Galatians 4 two opposing covenants.

[ralliann]

"Whole Law"?

yes, what is that?

 

[GDL]

yes, what is that?

Gal5:3; James2:10 all the Law given to Moses & the Children of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant.

Heading out for a while. Don't mean to abandon this.

 

[Studyman]

Was the pre-Christ sacrificial system a bad thing?

Were there some who sacrificed as told to do who did not use the system to be pseudo-religious and live in disobedience and not faith?

Were there some who did use the system to be pseudo-religious and live without faithful obedience?

Was the sacrificial system not a teaching method God used to teach and train about the cost of sin/lawlessness/disobedience and teach about the ultimate sacrifice His Son would make?

Is our instruction and replacement system to acknowledge our sins to God under the advocacy of Jesus Christ for forgiveness (release of debt) and cleansing by Christ's blood a bad thing?

Is all this the ultimate for God's Creation? Of course not. He will have a Creation that Love as He does and will be without sin. Along the way to this Perfection/Completion He has graciously made provision for His people to deal with sin.

Take each part of Scripture where Paul speaks of "works of law" - remain in that area of Scripture - remain in context - find the lesson - understand the scope - see if it's all about sacrifices. I'm happy to work on this with you. piece by piece, word by word. Maybe we'll both learn something.

I never even implied what your questions are asking.

It's OK GDL. If you don't want to discuss the content of my post, or the scriptures I posted, it's alright. I have become used to it on these forums. I don't know how or even why I would try to, or even want to try to work out Paul's discussion regarding the Jews "works of the Law" for justification, without including their written history that Paul established was written for "OUR" example and admonition. That is, "OUR" being defined as the Body of Christ under the New Priesthood. Paul certainly didn't.

I know one thing for sure. If I take a verse, separate it from every other scripture in the Bible, then create doctrine based on an interpretation that doesn't include the very examples Paul said were written for me, I will end up with a falsehood.

Why would a man even do that? Unless it is to justify themselves?

FWIW, I'm your new best friend if you successfully define and explain this phrase in Scripture with Scripture in context.

How can I be in context, if I reject or ignore the very Scriptures who define the Jews Paul is speaking about?

Further FWIW, I recently read a 300+/- page dissertation on this phrase chasing down interpretations of it back to the 2nd century and up through present day. There as usual is no consensus on its exact meaning. I have some views on what I think it means and my views are similar to some of the others but maybe a bit different as I recall. If you've got the actual solution, we'll get you to the "scholars" - you'll be put to the test beyond what I can do - and if successfully defend your hypothesis (so back to the Socratic Method potentially referenced in Heb11) I'm sure you'll go from being the dumb old cowboy nobody you self-profess to be, to being offered a bunch of hats and tassels from various institutions and put on the lecture circuit.

LOL,

I'll leave all the praise of men, and chief seats at the lecture hall to the religious scholars of this world.

In the meantime, I'm continue in the Holy Scriptures for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[ralliann]

Gal5:2; James2:10 all the Law given to Moses & the Children of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant.

Heading out for a while. Don't mean to abandon this.

Genesis to Deuteronomy is accounted to Moses. What was within that whole, that was MORE. This IMO, is an important construct. Law which is before, is distinct as law. As well as that which is more is distinctly for the circumcision in the flesh. The nations are not without law (accounted to Moses), Just not all the law accounted to Moses.
An aside perhaps but should not be IMO.
The nations are promised as children TO ABRAHAM. Israel as a nation is called firstborn. Firstborn among whom? Who are the brethren? I say the nations.
A twist however. The firstborn before the law, was by promise Isaac, not firstborn according to birth order, Jacob was not according to birth order nor any works good or bad, was by choice before he was born. Are we then in Christ, equally fulfilling the law in Christ (the promise nations in the new covenant)? Moses however commands every firstborn as that opens the womb. To not even deny the son of the hated woman, the birthright. It's all according to carnality.
The heavenly inheritance of Genesis 17 NEW COVENANT, is the 2nd portion of inheritance, in a figure (parable).
We as Gentiles in fulfillment of that promise ( 2nd inheritance) are accounted firstborn by promise and inherit the same, as children of promise. We inherit not the worldly earthly 1st potion, but the second, heavenly.
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

 

[ralliann]

If you don't want to discuss the content of my post, or the scriptures I posted, it's alright. I have become used to it on these forums.

