Usually people who won't answer questions, or address scriptures are not really interested in rebuttals.
Paul parsed the Law in Gal. 3. A Law "ADDED" that Abraham didn't have, even though it is said that Isaac was blessed "
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
This Law Paul speaks to was ADDED "Because of Transgressions", but wasn't given to Israel before the Golden calf.
Jer. 7:
21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
22 For I "spake not unto your fathers", nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning "burnt offerings or sacrifices": 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, "that it may be well unto you".
24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
And again;
Mal. 2:
4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.
(Ex. 32:
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And "all the sons of Levi" gathered themselves together unto him.)
And it was Only to be in effect, "Till the SEED Should Come".
Duet. 18:
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
So I just showed you Paul, parsing the Law "in such manner". Jeremiah, parsing the Law "in such manner" and Moses, parsing the Law "in such manner".
But I fear it will make no difference, because it seems you are not here seeking to discuss scriptures, answer questions, or engage in honest discourse, rather, your posts are here to justify and promote an adopted religious philosophy, and therefore, are not allowed to address what is actually written, answer questions, or engage in discussion.
That is sad, but not uncommon in this world God placed me in. But you are free to engage in whatever traditions you wish.
Fascinating reply. Questioning popular religious philosophy, posting scriptures for discussion and examination, Asking relevant questions in search of Scriptural Truth concerning the topic at hand, is judged by you as, "those who pursue righteousness by their own works",
and judged by you as "will always end up Pharisees in spirit and attitude thinking themselves wiser than all the rest",
and judged by you as " judging everything that does not comport with their doctrine as evil and false",
and lastly, you judge men who ask questions and post scriptures for discussion, as "they do not rely on Grace".
Thank you for another spirit filled post.
I get the message.
Let’s walk through this carefully and show that Paul
was not parsing or redefining the Law, but explaining its
purpose and function within God’s covenant plan.
1. Paul did not “parse” the Law — he explained its place in salvation history
Galatians 3:17–19 is often misunderstood. Paul says:
“The law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God... Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.”
Paul is not saying the Law was “invented” at Sinai, nor that it contradicted Abraham’s obedience. Rather, he’s saying the
Sinaitic covenant (codified law with national ordinances and sacrificial rituals) was
added as a
guardian or
tutor (Gal. 3:24) to
expose sin and
restrain transgression until Christ — the promised Seed — arrived.
Abraham indeed “kept God’s commandments” (Gen. 26:5), but those were
moral and covenantal principles, not the codified Mosaic system with Levitical priesthood, temple sacrifices, and national statutes. Paul’s argument is historical and covenantal, not dismissive or revisionist.
2. The “law added because of transgressions” means to reveal sin — not to create a new religion
Romans 5:20 explains Paul’s meaning:
“The law entered that the offense might abound.”
The Law was
added to make sin visible — to expose human inability to attain righteousness through works — and thereby point everyone to the need for faith and grace in the promised Messiah (cf. Rom 3:19–24; Gal 3:22–25).
Thus, Paul is not “parsing” the Law; he is
describing its divine purpose. The Law’s holiness and goodness are affirmed in Romans 7:12:
“So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”
3. Jeremiah 7 and Malachi 2 do not contradict Paul — they support him
Jeremiah 7:22–23 says God did not originally command burnt offerings when He brought Israel out of Egypt, but commanded obedience. This is
not a denial of the sacrificial system’s divine origin — it’s a
rebuke of hypocrisy. God’s first command at Sinai (Ex. 19–20) indeed focused on obedience and faithfulness. Sacrifices were later codified because Israel sinned (the golden calf incident, Ex. 32).
Jeremiah’s point is: God desired
heart obedience first, not mere ritual compliance — the same truth Paul emphasizes (Rom 2:28–29).
Malachi 2 likewise rebukes the Levites who corrupted the covenant. The priesthood was meant to preserve life and peace, but it too failed — demonstrating again that the Law, though holy,
could not perfect the heart (Heb. 7:18–19). The writer to the Hebrews (echoing Paul) says the Levitical law was temporary “until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10). That’s exactly Paul’s “till the Seed should come.”
4. The “Prophet like Moses” in Deuteronomy 18 is Christ — the fulfillment, not a replacement
Paul affirms this same interpretation in
Acts 13:32–39 and
Romans 10:4:
“Christ is the end (Greek telos, goal or fulfillment) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
Deuteronomy 18 prophesied that God would one day send a prophet who would reveal His will perfectly — and that those who rejected Him would be judged. That prophet, Peter declares, is Jesus (Acts 3:22–23). Thus, the Law leads to Him, not away from Him.
5. The “till the Seed should come” clause marks transition, not contradiction
When Paul says “till the Seed should come,” he is describing
the Law’s appointed duration — not a dismissal of moral righteousness. The sacrificial, ceremonial, and national components of the Mosaic covenant were
temporary scaffoldingleading to Christ, who fulfilled them (Matt 5:17).
But the moral and spiritual principles — love, justice, mercy, humility — remain eternal, because they reflect God’s character (Rom 13:8–10).
