From what law did Paul set us free?

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Yes, that one was just delicious. Already copied and pasted that one for the archives!

never thought of noses as "delicious" lol

 

[Bob S]

The question was asked what law did Paul set us free from. He didn't God did, and it His Law we are set free from through Christ. We are no longer in bondage to 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.

If "we" are Gentiles then we were never under the schoolmaster Paul was referring. So, how could "we" still be under the old covenant's laws given only to Israel? Think about it, Gentiles were never under the ten commandments, never required to observe the ritual commands like the weekly Sabbath.

 

[Soyeong]

“””Who do you think are the Father god God the Father and what is the difference between them? Which one created the world, which one is the God of Israel, and which one is Jesus one with?”””

God the father (Jesus' father) created the first account of creation.
Father god created the second account of creation.
The God of spiritual Israel is God the Father (Christ's Father)
The god of physical Israel is Father God.

Everything in the old testament is a carbon copy of spiritual truth. It appeals to the flesh and Ego instead of Spirit. Commandments are given to the natural mind and blessings are conditional. Our job is to discern the spiritual meaning behind the obvious. The Spiritual parallels everything Father god says and does. To make it even harder, often times, Father God and God the Father speak in Unison. Its not an easy task. You need fine tuned, razor sharp spiritual discernment to “see” it.

The old testament is supposed to create contrast between flesh and spirit. The biggest give away that we are not dealing with God the Father and His spirit is failure of Israelites to obey and follow Father god perfectly. If his commanding was enough, God wouldn't have needed a remnant and the gentiles wouldn't have been introduced to the Grace family.

Why aren't they the same? God had a disagreement within himself. The disagreement caused Him to split in to 3 circles (this is symbolic). The result was God the Father, Father god, and Mother godess.

This knowledge was given to me by Christ (audibly, He spoke to me) through divine Revelation during a 4 month long miracle I experienced in 2017. Christ was serious about not calling Father god, God, only God the Father is God.

In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's law. In Galatias 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against God's law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that are in accordance with it. In Roman 7:14, God's law is spiritual, which is because it has always been intended to teach us spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just examples, and which are aspects of God's nature. For example, if I wanted to teach the spiritual principle of what it means to love God and our neighbors, then I could come up with a list of 613 examples of actions that people can take that are examples that principle, and all of those examples would be intended to teach how to act in accordance with that principle, so if we correctly understand that spiritual then it will lead us to take actions that are examples of that principle in accordance with God's law. If someone thought that they understood the spiritual principle of love, so they no longer need to take actions that express love for their neighbor such as helping the poor, then they would be missing the whole point.

I can't argue with your experience, but I can note that there is no biblical basis for the distinctions that you are making and there is certainly nothing about God being in disagreement with Himself or about a mother goddess. God's law came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so there was never a requirement for us to have perfect obedience to it. It sounds more like you are trying to combine Christianity with another religion.

 

[HIM]

If "we" are Gentiles then we were never under the schoolmaster Paul was referring. So, how could "we" still be under the old covenant's laws given only to Israel? Think about it, Gentiles were never under the ten commandments, never required to observe the ritual commands like the weekly Sabbath.

If they came to God they were.
Exod 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

And Galatians says if we are led by the Spirit we are not under the law. For against it's fruits there is no Law. A condition is placed by the word if. So if we are not led by the Spirit we are under the law, the schoolmaster.


Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

 

[Bob S]

Him said:

If they came to God they were.

Abraham came to God and he was not under the Law given at Sinai. Your statement is not true, if Gentiles lived under the Abrahamic covenant their salvation was secured. That was not so under the covenant given at Sinai. That covenant was not about salvation. That covenant was about how God wanted them to live in the land that was given to them. Not one word of that covenant could save them.

Him said:

Exod 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

God never required a Gentile to come under the dictates of the Sinai covenant. It was always by free will, so your scripture doesn't help your argument.

Him said:

And Galatians says if we are led by the Spirit we are not under the law. For against it's fruits there is no Law. A condition is placed by the word if. So if we are not led by the Spirit we are under the law, the schoolmaster.

Paul was referring to the Jews. The Gentiles were never under the Law. Gentiles actually had their own law, the one given to Abraham.


Him said:

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Beautiful verses Him. If we possess all those traits there is nothing to condemn. If we have the Royal Law of Love in our hearts, we will love others as Jesus loves us. He loves us so much He came from Heaven to live and die for all our sins in order that we too may have eternal life in Heaven with Him. Love, not Law, is our key to Heaven. Since we are not under the ritual commands of the covenant given only to Israel, we are not obligated to observe any of the rituals of the covenant. in fact, Jesus said He came to bring the Law to an end and when we try to observe its rituals, we don't respect what Jesus came and did.