I have tried several times to address similar things. But, you have not seemed to pay much mind.

I don't know how or even why I would try to, or even want to try to work out Paul's discussion regarding the Jews "works of the Law" for justification, without including their written history that Paul established was written for "OUR" example and admonition.
That is, "OUR" being defined as the Body of Christ under the New Priesthood. Paul certainly didn't.

I have asked questions to attempt the dialogue. But you have not engaged much if at all.

I know one thing for sure. If I take a verse, separate it from every other scripture in the Bible, then create doctrine based on an interpretation that doesn't include the very examples Paul said were written for me, I will end up with a falsehood.

This has been a perplexing thing to me as well. For me it was like not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Why would a man even do that? Unless it is to justify themselves?

I never concluded that, for anyone here. I merely attempted several times to go beyond that, at least hoping to understand his method. I just figured he was focused on your points is all. And you were focused on him.
I agree with you on widening the discussion, but it's pretty mired in the forest for that at this point.
Hebrews Speaks of earthly things as parables, Galatians speaks of the Abrahamic covenants 2 (plural) as allegory. I have attempted to go there to not much avail in this thread.
Bowing out. I have said how I view those things right or wrong.
Blessings in Christ to all here.

 

[Studyman]

Studyman, are you Messianic?

What do you mean by that? Do you mean have I examined all the religious sects and franchises available to me in this world God placed me in, and picked one to live by, as is the religious tradition of this world God placed me in? No. I have not done that.

If so, of what sort. Do you agree with Rabbinic Judaism the Priesthood of Levi, was the problem?

I have no idea what this religion you are referring to preaches, as I do not study it or adopt its philosophies as my own. Do I believe the Scriptures preach that the "Priesthood of Levi" was the Problem? No, absolutely not. I am simply pointing out that the sacrificial "Works" of the "Priesthood of Levi" was Temporary, put in place til the prophesied Seed should come, and was not created by God for a man to use as justification for rebelling against His Commandments, despising His Judgements, or creating their own religion. But the Jews did just that, as the Scriptures teach. Caleb didn't, Joshua didn't, Zacharias Simeon and Anna didn't. They were men and women of Faith. But the Rebellious Jew and the Pharisees did. And this is who Paul was speaking to in Romans and Galatians.

Just as God offering the Blood of His Own Son, to fulfill the requirement of His Law for the sins of the repentant, was not for men to use as justification for rebelling against His Commandments, despising His Judgements, or creating their own religion.

For me, the "cleansing" through Blood, (Life) of the Sacrifice, was for the reasons stated in the Gospel of Christ.

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?

And confirmed by Paul in the New Testament.

Eph. 4: 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.

Which is what Passover and Unleavened bread is all about, in my understanding. AS Jesus teaches. "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

In my view, this is the purpose of the Gospel of the Christ of the Bible, to bring about a NEW man from the heart, through "Belief/Faith" in the God of Abraham, and Christ Jesus, who HE sent.

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

It would help us understand what you see there.

As Paul teaches both Jew and Gentile under the New Priesthood of God.

Acts 26: 19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

 

[GDL]

I never even implied what your questions are asking.

It's difficult at times to see how you attach some things to what's being discussed. This is one reason why I ask just to just stay in a chapter and context before cross referencing so much.

It's OK GDL. If you don't want to discuss the content of my post, or the scriptures I posted, it's alright. I have become used to it on these forums. I don't know how or even why I would try to, or even want to try to work out Paul's discussion regarding the Jews "works of the Law" for justification, without including their written history that Paul established was written for "OUR" example and admonition. That is, "OUR" being defined as the Body of Christ under the New Priesthood. Paul certainly didn't.

I know one thing for sure. If I take a verse, separate it from every other scripture in the Bible, then create doctrine based on an interpretation that doesn't include the very examples Paul said were written for me, I will end up with a falsehood.

Why would a man even do that? Unless it is to justify themselves?

I'd like to deal with a Scripture at a time to have you explain in context why you think works of law pertains so narrowly to sacrifices. IMO you're not figuring it out in context and running off too quickly to tie to what you think it means.

How can I be in context, if I reject or ignore the very Scriptures who define the Jews Paul is speaking about?

Close context first and you're not accomplishing that.

LOL,

I'll leave all the praise of men, and chief seats at the lecture hall to the religious scholars of this world.

