it had to go.
• This is all in the context of God wanting His creation - man at minimum & more specifically man's conscience and consciousness of sins - perfected/brought to completion. This could not be accomplished under Law - Law that contained commandment for a fleshly Priesthood, so He sent Jesus Christ. IN His Priesthood perfection/completion is taking place and will be completed.

FWIW:

• If someone is saying these verses say the Law was weak and useless and annulled - I disagree.

Other verses say the Law was weak through the flesh, but God condemned sin in the flesh that the Law might be fulfilled in those who walk in the Spirit (Ro 8:3-4).

• If someone is saying the fleshly commandment for the old Priesthood contained in the Law was weak & useless and annulled - I agree.
• This is clearly just a focused lesson about Law. There are many more.

And which is not the focus of Heb 7, which focus is the superiority of Christ's High Priesthood in the order of Melchizedek over Aaron's High Priesthood in the order of Levi.

 

[HIM]

Hope you don’t mind if I chime in, but isn’t the works of the law in Galatians referring to circumcision? Circumcision is mentioned several times Gal 2:12 Gal 5:6 Ga; 5:11 Gal 6:15 and the Jews were teaching it was a requirement for salvation to the Gentiles Acts 15:1. Paul was addressing this in Galatians not justified by the works of the law i.e. circumcision but faith in Christ. We are not justified by any law, but it’s seems in context the works of the law in Galatians was circumcision and sacrifical laws.

I never mind when you chime in.

The way I read it; circumcision was just part of the entrance into the Jewish faith for the proselyte & covered in the Law. But Paul says circumcision is just the start of this wayward adventure out of Christ and back under law (including sacrifices administered by a then annulled Priesthood) for righteousness and perfection. Keeping the whole law is more than sacrifices. This is a wayward trip back out of faith and grace and trying to keep law in flesh apart from Christ and the promised Spirit.

NKJ Gal5:2-4 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

This belongs here also.
Galatians in a nutshell. We are all one in Christ. Not us but Christ.
We are not to sin or want to through Christ, hence no need for law unless one is still sinning. No need for tutors or the schoolmaster. For we are dead nevertheless we live. Yet not us but Christ lives in us and the life we now live in the flesh we live by the faith OF Christ. For we have put on Christ and live through the spirit. For His Law is in our hearts and minds. His Word in our mouth that we do it. That is the Faith in which we preach. We have been given a new Spirit. Us in Him, He in us that the World might believe. We have been delivered from this present evil age.
God set us free from His Law through Christ. We are no longer under it because we are not breaking it. We are not sinning through Christ. And if we are sinning then we are still under a tutor, the Schoolmaster, the Law and are only living partly in Christ if at all. We are not to be doing the things that we would. We are not under the Schoolmaster, the Law if we are led by the Spirit through Christ and are not sinning. If we are walking in the Spirit we shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. They that are of Christ have crucified the flesh and the lusts thereof through the fruit of the Spirit to which there is no law, therefore they are not under it.

 

[ralliann]

I never mind when you chime in.

The way I read it; circumcision was just part of the entrance into the Jewish faith for the proselyte & covered in the Law.

What are you reading? Are you reading the law? Ishmael was circumcised and all Abraham's household.
Ge 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

 

[Studyman]

You seem to bring everything back to animal sacrifices.

1. In Gal2:16 the context of justification from Christ's Faith and belief in Christ being contrasted to no justification from works of law is compelling gentiles to live as Jews, setting aside God's grace, and again falling into the trap that righteousness is through law (vs. faith)

Gal. 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they (Jews) were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,

What Gospel is this? The one the Hebrews Author said was preached to Israel and to Paul, but Israel didn't believe/have faith in what they heard?

Where does a man find the religious theory in the Holy Scriptures, that if I repent, turn to God, and walk in the "Good works" HE before ordained that I should walk in, as HE instructs, I am setting aside God's grace?

Now if a person believes what Paul and Jesus teach about the Jews Religion, they will understand that the Jews "set aside God's Commandments" so that they would keep their own manmade religious traditions. They persecuted the Church of God and killed the Prophets, as their father did, so do they. They taught for doctrines the Commandments of men, not God. They didn't believe Moses, and they omitted much of God's Law, including His LAW of Mercy, Faith and Judgment. They had the Oracles of God but didn't believe them. They promoted the false doctrine that the gentiles were aliens of the commonwealth of Israel, and were without Christ, without God and without Hope in the world and created a partition between them and Salvation. A religion that still partook of and promoted their version of Levitical sacrificial "works of the Law" for justification.

Wasn't both Paul and Peter, "Freed" from this corrupt religion? And had "Yielded themselves" Servant to Obey God, and became a New man, a Servant to God's Righteousness?

I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Why would Peter then, get carried away by promoting the same corrupt and lawless Religious Philosophy, that he was required to "Repent from" to even be a Disciple of Christ?

Paul was right in rebuking him. Did these Jews Honor Christ, and His Sacrifice for them, as did the repentant gentiles? Or were they still promoting justification by "works of the Law"?

So how did the Jews live? Should I not believe Paul in the previous Chapter?

Gal. 1: 13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Were the Jews dedicated to Honor God with obedience, like Zacharias, Simeon and Anna? Did the Jews Religion "Attain to the Law of Righteousness"? Didn't we just establish that they did not Attain to the Law of Righteousness, but repentant Gentiles did?? But now you seem to be implying that the Jews were following God's Laws, which caused them to set aside God's Grace. I don't think that is Paul's message at all.