 

[HIM]

Abrham came to God and he was not under the Law given at Sinai. Your statement is not true, if Gentiles lived under the Abrahamic covenant their salvation was secured. That was not so under the covenant given at Sinai. That covenant was not about salvation. That covenant was about how God wanted them to live in the land that was given to them. Not one word of that covenant could save them.


God never required a Gentile to come under the dictates of the Sinai covenant. It was always by free will, so your scripture doesn't help your argument.


Paul was referring to the Jews. The Gentiles were never under the Law. Gentiles actually had their own law, the one given to Abraham.



Beautiful verses Him. If we possess all those traits there is nothing to condemn. If we have the Royal Law of Love in our hearts, we will love others as Jesus loves us. He loves us so much He came from Heaven to live and die for all our sins in order that we too may have eternal life in Heaven with Him. Love, not Law, is our key to Heaven. Since we are not under the ritual commands of the covenant given only to Israel, we are not obligated to observe any of the rituals of the covenant. in fact, Jesus said He came to bring the Law to an end and when we try to observe its rituals, we don't respect what Jesus came to do.

This needs addressed first. Why do you erase the quote tags when you post. It is as if you want to respond but you don't want the person you responded to know. I don't typically read your post and would not have known you responded to mine if I had not taken the time to look. It isn't right. It can give a false impression that the person you responded to has no response to your opinion if they don't happen to stumble upon your post. I don't expect you to understand this but it needed said before anything else in your posted is addressed.

 

[Bob S]

This needs addressed first. Why do you erase the quote tags when you post. It is as if you want to respond but you don't want the person you responded to know. I don't typically read your post and would not have known you responded to mine if I had not taken the time to look. It isn't right. It can give a false impression that the person you responded to has no response to your opinion if they don't happen to stumble upon your post. I don't expect you to understand this but it needed said before anything else in your posted is addressed.

So, Him, you wrote: "I don't expect you to understand this." Seems like a slam doesn't it. Could it just be that I didn't realize it is a good thing to do? Also, I didn't erase anything, Him. If it will make you feel better, I will give myself 10 lashes with a wet noodle.

Even though it was harsh, thanks for the reminder.

 

[guevaraj]

You seem to think it is acceptable to deceive potentially naive readers by inserting your own words to change the meaning of the text!

Brother, happy Sabbath, which starts this Friday April 21, 2023 at 12:11 pm EDT! Paul is not the first to give us the result of disobeying God's will to separate sin from our character. We find what Paul is saying by comparing Judaism to Hagar in the story of Abel. Abel brought the firstborn lamb from his flock according to God's will, while Cain brought the fruit of the ground before God in his own "human effort" to replace what God wanted. Cain substitutes God's will with his own human will as Judaism has done when Paul compares Judaism to Hagar. Jesus tells us in Matthew below that Judaism "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces". Jesus has freed us from Judaism's sabotage of God's law through Paul, allowing the Gentiles who were turning to God to adopt God's law without human rules in Judaism, as James allowed God to fulfill the prophesy of restoring the house of David in the first Jerusalem Counsel of the church.

It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than Cain did. Abel’s offering gave evidence that he was a righteous man, and God showed his approval of his gifts. Although Abel is long dead, he still speaks to us by his example of faith. (Hebrews 11:4 NLT)​

Faith is the understanding that only God can use laws to separate sin from our character. Judaism shows that our own rules, like replacing the Sabbath in the fourth commandment with Sunday, "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces", because we are "blind guides" to use our own rules to remove sin from our character as God's laws do when obeyed.

Well then, since God’s grace has set us free from the law (of Judaism), does that mean we can go on sinning (lawlessness)? Of course not (don't misunderstand God's grace)! Don’t you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey (sin or God)? You can be a slave to sin (lawlessness), which leads to death (like Judaism's example of sabotaging God's Ten Commandments to not remove sin), or you can choose to obey God (Eleven Commandments), which leads to righteous living (freedom from sin). Thank God (Jesus's many forgivenesses as our High Priest allowing us to grow in obedience through practice of the Eleven Commandments)! Once you were slaves of sin (lawlessness), but now you wholeheartedly obey this teaching we have given you (Eleven Commandments). Now you are free from your slavery to sin (when you obey God's Eleven Commandments), and you have become slaves to righteous living (obeying the Eleven Commandments). (Romans 6:15-18 NLT overlaid with commentary)​

Hagar is not the will of God expressed on Mount Sinai but a "human attempt" to fulfill the will of God expressed on Mount Sinai. Therefore, it is not God's laws that are tied to Hagar, but human rules found in Judaism that come from sinful "blind guides" to use laws to accomplish God's will expressed on Mount Sinai.