In the meantime, I'm continue in the Holy Scriptures for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But of course. This was expected.

 

[GDL]

the sacrificial "Works" of the "Priesthood of Levi"

This is part of the issue with your narrow focus on works of law being sacrifices. With a quick search in one translation, here are the only 3 verses that show up with "work*" and "sacrific*" as the search terms:

NKJ Ps. 107:22 Let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, And declare His works with rejoicing.

Hos 13:2 Now they sin more and more, And have made for themselves molded images, Idols of their silver, according to their skill; All of it is the work of craftsmen. They say of them, "Let the men who sacrifice kiss the calves!"

NKJ Acts 7:41 "And they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.

Not one of these speak of the Levitical Priesthood sacrifices as "works".

Once we start making up our own terminology, almost any interpretation can make sense.

Again, care to work on the phrase "works of law" in each instance it's actually used?

 

[Studyman]

I have tried several times to address similar things. But, you have not seemed to pay much mind.


I have asked questions to attempt the dialogue. But you have not engaged much if at all.

This has been a perplexing thing to me as well. For me it was like not being able to see the forest for the trees.

I never concluded that, for anyone here. I merely attempted several times to go beyond that, at least hoping to understand his method. I just figured he was focused on your points is all. And you were focused on him.
I agree with you on widening the discussion, but it's pretty mired in the forest for that at this point.
Hebrews Speaks of earthly things as parables, Galatians speaks of the Abrahamic covenants 2 (plural) as allegory. I have attempted to go there to not much avail in this thread.
Bowing out. I have said how I view those things right or wrong.
Blessings in Christ to all here.

We have engaged before and as you have said, you have made your views known right or wrong.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[GDL]

Genesis to Deuteronomy is accounted to Moses. What was within that whole, that was MORE. This IMO, is an important construct. Law which is before, is distinct as law. As well as that which is more is distinctly for the circumcision in the flesh. The nations are not without law (accounted to Moses), Just not all the law accounted to Moses.

I'm not following you.

When I referenced Ex to Deut re: Law, I meant the Mosaic Law that God begins giving to Moses in Exodus. I wasn't referring to the 5 books attributed to Moses - Gen-Deut.

What exactly is the "important construct" you're referring to? Will you elaborate?

An aside perhaps but should not be IMO.
The nations are promised as children TO ABRAHAM. Israel as a nation is called firstborn. Firstborn among whom? Who are the brethren? I say the nations.
A twist however. The firstborn before the law, was by promise Isaac, not firstborn according to birth order, Jacob was not according to birth order nor any works good or bad, was by choice before he was born. Are we then in Christ, equally fulfilling the law in Christ (the promise nations in the new covenant)? Moses however commands every firstborn as that opens the womb. To not even deny the son of the hated woman, the birthright. It's all according to carnality.
The heavenly inheritance of Genesis 17 NEW COVENANT, is the 2nd portion of inheritance, in a figure (parable).
We as Gentiles in fulfillment of that promise ( 2nd inheritance) are accounted firstborn by promise and inherit the same, as children of promise. We inherit not the worldly earthly 1st potion, but the second, heavenly.
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Again, I'm not following you too well. I'm happy to settle on the fact that Jesus Christ is my first-born Brother (Rom8:29).

 

[Clare73]

s b

Disagreed, but I've been through this topic of discussion too many times. Yes, to do the summary is to do them all. The details that make up the summary is part of how we know we are doing the summary. Too many reject the details and then tell us they're doing the summary.

The Decalogue is not detailed and complicated--no idolatry, nor using God's name in vain; observance of the Sabbath; no dishonoring of parents, murder, theft, testifying falsely about your neighbor, and coveting his wife or his goods.

Yet Christ was born under law and faithfully kept the law and when He struggled with God's will in the garden before the cross, sweating as it were drops of blood, entreating His disciples to stay awake with Him, telling them the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, requesting that , the cup be removed from Him, He deferred to God's will, learned obedience from all He suffered, and was Perfected.

He was made perfect through suffering (Heb 2:9), passing the trial of his righteousness (as did Job, and which trial of their righteousness some of the fallen spirit angels and human Adam had failed). His righteous humanity was thereby completed, made perfect, and on the basis of that perfection, he could become the source of eternal salvation (Heb 5:8, Heb 9:12).