Usually people who won't answer questions, or address scriptures are not really interested in rebuttals.
Paul parsed the Law in Gal. 3. A Law "ADDED" that Abraham didn't have, even though it is said that Isaac was blessed "
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
This Law Paul speaks to was ADDED "Because of Transgressions", but wasn't given to Israel before the Golden calf.
Jer. 7:
21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
22 For I "spake not unto your fathers", nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning "burnt offerings or sacrifices": 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, "that it may be well unto you".
24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
And again;
Mal. 2:
4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.
(Ex. 32:
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And "all the sons of Levi" gathered themselves together unto him.)
And it was Only to be in effect, "Till the SEED Should Come".
Duet. 18:
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
So I just showed you Paul, parsing the Law "in such manner". Jeremiah, parsing the Law "in such manner" and Moses, parsing the Law "in such manner".
But I fear it will make no difference, because it seems you are not here seeking to discuss scriptures, answer questions, or engage in honest discourse, rather, your posts are here to justify and promote an adopted religious philosophy, and therefore, are not allowed to address what is actually written, answer questions, or engage in discussion.
That is sad, but not uncommon in this world God placed me in. But you are free to engage in whatever traditions you wish.
Fascinating reply. Questioning popular religious philosophy, posting scriptures for discussion and examination, Asking relevant questions in search of Scriptural Truth concerning the topic at hand, is judged by you as, "those who pursue righteousness by their own works",
and judged by you as "will always end up Pharisees in spirit and attitude thinking themselves wiser than all the rest",
and judged by you as " judging everything that does not comport with their doctrine as evil and false",
and lastly, you judge men who ask questions and post scriptures for discussion, as "they do not rely on Grace".
Thank you for another spirit filled post.
I get the message.
Let’s walk through this carefully and show that Paul
was not parsing or redefining the Law, but explaining its
purpose and function within God’s covenant plan.
1. Paul did not “parse” the Law — he explained its place in salvation history
Galatians 3:17–19 is often misunderstood. Paul says:
“The law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God... Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.”
Paul is not saying the Law was “invented” at Sinai, nor that it contradicted Abraham’s obedience. Rather, he’s saying the
Sinaitic covenant (codified law with national ordinances and sacrificial rituals) was
added as a
guardian or
tutor (Gal. 3:24) to
expose sin and
restrain transgression until Christ — the promised Seed — arrived.
Abraham indeed “kept God’s commandments” (Gen. 26:5), but those were
moral and covenantal principles, not the codified Mosaic system with Levitical priesthood, temple sacrifices, and national statutes. Paul’s argument is historical and covenantal, not dismissive or revisionist.
2. The “law added because of transgressions” means to reveal sin — not to create a new religion
Romans 5:20 explains Paul’s meaning:
“The law entered that the offense might abound.”
The Law was
added to make sin visible — to expose human inability to attain righteousness through works — and thereby point everyone to the need for faith and grace in the promised Messiah (cf. Rom 3:19–24; Gal 3:22–25).
Thus, Paul is not “parsing” the Law; he is
describing its divine purpose. The Law’s holiness and goodness are affirmed in Romans 7:12:
“So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”
3. Jeremiah 7 and Malachi 2 do not contradict Paul — they support him
Jeremiah 7:22–23 says God did not originally command burnt offerings when He brought Israel out of Egypt, but commanded obedience. This is
not a denial of the sacrificial system’s divine origin — it’s a
rebuke of hypocrisy. God’s first command at Sinai (Ex. 19–20) indeed focused on obedience and faithfulness. Sacrifices were later codified because Israel sinned (the golden calf incident, Ex. 32).
Jeremiah’s point is: God desired
heart obedience first, not mere ritual compliance — the same truth Paul emphasizes (Rom 2:28–29).
Malachi 2 likewise rebukes the Levites who corrupted the covenant. The priesthood was meant to preserve life and peace, but it too failed — demonstrating again that the Law, though holy,
could not perfect the heart (Heb. 7:18–19). The writer to the Hebrews (echoing Paul) says the Levitical law was temporary “until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10). That’s exactly Paul’s “till the Seed should come.”
4. The “Prophet like Moses” in Deuteronomy 18 is Christ — the fulfillment, not a replacement
Paul affirms this same interpretation in
Acts 13:32–39 and
Romans 10:4:
“Christ is the end (Greek telos, goal or fulfillment) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
Deuteronomy 18 prophesied that God would one day send a prophet who would reveal His will perfectly — and that those who rejected Him would be judged. That prophet, Peter declares, is Jesus (Acts 3:22–23). Thus, the Law leads to Him, not away from Him.
5. The “till the Seed should come” clause marks transition, not contradiction
When Paul says “till the Seed should come,” he is describing
the Law’s appointed duration — not a dismissal of moral righteousness. The sacrificial, ceremonial, and national components of the Mosaic covenant were
temporary scaffoldingleading to Christ, who fulfilled them (Matt 5:17).
But the moral and spiritual principles — love, justice, mercy, humility — remain eternal, because they reflect God’s character (Rom 13:8–10).
The summary of God’s law does not delete the details.