Tell me, you who want to live under the law (the rules of Judaism that does not remove sin), do you know what the law actually says? (The law says what is sin) The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise (the promise to remove sin from our character). But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise. These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them (Judaism is enslaved in sin because they sabotaged God's law to not remove sin). And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery (slavery to sin) to the law (added by the translators, not found in the original). But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman (free from sin), and she is our mother. As Isaiah said, “Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!” And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise (the promise to remove sin from our character), just like Isaac. But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law (the rules of Judaism that does not remove sin), just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit. But what do the Scriptures say about that? “Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman; we are children of the free woman. (Galatians 4:21-31 NLT fixed and overlaid with commentary)​

Jesus says in the following passage that Judaism: "shut the door of the Kingdom of heaven in people's faces". Hagar's son to Abraham came from the human will and not from God's will to give Abraham a son through Hagar. It is not God's laws expressed on Mount Sinai that "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces", it is Judaism's human replacement rules for God's laws that "shut the door of the Kingdom of heaven in people's faces" that Jesus has freed us from through Paul.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either. “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are! “Blind guides! What sorrow awaits you! For you say that it means nothing to swear ‘by God’s Temple,’ but that it is binding to swear ‘by the gold in the Temple.’ Blind fools! Which is more important—the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred? And you say that to swear ‘by the altar’ is not binding, but to swear ‘by the gifts on the altar’ is binding. How blind! For which is more important—the gift on the altar or the altar that makes the gift sacred? When you swear ‘by the altar,’ you are swearing by it and by everything on it. And when you swear ‘by the Temple,’ you are swearing by it and by God, who lives in it. And when you swear ‘by heaven,’ you are swearing by the throne of God and by God, who sits on the throne. (Matthew 23:13-22 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[HIM]

Him said:

Abraham came to God and he was not under the Law given at Sinai. Your statement is not true, if Gentiles lived under the Abrahamic covenant their salvation was secured. That was not so under the covenant given at Sinai. That covenant was not about salvation. That covenant was about how God wanted them to live in the land that was given to them. Not one word of that covenant could save them.

Him said:

God never required a Gentile to come under the dictates of the Sinai covenant. It was always by free will, so your scripture doesn't help
your argument.

If they came to God they did though.

Him said:

Paul was referring to the Jews.

No, let's look at the passage and we will see.
From the same chapter. He is obviously speaking to the gentiles.
Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

The Gentiles were never under the Law. Gentiles actually had their own law, the one given to Abraham.

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Abraham obeyed His voice, God's Spirit and kept God's charge, His commandments, statutes and laws. He followed because he wanted to not because he had to. This is how it is and was intended for us since Adam. To obey His voice through His Spirit, to keep His charge, His commandments, statutes and laws. Jew and Gentile both have access to this since the beginning.
.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Beautiful verses Him. If we possess all those traits there is nothing to condemn. If we have the Royal Law of Love in our hearts, we will love others as Jesus loves us. He loves us so much He came from Heaven to live and die for all our sins in order that we too may have eternal life in Heaven with Him. Love, not Law, is our key to Heaven. Since we are not under the ritual commands of the covenant given only to Israel, we are not obligated to observe any of the rituals of the covenant. in fact, Jesus said He came to bring the Law to an end and when we try to observe its rituals, we don't respect what Jesus came and did.

He came to establish His Law, His Word in our hearts so we do because we want to not because we have to.

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, happy Sabbath, which starts this Friday April 21, 2023 at 12:11 pm EDT! Paul is not the first to give us the result of disobeying God's will to separate sin from our character. We find what Paul is saying by comparing Judaism to Hagar in the story of Abel. Abel brought the firstborn lamb from his flock according to God's will, while Cain brought the fruit of the ground before God in his own "human effort" to replace what God wanted. Cain substitutes God's will with his own human will as Judaism has done when Paul compares Judaism to Hagar. Jesus tells us in Matthew below that Judaism "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces". Jesus has freed us from Judaism's sabotage of God's law through Paul, allowing the Gentiles who were turning to God to adopt God's law without human rules in Judaism, as James allowed God to fulfill the prophesy of restoring the house of David in the first Jerusalem Counsel of the church.

It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than Cain did. Abel’s offering gave evidence that he was a righteous man, and God showed his approval of his gifts. Although Abel is long dead, he still speaks to us by his example of faith. (Hebrews 11:4 NLT)​

Faith is the understanding that only God can use laws to separate sin from our character. Judaism shows that our own rules, like replacing the Sabbath in the fourth commandment with Sunday, "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces", because we are "blind guides" to use our own rules to remove sin from our character as God's laws do when obeyed.