Law keeping and beyond is in the equation of faithful obedience. Love is commanded now as it was then. Law written on hearts equates to naturally keeping Law. In all this talk about "works of law" I rarely if ever see someone mention that Law written in hearts makes the conscience functional and law keeping natural. This is called the "work of the law" - "work" being singular - work of the law meaning work the law does.

In the New Covenant order, the Holy Spirit, rather than the law, makes the conscience functional and obedience natural in his sanctifying work of dying to sin (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19).

Law is not a 4-letter word. What if Law is no longer weak through the flesh - what work can it do now that it's being administered by the current and eternal Great High Priest and the Spirit of God under God's grace?

Keeping in mind that in the New Covenant order, that law is summed up in one rule and, through that one rule the Holy Spirit, not the law, works sanctification.

If we wring out this area of Scripture, who and what is fulfilling the statute of law in us? It's passive, so the law statute is being fulfilled/completed in us but clearly as we do something. The Spirit is leading us and we are walking in Spirit and we are doing several things as commanded in Rom8. IOW, is it really just the Spirit that fulfills/completes the law statute in us? Do we play no part?

Our part is to yield to the direction and empowerment of the Holy Spirit in dying to sin; i.e., hostility to God, insubordination and ungodliness (Ro 5:6, Ro 8:7-8), and in loving God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:9-10). That should be enough for one lifetime.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He was made perfect through suffering (Heb 2:9), passing the trial of his righteousness (as did Job, and which trial of their righteousness some of the fallen spirit angels and human Adam had failed). His righteous humanity was thereby completed, made perfect, and on the basis of that perfection, he could become the source of eternal salvation (Heb 5:8, Heb 9:12).

Here once again I am compelled (whether of God or of my own self-importance, or something else —only God knows) to add to this, that his very success in perfection is evidence of his deity. Nobody but God himself can be sufficient payment for my offenses against God. And nobody but he ever lived without sin. No mere creature can be my substitute.

 

[GDL]

The Decalogue is not detailed and complicated--no idolatry, nor using God's name in vain; observance of the Sabbath; no dishonoring of parents, murder, theft, testifying falsely about your neighbor, and coveting his wife or his goods.

Rom13:9 and "if any other commandment." The Decalogue is in part an index, categorical headings, summaries if you will. The details of Love Neighbor include "if any other commandment."

He was made perfect through suffering (Heb 2:9), passing the trial of his righteousness (as did Job, and which trial of their righteousness some of the fallen spirit angels and human Adam had failed). His righteous humanity was thereby completed, made perfect, and on the basis of that perfection, he could become the source of eternal salvation (Heb 5:8, Heb 9:12).

Are you adding to, modifying, or against what I said? Please do note the close context of His garden struggles in Heb5.

In the New Covenant order, the Holy Spirit, rather than the law, makes the conscience functional and obedience natural in his sanctifying work of dying to sin (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19).

Nothing to this writing His Law on our hearts? I'm always fascinated how close in context instruction re: the sanctification process is to the writing of law upon minds and putting it on hearts per the NC Heb10:14-16.

Keeping in mind that in the New Covenant order, that law is summed up in one rule and, through that one rule the Holy Spirit, not the law, works sanctification.

Always keeping in mind, the Spirit's work. Thanks. Also, Christ's prayer to sanctify His by His Word - the Truth John17:17; Eph5:26. Also Christ's blood sanctifying/cleansing consciences from dead works Heb9:13.

Our part is to yield to the direction and empowerment of the Holy Spirit in dying to sin; i.e., hostility to God, insubordination and ungodliness (Ro 5:6, Ro 8:7-8), and in loving God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:9-10). That should be enough for one lifetime.

Good enough for this thread.

Works of law needs defining.

 

[GDL]

Here once again I am compelled (whether of God or of my own self-importance, or something else —only God knows) to add to this, that his very success in perfection is evidence of his deity. Nobody but God himself can be sufficient payment for my offenses against God. And nobody but he ever lived without sin. No mere creature can be my substitute.

Certainly. And then there's His command in Matt5:48 and His statement in Matt19:21 and His prayer in John17:23 and James' statement in James1:4 and our Lord's evaluation of His Ekklesia in Rev3:1 and Hebrews statements in Heb6:1; Heb7:11; Heb10:1. Such an interesting topic.