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, (For What? What is a man's faith in God for? Is it not belief that HE gave the World His only begotten Son, as a sacrifice for Justification, forgiveness of Sins, to wash away all unrighteousness?)
even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Again, what "Works of the Law" for remission of Sins, were the Jews still promoting?

 

[Clare73]

1 John 3: 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

And only the regenerate do righteousness in the Holy Spirit, for everyone else has the sinful nature disabling them to obey the laws of righteousness, thereby in effect, making the law weak and useless.

 

[Studyman]

You seem to bring everything back to animal sacrifices.

1. In Gal3 the Spirit (the Abrahamic promise) is received from believing a message (faith from hearing - righteousness is from faith (like Abraham) in the good news (spoken to Abraham) - justification is from faith - and all this is contrasted to works of law which is tied to being under a curse for not remaining in & doing all things which had been written in the Book of the Law (Moses).

This again, just as parabasis in Gal3:19, is far from a narrow focus on animal sacrifices under a previous Priesthood.

Well it is a Narrow focus and was the only focus in Hebrews 7-10. There is not ONE mention of the two greatest commandments. Only the Levitical Priesthood. This is because, when these letters were written, the great argument was between the promoters of the belief in the sacrificial "Works of the Law" of the Levitical Priesthood for justification that the Jews were still promoting, and belief in the sacrificial "Work" of the Prophesied Priest of God for justification, that the Disciples were promoting.

God's Instruction in Righteousness never changed.

This interpretation on what works of law means to Paul does not go against the "endurance of good work" or any concept of required obedience to God.

I think it's a huge foundational issue. Can a man call Jesus Lord, claim repentance and then lay aside God's Commandments so they can walk in their own religious traditions, reject God's Judgments and create their own, walk in the righteousness of this world's religions, while rejecting the righteousness of God, and be Justified?

Why does a man need Repentance in the first place?

Eph. 4: 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Was it any difference for the Jews?

Ez. 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

There is a reason God inspired Paul to say; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Not Justified by Temporary Old Priesthood sacrificial "Works of the Law", that the Jews were still promoting.

But Justified because a man had faith/Belief in God, "AND" Jesus Christ, whom HE sent to turn us from our sins.

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

 

[GDL]

Only when Paul is speaking to "works of the law" for justification, forgiveness or "Receiving the Spirit of God".

Here are all the verses where Paul uses the phrase: from works of law: Rom3:20, Rom3:28; Gal2:16; Gal3:2, Gal3:5, Gal3:10. I don't see any of these verses being directly related to animal sacrifices. If you do, I'm happy to look at them in context if you can show it.

What other "Works of the LAW" did Moses require for the remission of Sins, that he defined as:

Lev. 4:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:

I am open to discuss any other means of atonement given by Moses. And maybe there is something I missed.

It seems you're self-defining works of law as sacrifices just as I said it seemed you are doing. See the above referenced verses and statements.

Isn't Paul talking about his Jewish brethren?

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

And didn't Paul also tell us they HAD the Oracles of God, but didn't believe them?

Sorry, your point is? Yes, he's talking about his Israelite brethren who pursued righteousness from works of law and not from faith - 2 antithetical approaches to righteousness - one an unsuccessful pursuit because no man will be justified by works of Law as Paul established 6 chapters earlier.

I will ask you a question, did Caleb and Joshua " attained to the law of righteousness."? What about Zacharias, Simeon, Anna? Did they "Attain"?

The latter 3 at the time of Christ, certainly. Based upon the Remnant concept and the Prophet greater than Moses and Abraham rejoicing to see the time of Christ, my takes is that there was faith looking for Messiah and that this is thus different than works of law.

Consider these Word's inspired by God.

Is. 43: 22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. 23 Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense. 24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities. 25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. 26 Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

Justified in one sense is legal language of acquittal re: legal charges, here being brought against Jacob & Israel. Not every instance of this word is the justification from faith in Christ.

Why was Jesus so angry at the Pharisees in the temple? Was it because they were teaching the people how to love each other, and Glorify God? Was HE angry at them because they were teaching Israel how to Love the Gentile stranger, and have compassion on him? Are these not the "Law of Righteousness"?

No my friend, the Jews had omitted these important parts of God's Laws, and had created a religious business, which promoted the selling of sacrificial animals for justification. All their power, all their praise of men, being called Rabbi, all their wealth came through their corrupted version of the Levitical Priesthood. And when they were confronted with the true Lamb of God, their prophesied High Priest, they seen their power, their wealth, their fame disappear if they accepted Him as the Prophesied Christ. And they couldn't accept it. Truly they Stumbled at the Rock of Israel, a stumbling Stone and Rock of offence for the house of Israel, just as Prophesied.

Choosing to continue in their version of the sacrificial "works of the Law" for remission of Sins, and not Faith in the Rock of Israel, who watered and fed their fathers in the wilderness for 40 years. (1 Cor. 10)

There never was to be this ultimate justification apart from faith. It wasn't just about an errant religious practice. It was always about the future Seed of the woman, Seed of Abraham, Seed of David, Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, Son of God, Savior, etc... His zeal in the Temple cleansing is from Ps69.

Works of law is not about an errant religious system but about the era of Moses with a Priesthood incapable of and never meant to provide justification apart from the faith of Christ and faith in Christ - justification by God who justifies.