Well then, since God’s grace has set us free from the law (of Judaism), does that mean we can go on sinning (lawlessness)? Of course not (don't misunderstand God's grace)! Don’t you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey (sin or God)? You can be a slave to sin (lawlessness), which leads to death (like Judaism's example of sabotaging God's Ten Commandments to not remove sin), or you can choose to obey God (Eleven Commandments), which leads to righteous living (freedom from sin). Thank God (Jesus's many forgivenesses as our High Priest allowing us to grow in obedience through practice of the Eleven Commandments)! Once you were slaves of sin (lawlessness), but now you wholeheartedly obey this teaching we have given you (Eleven Commandments). Now you are free from your slavery to sin (when you obey God's Eleven Commandments), and you have become slaves to righteous living (obeying the Eleven Commandments). (Romans 6:15-18 NLT overlaid with commentary)​

Hagar is not the will of God expressed on Mount Sinai but a "human attempt" to fulfill the will of God expressed on Mount Sinai. Therefore, it is not God's laws that are tied to Hagar, but human rules found in Judaism that come from sinful "blind guides" to use laws to accomplish God's will expressed on Mount Sinai.

Tell me, you who want to live under the law (the rules of Judaism that does not remove sin), do you know what the law actually says? (The law says what is sin) The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise (the promise to remove sin from our character). But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise. These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them (Judaism is enslaved in sin because they sabotaged God's law to not remove sin). And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery (slavery to sin) to the law (added by the translators, not found in the original). But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman (free from sin), and she is our mother. As Isaiah said, “Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!” And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise (the promise to remove sin from our character), just like Isaac. But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law (the rules of Judaism that does not remove sin), just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit. But what do the Scriptures say about that? “Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman; we are children of the free woman. (Galatians 4:21-31 NLT fixed and overlaid with commentary)​

Jesus says in the following passage that Judaism: "shut the door of the Kingdom of heaven in people's faces". Hagar's son to Abraham came from the human will and not from God's will to give Abraham a son through Hagar. It is not God's laws expressed on Mount Sinai that "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces", it is Judaism's human replacement rules for God's laws that "shut the door of the Kingdom of heaven in people's faces" that Jesus has freed us from through Paul.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either. “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are! “Blind guides! What sorrow awaits you! For you say that it means nothing to swear ‘by God’s Temple,’ but that it is binding to swear ‘by the gold in the Temple.’ Blind fools! Which is more important—the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred? And you say that to swear ‘by the altar’ is not binding, but to swear ‘by the gifts on the altar’ is binding. How blind! For which is more important—the gift on the altar or the altar that makes the gift sacred? When you swear ‘by the altar,’ you are swearing by it and by everything on it. And when you swear ‘by the Temple,’ you are swearing by it and by God, who lives in it. And when you swear ‘by heaven,’ you are swearing by the throne of God and by God, who sits on the throne. (Matthew 23:13-22 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

Brother, Grace and peace to you!

This came to my mind while reading your post

Bible Gateway passage: James 2:10 - New Living Translation

For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God’s laws.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[expos4ever]

Abel brought the firstborn lamb from his flock according to God's will, while Cain brought the fruit of the ground before God in his own "human effort" to replace what God wanted. Cain substitutes God's will with his own human will as Judaism has done when Paul compares Judaism to Hagar.

Paul never compares Judaism to Hagar in the sense that you mean. To sustain your non-scriptural position about the status of the law, you are forced to rewrite what Paul is saying in Galatians 3 and 4. Paul characterizes the Jew who is subject to the Law of Moses as being in slavery. This is clear from the context as we will see.

But you cannot allow this - you want it to be the case that the Law does not enslave. So you insist that Paul is saying that Paul is comparing Hagar to those who would distort the Law with human tradition.

What does context say? You cannot afford to analyze Paul's words in context as they will undermine your claim.

Starting at the beginning of chapter 3:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

Why are the Galatians "bewitched"? Paul implies here that it is because they falsely think that the Spirit is given by doing the works of the Law of Moses. We already see that Paul's critique is directed to those who would look to the Law - as, frankly, you do.

Human tradition, or "Judaism" as you would call it, is nowhere in sight.

More later - this is just the beginning of a context-based argument that will show that your Hagar analysis is off target.

 

[Bob S]

Him said:

If they came to God they did though.

Did what?

Him said:

No, let's look at the passage and we will see.
From the same chapter. He is obviously speaking to the gentiles.
Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

The first part of Gal 3 Paul was chastising the mostly Gentile Galatian church. Later in the chapter He was referring to the Jews and their laws. When reading Gal 3 one must realize Gentiles were never under the dictates of the covenant given to Israel.