Have you ever noticed how positive and special the English word "perfect" is and how mostly negatively the word "perfectionist" is portrayed? Typical worldly wisdom. I like Jesus' command and His instruction in His Word. I'm concerned that others should also Matt12:36-37.

Nice to see you post rather than cheer.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Certainly. And then there's His command in Matt5:48 and His statement in Matt19:21 and His prayer in John17:23 and James' statement in James1:4 and our Lord's evaluation of His Ekklesia in Rev3:1 and Hebrews statements in Heb6:1; Heb7:11; Heb10:1. Such an interesting topic.

Have you ever noticed how positive and special the English word "perfect" is and how mostly negatively the word "perfectionist" is portrayed? Typical worldly wisdom. I like Jesus' command and His instruction in His Word. I'm concerned that others should also Matt12:36-37.

Nice to see you post rather than cheer.

I had meant to mention, and got distracted, something of the fact of the proof of Christ being God is found particularly in the paradoxical "strength in weakness". He did little with the flashbang we humans are wowed by, but did it as an ordinary man, INCLUDING his perfection being a result of his dependence on God, not as a result of his "spiritual prowess". Nobody who has paid attention reading the Gospels can say, "Of course he did it all right! He was God!" as if he was not really tempted in every way as we are, and as if he operated by his own power, and spoke by his own authority.

God has a funny way of doing things, which according to our assessment, seem all wrong. We find ourselves having to excuse him for this and that, and finding ourselves pointing out 'at least' the good or the 'after all' benefits of the choices God makes, the people he uses for this or that task, and how often he seems to "skate so close the edge of disaster" or even go over that "edge". Truth is, we don't know what God is doing, but one thing we do know is that his way is not our way. And he has the infinity of control in which for him, riding the edge is no closer to disaster than riding a hundred miles from it.

 

[GDL]

INCLUDING his perfection being a result of his dependence on God

But this dependence is not what many want it to be; meaning He doesn't do everything for us. He's done everything we could not do. He's set it all up and actually completed it for us. He brings us to the opened gate. He gives us what we need to reach the goal and helps & guides us along the way to it, but He also tells us to do our part - just as did our firstborn Brother (Rom8:29; John8:28-29). Apart from Him we can do nothing.

 

[Frank Sophia]

Hebrews 7:1-28 and 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 are helpful in understanding this...

We do not seem to acknowledge the distinction widely.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
INCLUDING his perfection being a result of his dependence on God

But this dependence is not what many want it to be; meaning He doesn't do everything for us. He's done everything we could not do. He's set it all up and actually completed it for us. He brings us to the opened gate. He gives us what we need to reach the goal and helps & guides us along the way to it, but He also tells us to do our part - just as did our firstborn Brother (Rom8:29; John8:28-29). Apart from Him we can do nothing.

It can be a bit of a riddle, I suppose; but if "Apart from me you can do nothing" is not hyperbole, then we see utter dependence. I would myself prefer to take it further, logically, but no need —besides, it makes people yawn— into monergism in sanctification, but I'm told while there is a valid point to be made there, it destroys the narrative of monergism in regeneration and salvation. So, I'll just say, that what we do does not complete or increase God's doing; "We do so because it is so." is one way to put what I think.

This is God's work, and I don't just depend on him 'for my part of what needs done'. There are no "parts" in that sense. I depend "IN" him, because while I am intimately involved, it is in him that anything happens —it is HIS work. I'm "IN" it.

We want to separate tasks because our nature wants to remain independent. It is true that HE is the owner of the whole work, and it is his responsibility to see it done —not ours. But what we do in obedience is also him doing it. We have no "part" separate from his part.

 

[GDL]

We want to separate tasks because our nature wants to remain independent.

Some of us maybe. Then there are those who understand what an active voice command is and who further understand how He supplies His capabilities to us, so we have the desire and capabilities to do what He commands us to do - remaining in Him of course - as He commands.

 

[GDL]

@Studyman

I updated some work re: "works of law" again. If you care to focus on one area of Scripture to discuss what I think it means, let me know.

Even more now, I do think your focus on sacrifices is too narrow re: this phrase, just as I viewed your focus on Gal3 to be.

Once again, this does not mean that I'm commenting on where you've ended up in your big picture re: Law. IMO we really haven't even gotten too deep into that. FWIW, I think I'm one of the last ones who would ever downplay the need to be obedient to God - which I see as parallel to having faith in God.