In Gal5:7 Paul was telling the Galatians that in the beginning they were living by faith then the Jews that didn't accept the Gospel came and convinced them that they had to keep the old covenant laws. The same thing is happening on this forum. Some well-intentioned are trying to convince us we have to keep the ritual laws that were intended only for Israel which includes the weekly Sabbath. They are teaching that Paul was really wrong when he preached salvation by faith, not by the works of the Law.

Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Romans 4:14
For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless,
Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:11
Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”


Him said:

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Abraham obeyed His voice, God's Spirit and kept God's charge, His commandments, statutes and laws. He followed because he wanted to not because he had to. This is how it is and was intended for us since Adam. To obey His voice through His Spirit, to keep His charge, His commandments, statutes and laws. Jew and Gentile both have access to this since the beginning.

God has had rules for man since the beginning. Trying to convnce others that those rules were the same as the ones given to Israel is perposterious.

Him said:

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

I don't understand what you are trying to prove.

Him said:

He came to establish His Law, His Word in our hearts so we do because we want to not because we have to.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Jesus came to fulfill, bring an end to the Law. The Law was contained in the Sinai covenant which ended when the new and better covenant was ratified at Calvary with Jesus own blood. Eph 2: 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,

 

[expos4ever]

Paul is not the first to give us the result of disobeying God's will to separate sin from our character. We find what Paul is saying by comparing Judaism to Hagar in the story of Abel. Abel brought the firstborn lamb from his flock according to God's will, while Cain brought the fruit of the ground before God in his own "human effort" to replace what God wanted. Cain substitutes God's will with his own human will as Judaism has done when Paul compares Judaism to Hagar.

As stated in previous post, this idea that Paul sees Hagar as a model for "human efforts to replace the Law" does not work given the context. Instead, it is clear that Paul sees Hagar as a model for the Jews under the Law of Moses. This is big, crucial difference.

Here is more evidence from Galatians 3 that it is the Law of Moses, not "Judaism", that Paul sees as problematic:

For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them.......Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law

Is Paul talking about the problem of "human effort" / "Judaism"? No, he is clearly saying that people who pursue the works of the Law of Moses who are under a curse. Once more, "human effort" / "Judaism" is nowhere in sight.

And next we get as clear a statement as one could ask for, despite the desperate contortions people will undertake to make it say something else, to the effect that the time of the Law of Moses has come to an end:

Therefore the Law has become our guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

And next we get this:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is [ak]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus

Paul is emphasizing the unity of Jew and Gentile. How could such unity be achieved? As is so clearly argued in Ephesians 2, it is through the retirement of the Law of Moses, that this is effected as the Law functioned to clearly demarcate the Jews as a distinct people.

Before I move to Galatians 4, I want to make a point about method. I am arguing from context, taking Paul's word at face value. You, I suggest, do the following: (a) you ignore context; (b) you manufacture theories with no supporting evidence; and, worst of all, (c) you take it upon yourself to take an editor's pen to holy writ and change the very words of scripture, claiming that you are "fixing" it.

 

[expos4ever]

Brother, happy Sabbath, which starts this Friday April 21, 2023 at 12:11 pm EDT! Paul is not the first to give us the result of disobeying God's will to separate sin from our character. We find what Paul is saying by comparing Judaism to Hagar in the story of Abel. Abel brought the firstborn lamb from his flock according to God's will, while Cain brought the fruit of the ground before God in his own "human effort" to replace what God wanted. Cain substitutes God's will with his own human will as Judaism has done when Paul compares Judaism to Hagar.

As stated in previous posts, this idea that Paul sees Hagar as a model for "human efforts to replace the Law" does not work given the context. Instead, it is clear that Paul sees Hagar as a model for the Jews under the Law of Moses. This is big, crucial difference.

We have gone through chapter 3 and clearly seen that, when it comes to the matter of the Law, Paul is talking about the problem of the Jew who clings to the Law of Moses, not of the Jew (or anyone for that matter) who is trying to make it on "human effort".

Now then, chapter 4. I confess that it is not clear to me exactly what Paul is talking about in the first 11 verses where he refers to "enslavement under elementary principles". I think that, consistent with the theme of chapter 3 about how the law has been a problem for the Jew (For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse;), he is, again, referring, at least in part, to enslavement to the Law. Note this from Galatians 1-2:

Now I say, as long as the heir is a [a]child, he does not differ at all from a slave, although he is [b]owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and [c]managers until the [d]date set by the father

Now what has Paul just said in chapter 3 about, yes, the Law?

But before faith came, [ah]we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our [ai]guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [aj]guardian.

I suggest the connection is rather clear: while Paul may have other concerns in 4:1-11, he is still bundling up the Law of Moses in the package of things to which people are "enslaved". The Law is clearly the guardian in chapter 3, so when we encounter a guardian in chapter 4, you do not need to be Albert Einstein to conclude it is, yes, the Law, that is this guardian.

Anyhoo, things get much clearer as we approach the Hagar analogy that set of this whole thing:

Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the Law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman...

Paul could not have been more clear - it is the Law of Moses, not "Judaism" or "human effort" that is that the Hagar analogy is all about.

And if that we not clear enough, look at this:

23 But the son by the slave woman [s]was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 [t]This is speaking allegorically, for these women are two covenants: one coming from Mount Sinai giving birth to children [u]who are to be slaves; [v]she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is enslaved with her children

Again, how can Paul possibly be misunderstood. What happened at Mount Sinai which Paul equates to Hagar? The Jews were given, yes, the Law.

Ok, then, let's recap: I have shown using context and unaltered Scripture that the Hagar analogy is that of the Jew under the Law of Moses. You, by contrast, avoid providing a contextual argument (since you would have to know that this would blow up in your face) and you have the gumption to "fix", Scripture to force it to fit your view. To wit:

Tell me, you who want to live under the law (the rules of Judaism that does not remove sin),.... (Galatians 4:21-31 NLT fixed and overlaid with commentary)

Let no one be duped - the bit about "the rules of Judaism" is added material intended to distort the meaning.

 

[expos4ever]

Faith is the understanding that only God can use laws to separate sin from our character.

I understand that you are motivated to argue the law is still in force, but what is your specifically Biblical support for this idea that faith is about God using laws?

Judaism shows that our own rules, like replacing the Sabbath in the fourth commandment with Sunday,

Obvious circular argument - you assume the very thing that is under debate. We get it - you think the Sabbath Law still applies; but you need to make an actual case.

Well then, since God’s grace has set us free from the law (of Judaism),..... (Romans 6:15-18 NLT overlaid with commentary)

You continue to take it upon yourself to "correct" Paul and hope to preserve a patina of legitimacy by slipping in with it with the "with commentary" annotation at the end.

How about trying "with commentary that is Biblically justified"? We all know that you have added "(of Judaism") - it is not in the original.

Now you are free from your slavery to sin (when you obey God's Eleven Commandments), and you have become slaves to righteous living (obeying the Eleven Commandments). (Romans 6:15-18 NLT overlaid with commentary)

Let no naive reader fall for this deceptive edit - the original text does not say anything remotely close to characterizing righteous living as "obeying the 11 commandments", with the very notion of 11 commandments being yet another of your imaginative additions to the word of God.

 

[guevaraj]

As stated in previous post, this idea that Paul sees Hagar as a model for "human efforts to replace the Law" does not work given the context. Instead, it is clear that Paul sees Hagar as a model for the Jews under the Law of Moses. This is big, crucial difference.

Brother, happy Sabbath, which starts this Friday April 28, 2023 at 12:16 pm EDT! The "curse" and the "guardian" examples are evidence that the problem for Paul is Judaism's human replacement rules for God's law when Paul compares Judaism to Hagar. For example, instead of obeying God by learning to use His name properly, Judaism replaced God's Third Commandment with their own human rule to not utter God's name at all, thus disobeying to learn to use God's name properly. Paul tells us in the next passage that Judaism is under a curse because Judaism does not obey "all" that God asked, as Jesus confirmed by saying that they "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces" by having them disobey the Third Commandment of using God's name properly when they choose not to use God's name at all. Placing Judaism under the curse because they do not obey "all" that God asked, like Cain chose not to obey what God asked. Cain's disobedience is in contrast to his brother Abel, who did "all" that God asked. Abel is an example of faith for all of us who follow Abel's faith of obeying God and not human replacement rules like Cain did, instead of obeying God. God is not a blind guide to remove sin like Cain and the rest of the human race are blind guides, making it possible for God to use laws to separate sin from our character through the practice of daily repetition made clear by the death of so many animal sacrifices before the Father made Jesus our High Priest to forgive sins through prayer. A practice of daily repetition like someone learning to master playing the piano, which Paul calls slavery to righteous living.

But those who depend on the law (of Judaism) to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law (which Judaism does not obey when they replace the proper use of God's name in the Third Commandment with not using God's name at all).” So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law (of Judaism). For the Scriptures say, “It is through faith (that obeys all that God commands in contrast to human rules by blind guides replacing what God commands) that a righteous person has life.” This way of faith (that obeys all that God commands and not human rules by blind guides replacing what God commands) is very different from the way of law (of Judaism), which says, “It is through obeying the law (of Judaism) that a person has life.” (Galatians 3:10-12 NLT overlaid with commentary)​

When Paul's use of the word law alone is properly understood to refer to the law of Judaism, we understand that the guardian was Judaism until Jesus could give us a more complete example to follow of how to obey the law of God than a brief written list of Ten Commandments could have allowed a sinful human to master without Jesus' example to follow. To understand this comparison I will use the analogy of replacing a broken window. No doubt it is more complete to follow a professional installer's example, than the instructions in a brief manual. Judaism tried to obey the Third Commandment of not misusing God's name by not pronouncing His name at all. They would have learned to use God's name properly had they done what God asked instead of replacing what God asked with their own "human effort" to obey, like when humans decided to use Hagar to give God's promised son to Abraham. A "human effort" by Judaism that did not allow people to learn to properly use God's name. Thus, putting themselves under the curse of not obeying "all" the Ten Commandments God asked. Faith in Christ's example to follow goes further than the guardian of Judaism to finally put our faith in obeying "all" God asks instead of our own replacement rules like Sunday for the Sabbath in the Fourth Commandment. We are blind guides to know how to remove sin through laws, like God removes sin through His Ten Commandments when obeyed.

Before the way of faith in Christ (being an example to follow) was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law (of Judaism). We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith (in Christ's example to follow) was revealed. Let me put it another way. The law (of Judaism) was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith (in Christ's example to follow). And now that the way of faith (in Christ's example to follow) has come, we no longer need the law (of Judaism) as our guardian. (Galatians 3:23-25 NLT overlaid with commentary)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Brothers and Sisters

I wanted to respond with "the law of Judaism" but since it was God who gave the Law through Moses it is primarily the Law of God intended for the people of Israel.

 

[expos4ever]

Brother, happy Sabbath, which starts this Friday April 28, 2023 at 12:16 pm EDT! The "curse" and the "guardian" examples are evidence that the problem for Paul is Judaism's human replacement rules for God's law when Paul compares Judaism to Hagar.

No, no, and no again. This is pure fiction intended to forcefully impose a specific meaning on the text and in, doing so, you do enormous violence to the relevant texts. Let's talk first about the guardian from Galatians 3.

That guardian is the Law of Moses, not "Judaism's replacement for the Law of Moses" - a 10 year-old child could see this:

19Why the Law then? It was added on account of the [aa]violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a [ab]mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not [ac]for one party only; but God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? [ad]Far from it! For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness [ae]would indeed have been [af]based on law. 22 But the Scripture has confined [ag]everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, [ah]we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our [ai]guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [aj]guardian.

Just look at the butchery you have to inflict on Paul's words to make your case:

In verse 19 Paul makes an obvious reference to, yes, the Law of Moses! Are you seriously going to suggest that a "law" of human rules was ordered by angels. That, of course, is not remotely possible. So what is your recourse - you are forced to concede that Paul is talking about the Law of Moses here. This puts your position in jeopardy from the outset as you have to concede that what is on Paul's mind is the Law of Moses and you are going to have to make a case that by the time we get to the guardian image, he has shifted to a focus on Judaism. As we will see, there is zero evidence of this. What do you think Paul is talking about in verse 20 when he refers to the Law? Please do not evade this question as I will hold you to it.

In verses 20 and 21, it is clear that Paul continues to talk about the Law of Moses. Do you dispute this? Please do not evade this question as I will hold you to it.

Verse 22 does not refer to the Law of Moses, but neither is there a shred of evidence that Paul is changing his focus to the "law of Judaism". Do you claim that verse 22 supports a shift in focus to the "law of Judaism"? Please do not evade this question as I will hold you to it.

Verses 23 and Verse 24: verse 23 refers to the role of "the Law" in keeping Israel in check until Christ. And the word "custody" is used - which is precisely the role of a guardian - to keep something in custody. Any notion that this "law" has magically become "the law of Judaism" is blown out of the water by verse 24 where Paul clearly sets the "Law" in the position of a guardian used by God to lead us to faith. Are you really going to suggest that Paul is saying that God planned that the "law of Judaism" could be this guardian. On what basis do you defend such an astonishing claim given that it is indisputable that Paul has been using the word "law" in verses 19 and onward to refer to the Law of Moses?

Note differences in how each of us approaches this. I make my case based on context. As we see from this and other posts of yours, you simply make an unsupported claim about what a particular text means and then have the temerity to "edit" the Biblical text so it fits your position.

It is beyond obvious - the guardian in Galatians 3 is the Law of Moses and I challenge you (and anyone else who is witness to the crimes of exegesis we see in this thread) to name a reputable non-SDA theologian who believes otherwise.

 

[Leaf473]

I wanted to respond with "the law of Judaism" but since it was God who gave the Law through Moses it is primarily the Law of God intended for the people of Israel.

I think this is an interesting passage about the law of Moses being called the law of God. Of course, almost no one thinks that the laws that Luke refers to are for Christians today.

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 2:22-24 - New American Standard Bible

And when the days for their purification according to the Law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord: “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[guevaraj]

Are you seriously going to suggest that a "law" of human rules was ordered by angels. That, of course, is not remotely possible.

Brother, happy Sabbath, which starts this Friday May 5, 2023 at 12:21 pm EDT! What came from God is the word "order" (diatassó) and not the word "law" (nomos) in the passage. Paul's use of another word than "law" to refer to God's will through prophets like Moses, undoubtedly shows what is verified by comparing Judaism with Hagar: Paul's use of the word "law" refers to the human will to give Abraham a son through Hagar rather than the will of God to give Abraham a son through Sarah. In brief: Paul's "law" refers to the human will in Hagar rather than the will of God in Sarah. People have assumed the opposite, in contradiction to Paul's call to obey God, rather than Judaism's disobedience of replacing God's "order" with human "law" to make obeying more bearable by eliminating the need to learn to separate the sin that God's "order" removes if obeyed, which they nullified by human "law" skipping the cycle of removing sin through many animal sacrifices. Judaism effectively put their faith in their human "law", rather than in God's "order" through the prophets. In brief, the fact there is no doubt that Paul is using another word to refer to the will of God shows that Paul's use of the word "law" does not refer to the will of God shared by the prophets like Moses. There is no change in focus in the use of the word "law" by Paul in the following passage, because when Paul refers to God's "order" through the prophets, Paul uses a different word: "order" (diatassó) than the word "law" (nomos), which he reserves to refer to the human "law" of Judaism. The translators have changed words, mystifying what was plain, by causing the translation to lean toward their established views, which were governed by tradition. They changed the word "added" (prostithémi) to "given", because the translators assumed the word "law" to be God's "order" through the prophets, in contradiction to the rest of Paul's message when he tells us to obey God rather than sin in what he calls "slaves to righteous living" rather than "slave to sin". "Slave to sin" by blind guides replacing God's "order" through the prophets with human "law" that allow them to keep the sin that God's "order" through the prophets was given to remove. For example, instead of obeying God by learning to use His name properly, Judaism replaced God's Third Commandment with their own human law to not utter God's name at all, thus disobeying to learn to use God's name properly. As Jesus tells us, Judaism "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces" with their own human "law" replacing God's "order" through the prophets.

Why, then, was the law (of Judaism) added? It was added alongside the promise (of the glory of God in the Ten Commandments) to show people their sins. But the law (of Judaism) was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised (to be the glory of God as the example to follow). God gave his order through messengers (known as prophets), who are the mediator (like Moses) between God and the people. Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham. (Galatians 3:19-20 NLT fixed and overlaid with commentary)​

Paul used the word “order” by the prophets as distinct from the word “law” by the Jews, comparing them to Hagar. Hagar means the word "law" used by Paul clearly refers to human "law" when Paul compares Judaism to Hagar. God's “order” through the prophets is a subset of all the laws of the Jews. Paul does not want us to follow the human “law” of the Jews, but he does want us to follow God's “order" through the prophets as a subset of all the laws of the Jews. Paul’s use of the word “law” does not refer to God's “order” through the prophets, as people have assumed, in contradiction to Paul telling us in the following passage that he does obey God's “order” through the prophets for a total of Eleven Commandments in the new covenant. In the next passage, Paul wants us to obey God rather than sin. Sin is kept by human "law" that was added to Judaism by blind guides whom Jesus tells us “shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces”. They do this by their own human "law", replacing God's "order" through the prophets. God's "order" through the prophets is for all believers that put their faith in God's ability to use His "order" through the prophets to separate sin from our character, that human "law" by the Jews sabotaged to not remove sin because they are blind guides putting their faith in their human "law" when their "human effort" to obey led to keeping their sin rather than separate from their sin by putting their faith in God's "order" through the prophets as written.

Well then, since God’s grace has set us free from the law (of Judaism), does that mean we can go on sinning (lawlessness)? Of course not (don't misunderstand God's grace)! Don’t you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey (sin or God)? You can be a slave to sin (lawlessness), which leads to death (like Judaism's example of sabotaging God's Ten Commandments to not remove sin when they replace the proper use of God's name in the Third Commandment with not using God's name at all), or you can choose to obey God (Eleven Commandments), which leads to righteous living (freedom from sin). Thank God (Jesus' many forgivenesses as our High Priest allowing us to grow in obedience through the repetitive practice of the Eleven Commandments)! Once you were slaves of sin (lawlessness), but now you wholeheartedly obey this teaching we have given you (Eleven Commandments). Now you are free from your slavery to sin (when you obey God's Eleven Commandments), and you have become slaves to righteous living (obeying the Eleven Commandments). (Romans 6:15-18 NLT overlaid with commentary)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge