Gal 3 And Vs Law

[Cribstyl]

Gal 3:1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?


Gal 3:2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if [it be] yet in vain.
Gal 3:5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal 3:10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 3:12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Gal 3:13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:



From these lessons from text posted above, it appears that Christians who demand that you keep "this law or that law" are tricking people about what is called "obeying the truth" that God requires of us.(Gal 3:1)


The preaching of the law is contrary to the preaching of faith(Gal 3:2)


The text plainly says..Gal 3:12And the law is not of faith:


Paul is teaching all christians that the law is clearly not the standard of righteousness that God will judge the world. Gal 3:11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, ​

Some wont deny that the law is that schoolmaster, but somehow they want you to believe that, only children age need schooling and you've graduated and now have the law written on your heart. That explanation sounds good but it contradict clear doctrine you can read from the bible. You have to chose between reason or simple understanding the words written to keep you saved. Faith is based of belief in the written word of God.

Noone is advocating sin, but we want see the true and correct Gospel taught to God's people.
By having faith we uphold what God's law are, and we can overcome the world.
God's law is, love for Him and love His people. These are what He say are His commandments are, rather than how isolated text can be used to reclaim "the law" that comdemns those who use it.
1Jo 5:5 (Anyone who care to read 1John, would learn only about the 2commandments that John heard from Jesus rather than the 10commandments which are termed "the ministration of death.")


We dont have to assemble as one church.
we can read and understand that some will honor God on different days.Rom 14:5
Worship and sabbathkeeping are not the same thing, this a major false argument that cause a lot of unstable people to leave their church and join another denomination


If all are to Keep sabbath where can we find a uniformed set of directives about sabbathkeeping rules from the bible?

We have to believe and preach His gospel as it is written​

 

[dead2self]

I wrote out part of a reply but accidently left the page and lost it.

So I'll just give you the link to a sermon I heard about this. I think it will help shed some light on this dillema for you. He says it way better than I could anyway.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1981/320_Why_the_Law_Was_Given/

I hope you find it helpful

 

[calluna]

We dont have to assemble as one church.

Let's not use the word 'we'. Responsible Christians fully realise that Christ's enemies will flock to the internet in order to subvert the gospel.

Christians do assemble, because of their love for Christ. They don't have to be told to do so, even though the writer of Hebrews did mention that some had given up meeting with the saints. They don't have to assemble in special buildings with pointed roofs, with chairs or pews all facing in one direction towards a raised floor with an 'altar' and other religious paraphernalia, including a man (or even a woman, these days) dressed in religious uniform, on one day in seven, for an hour or so. That is the religion of he who dresses as an angel of light and his masquerading ministers, religion designed for people like those mentioned in Hebrews. Unless the Lord directs them otherwise, Christians ignore those pagan temples.

Christians gather whenever they can, wherever they can, in each other's homes, in free moments at work, in hired halls, in any place, at any time. They call no man 'Father', because they are all brothers, and they call no man 'Reverend', because they do not blaspheme as Satan does. They have no single leader, and they all submit to the Holy Spirit, who works actively through every one of them in His various ways.

The Sabbath of Moses was a mere shadow of the reality, prophecy of the real sabbath, which is the rest from doing works for justification which comes to the born again. Any who even think of working for justification before God are like the man who gathered wood on the old Sabbath, who was stoned to death. The saint rejoices, always, because of the free gift of salvation that is appropriated only by faith, and by nothing more- not circumcision, not water baptism, not old-sabbath observance or tithing or speaking in tongues or using the KJV or any other of the 'virtuous' traps of Satan, which make faith worthless.

The old sabbath is now as appropriate as sacrificing bulls and goats. Not that many even try to keep a sabbath as the Israelites were supposed to. They turn on their central heating systems, cookers, computers, vehicle ignition and a multitude of gadgets on their man-made illusory 'sabbath'. A week of seven days is man-made. The 'week-end' is man-made. The denominations are man-made, and the day men and their denominations call 'Sunday', like its semantic derivation, is pagan, for pagans.

 

[Cribstyl]

Your comment appear as a reply to my statements as follows

We dont have to assemble as one church.
we can read and understand that some will honor God on different days.Rom 14:5
Worship and sabbathkeeping are not the same thing, this a major false argument that cause a lot of unstable people to leave their church and join another denomination


If all are to Keep sabbath where can we find a uniformed set of directives about sabbathkeeping rules from the bible?

We have to believe and preach His gospel as it is written

Let's not use the word 'we'. Responsible Christians fully realise that Christ's enemies will flock to the internet in order to subvert the gospel.

Christians do assemble, because of their love for Christ. They don't have to be told to do so, even though the writer of Hebrews did mention that some had given up meeting with the saints. They don't have to assemble in special buildings with pointed roofs, with chairs or pews all facing in one direction towards a raised floor with an 'altar' and other religious paraphernalia, including a man (or even a woman, these days) dressed in religious uniform, on one day in seven, for an hour or so. That is the religion of he who dresses as an angel of light and his masquerading ministers, religion designed for people like those mentioned in Hebrews. Unless the Lord directs them otherwise, Christians ignore those pagan temples.

Christians gather whenever they can, wherever they can, in each other's homes, in free moments at work, in hired halls, in any place, at any time. They call no man 'Father', because they are all brothers, and they call no man 'Reverend', because they do not blaspheme as Satan does. They have no single leader, and they all submit to the Holy Spirit, who works actively through every one of them in His various ways.

The Sabbath of Moses was a mere shadow of the reality, prophecy of the real sabbath, which is the rest from doing works for justification which comes to the born again. Any who even think of working for justification before God are like the man who gathered wood on the old Sabbath, who was stoned to death. The saint rejoices, always, because of the free gift of salvation that is appropriated only by faith, and by nothing more- not circumcision, not water baptism, not old-sabbath observance or tithing or speaking in tongues or using the KJV or any other of the 'virtuous' traps of Satan, which make faith worthless.

The old sabbath is now as appropriate as sacrificing bulls and goats. Not that many even try to keep a sabbath as the Israelites were supposed to. They turn on their central heating systems, cookers, computers, vehicle ignition and a multitude of gadgets on their man-made illusory 'sabbath'. A week of seven days is man-made. The 'week-end' is man-made. The denominations are man-made, and the day men and their denominations call 'Sunday', like its semantic derivation, is pagan, for pagans.

You said a mouthful and some of your explanations are bible truths.

I said "We" because there is counsel that teach us about days


Rom 14:4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

My point is Paul is teaching christians about days to honor God, not sabbathkeeping.
If we were to keep sabbath Paul would not say "whatever day you're pursuaded to honor God, it's between you and God."




Gal 4:9But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Gal 4:11I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Paul is teaching that we're not bound to observe certain days, we can keep whatever day that we're persuaded or agree to honor God. Sabbathkeeping is resting from all forms of labor its not worshipping.



Col 2:16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
Again Paul reestablish his teaching about days you keep holy and the people who make judgment on the day that you chose to respect.


Rom 14:14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.


Most Protestant who worship on Sundays, dont look at it as sabbathkeeping. They dont even know the detail requirements of keeping a sabbath holy. The texts above gives everyone the right to honor or worship God whatever day they chose.

God is Spirit, days and time only matters to man.
What texts or where do modern day sabbatarian get the rules and restriction of the sabbath?

Truth is, sabbathkeeper condemn those who dont keep the 7th day as a sabbath. Their mission is to convict and convert sundaykeepers. They focus on the 4th commandment as the gospel that they preach.



in peace and love
CRIB

 

[calluna]

My point is Paul is teaching christians about days to honor God, not sabbathkeeping.
If we were to keep sabbath Paul would not say "whatever day you're pursuaded to honor God, it's between you and God."

Quite so. That is why people who insist on anything other than the requirements of Scripture, be that keeping one day special, any day special, tithing, etc. are not 'we'. They are antichrists who will warm the toes of demons for eternity with their fervent self-immolation.

Gal 4:9But now, after that ye have known God,

Why don't you use a translation in the language that these wretches use themselves? You're quite right to quote it, but in a more potent form, please.

'Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God — or rather are known by God — how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.' Gal 4:8-11 NIV

Paul is teaching that we're not bound to observe certain days, we can keep whatever day that we're persuaded or agree to honor God.

He's not. He's talking to Galatians who were never Jews and never had any command for a Sabbath. Paul permitted ex-Jews to keep one, as a concession, provided that they were not legalistic about it. For everyone today, it is the above that counts. So not only do the saints not insist on making others observe any special day, they do not themselves observe any special day or season of any sort. The sabbath is every day, walking with Jesus is every day, and the very thought of special days is simply laughable and of Satan.

keeping is resting from all forms of labor its not worshipping.

Indeed. I explained why the difference is made.

 

[cyberlizard]

the only problem with Galatians is that, the phrase 'the law' can mean either 'the Torah', 'the commandment of circumcision', 'the oral Torah' (aka the traditions of men), or a variety of other meanings. It must be the context that drives our understanding of this key phrase.

it is the same with the phrase 'works of the law', most christians interpret this to mean, obeying the commandments, or being torah observant, or being legalistic in observance, however, in most texts we have (not discussing scriptures now) the phrase works of the law is technical language for 'living according to jewish custom, as also, the phrase 'circumcision' can mean the act of it, the command OR conversion to judaism.

the galatian church had a major problem. People were coming in saying, unless you convert to judaism, you cannot be full covenant members. so the verse says....

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? i.e. did you recieve the Spirit by becoming circumcised and becoming a Jew, or did you recieve it by faith. The answer is they recieved it by faith. They became covenant members by trusting in Yeshua, not by an act of mutilation of the flesh or conversion to Judaism.

But part of the problem is our understanding of the Abraham account. He was justified by putting his trust into action (hebrews 11) and God gave him a sign that his offspring would be covenant members, the sign; 'circumcision'. But later, even Abraham circumcised himself to show he too was a covenant member. Did this 'act of works' undoe his original faith. Of course not. The problem is when we talk about circumcision, people confuse the sign of the promise of the covenant (the sign has now come to fruition in Messiah) with the command from the Torah, and they are not the same thing.

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree: So what does this verse mean... does it mean the law is a curse. of course not. If this were the case Paul would not only be a false prophet, but also full of double standards as he says elsewhere 'the law is good' and 'its precepts good'.

So what is the curse of the law.... the curse is what the law brings about, which is seperation between God and man, so man could not come directly into God's presence (think tabernacle.)


It is strange that the book of Galatians which so many think is the nail in the coffin of the Law, uses strangely enough the Law (and the authority it entails) to argue its case!!!


Let's look at Galatians 5v2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

So if Paul says there is neither Jew nor gentile, how do we explain the timothy incident. Why did Paul have him circumcised. If it was to uphold the law, then we have an odd situation. We now have Paul saying, the law is irrelevant to Jews, but Timothy you will have to accept the fact the 'christ is of no value to you' as you are going to be circumcised according to the law.

How do we adequately explain this away. I do not think we can unless we come back to understanding all of what Paul is saying as a typical pharisee using almost all standard pharasaic teachings regarding who the messiah would be, and what he would do. Paul has to be interpreted as a Jew - not a 'christian'. I mean look at the passage about Sarah and Hagar, this is classic Jewish midrash and can be seen almost argument for argument in other jewish texts. What Paul is teaching is neither anti-jewish nor anti-torah (but church history particularly post apostlic has made us understand him that way, due to the endless anti-jewish sentiment many of the church fathers taught) - No matter which way its spun.... Marcion's teaching did not die with him. Shame!



Steve

 

[Chickapee]

this helped me to realize the law keeping is what Jesus says here very plainly
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

David knew this read all of 119 psalm for a better grasp

Psa 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. !!!!!!!

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

peace C

 

[Cribstyl]

this helped me to realize the law keeping is what Jesus says here very plainly
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Is it not common knowlege that all Jews included Jesus were under the Law? "Yes!" Jesus taught the propper application of the Law to include all the cerominial sacrifices the feasts. The Law was the words of the covenant with the Children of Israel, but now we're under the New covenant.

David knew this read all of 119 psalm for a better grasp

Psa 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Old Covenant had it's laws and the new covenant has it's commandments as well.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. !!!!!!!

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

peace C

Fulfilled means to meet all the requirements rather that strick observance of the law. The letter of the law has a death penalty attached. The Holy Spirit gives life to those who accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ by faith.
There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ.

Why does those who are under the law use isolated text to support their highlighted commentary?


In peace2
CRIB

 

[Chickapee]

Why does those who are under the law use isolated text to support their highlighted commentary?

Hi Crib ,
Im not sure.. lol ...their main point maybe ?.. peace C

 

[Cribstyl]

Why does those who are under the law use isolated text to support their highlighted commentary?

Hi Crib ,
Im not sure.. lol ...their main point maybe ?.. peace C

Hi and welcome, that's a Good answer, but context reveals how keywords are link to unsupporting text.

I must admitt that Ps119 gives ecellent knowlege about the law of God. The principles in Psalms and Proverbs should be applied to wisdom.
Have you consider that the teaching of gospel is not the teaching of the law?

Peace2
CRIB

 

[wayseer]

Have you consider that the teaching of gospel is not the teaching of the law?

Yes - and the answer maybe No!

How much did Paul understand of the importance of Jesus' sacrifice? Clearly Paul saw something which others who were closer to Jesus missed.

The earliest of Paul's letters were written some 20 years after Jesus' death -well before any known gospel written came on the scene. It is also evident that Paul went through something of a learning curve starting with the witnessing, if not the encouragement, of Stephen's stoning in 34/35 CE. (I often try to imagine just where Paul was during the final week Jesus lived - did he see something of Jesus?) What transpired to Paul was dramatic - it consequently took some time to for Paul to assimilate the meaning of what had transpired. Indeed we don't hear of him for several years after he was 'urged' to leave Jerusalem after he caused several 'incidents'.

So what was Paul wrestling with - apart from his apparent lack of diplomacy?

My present studies tend to indicate that Paul was concerned with intergrating what he saw as the atoning death by Jesus with a religious Law that stretched back to Abraham. Paul was probably better versed in the Law than Jesus and therefore knew the importance this Law played in the lives of Jews. Yet, there was something else operating - something that the 'others', James, Peter, John etc, were missing despite their close association with Jesus.

I don't think Paul realised the real significance of his work until he began to write his letter to the Romans cira 55-59 CE. Something over 20 years have passed since that day of Stephen's death and Paul's personal experience and training were now kicking in. At Rms 4:1 he writes What shall we say then, of Abraham, the father of our race?

Note his use of the collective pronoun 'our'. Clearly he was referring to the Gentiles and linking them with Abraham - the father of the Jews. Why?

We have to remember what had happened at Antioch where Peter caused division between the Jewish and Gentile converts. Paul had seen the awful possibility - that despite Jesus' atoning and sacrificial death, there was more than a distinct possibility that his Gentile converts would be coerced into accepting and following the Law of Israel and all that it meant - Jesus death would come to mean nothing.

Paul, I suspect, linked his converts with Abraham - through faith, thus bypassing the call by his Jewish friends to becomed linked with the Law.

Paul letter to the Galatians was written perhaps as early as 48 CE - at a time when his theology had not been fully worked through. Romans was a more mature understanding of his theological position.

 

[cyberlizard]

My present studies tend to indicate that Paul was concerned with intergrating what he saw as the atoning death by Jesus with a religious Law that stretched back to Abraham. Paul was probably better versed in the Law than Jesus and therefore knew the importance this Law played in the lives of Jews. Yet, there was something else operating - something that the 'others', James, Peter, John etc, were missing despite their close association with Jesus.

this is quite a difficult position for my to take seriously. By its very implication, you appear to be saying that Paul had an understanding of God's grace, which he communicated in his letters which the apostles had not received.

What is it you think Paul had grasped which the other apostles had not. Remember what Jesus said to his disciples about when they are fully trained, which they were as Jesus had ordained them through an act of s'mikah in the gospels. They had also received the spirit just as the rest of the believers, and Jesus had conferred authority on them at the close of the gospels.....

so what did Paul know and teach that they did not..... remember if we go along with a viewpoint from Paul's letters that his understanding regarding grace changed as he got older, then his earlier letters become untrustworthy and his later ones more accurate which has serious implications for the validity, reliability and inspiration of the apostolic writings.


Steve

 

[wayseer]

Hi Steve - you make good points. As I said I'm working through this and thinking aloud. I hope you allow me that laititude.

this is quite a difficult position for my to take seriously. By its very implication, you appear to be saying that Paul had an understanding of God's grace, which he communicated in his letters which the apostles had not received.

Not so much something 'which the apostles had not received', but something that quickened within Paul which did not undergo the same genesis in the others.

What is it you think Paul had grasped which the other apostles had not.

I'm not sure. But Paul saw something more - something that provided the imputus to Paul to undertake his mission with almost a singlemindness of purpose.

Remember what Jesus said to his disciples about when they are fully trained, which they were as Jesus had ordained them through an act of s'mikah in the gospels.

Indeed - which leads me to the unthinkable. Paul did not receive personally his imprimatur from Jesus but he was literally hit with something else on the road to Damascus. So, did Paul pick up something that Jesus perhaps missed?

They had also received the spirit just as the rest of the believers, and Jesus had conferred authority on them at the close of the gospels.....

Yes - but then Paul had an experience that none of the others were exposed to. Remember, Saul the persecutor became Paul the apostle to the Gentiles. Something wheeled him.

so what did Paul know and teach that they did not..... remember if we go along with a viewpoint from Paul's letters that his understanding regarding grace changed as he got older, then his earlier letters become untrustworthy and his later ones more accurate which has serious implications for the validity, reliability and inspiration of the apostolic writings.

I'm not suggesting such a radical viewpoint. I'm suggesting that what Paul realised was also a work in progress. He built on his earlier experiences and refinded his theology through those experiences.

Romans 4 is the key I think. Here Paul links the Gentiles directly with Abraham thereby bypassing the Law. Like Abraham, the Gentile believers had acted in faith. In effect, I hear Paul saying, 'You have no need to become Jews through adherence to the Law - you are heirs to Abraham through your faith'.

And it is here where I become stuck. If Yeshua had no intention of separating from his Jewish heritage what then is the connection between the two men? It can only be Jesus' death. Instead of Jesus' death being seen as an atonement for sin perhaps Paul saw it as the sacrifice that had been withheld from Abraham - and Jesus' sacrificial death - the sacrifice of an unblemished man - opened the door for Gentile's inclusion into the family of Abraham. Which may have been a reason Jesus had not gone himself to the Gentile nations and perhaps become contaminated.

Wow! I don't believe I wrote that. But there you are.

John

 

[calluna]

My present studies tend to indicate that Paul was concerned with intergrating what he saw as the atoning death by Jesus with a religious Law that stretched back to Abraham.

I think you must mean Moses. Paul described as 'dogs' those who tried to mix Moses with the atonement.

 

[cyberlizard]

Romans 4 is the key I think. Here Paul links the Gentiles directly with Abraham thereby bypassing the Law. Like Abraham, the Gentile believers had acted in faith. In effect, I hear Paul saying, 'You have no need to become Jews through adherence to the Law - you are heirs to Abraham through your faith'.

Wow! I don't believe I wrote that. But there you are.

John

i think in some ways you are hitting the nail on the head so to speak, the point of my departture from so many others, is that i see the new covenant as always having been open to jew and gentile alike.... why do i say this..... it says in ephesians 2 that we who were born gentiles were strangers to the covenants (plural) of promise.... these are two specific covenants, the abrahamic covenant (israel only) and the covenant of moses (israel only), however, it says that now we who were born with no right to take part in these covenants have the right to do so becuase we are in christ.

those covenants we can now take part in.... does this mean the sacrifices... depends which ones you mean. We are able to bring the bulls (sacrificial) of our lips..... But we as gentiles are now offered the right to keep instructions such as love your neighbour (law), love your brother as yourself (law), love the lord your god (law).... these godly instructions are now yours and by walking in them you can show yourself as someone who has been trained in righteousness by the quality of your walk (timothy).

But no, we do not have to become jews i.e. circumcised to take hold of these covenants as we are justified by putting our belief into action (faith). Now we are children of Abraham we have the right to subsequent covenants as we are his children.



Steve

 

[wayseer]

the point of my departture from so many others, is that i see the new covenant as always having been open to jew and gentile alike.... why do i say this..... it says in ephesians 2 that we who were born gentiles were strangers to the covenants (plural) of promise.... these are two specific covenants, the abrahamic covenant (israel only) and the covenant of moses (israel only), however, it says that now we who were born with no right to take part in these covenants have the right to do so becuase we are in christ.

This is what I have basically been led to believe - but I have grown hopefully wiser and I find I cannot accept something just because the Church makes a statement which sounds good.

I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting any covenant exists with the Gentiles. I think the idea of any such covenant is an exercise in expediency - it's an easy way out - it helps to smooth some rather bumpy theology.

I see faith as the key ingredient - not any covenant. I don't read of Jesus making any such covenant with the Gentiles - in fact his focus was the Nation of Israel. But at Gal 3:15ff Paul notes that the Law was received some 430 years after the initial covenant between God and Abraham and as a consequence that covenant was not to rest on 'keeping the Law' but on Abraham's faith. Not only do I suspect that the attempt to keep the 613 'Laws' by Israel is futile, it was never in God's will - as a mechanism for salvation. Therefore to 'graft' in the Gentiles around a none existing set of circumstances ('keeping the Law') seems redundant.

Which brings me back to Rms: 4 and the connection with Gen 22:16, 'I make a vow by my own name ... that I will richly bless you. Because you did this and did not keep back your only son from me ...' The parallels with the death of Jesus, God's only son, should become obvious. The difference was that God did not stay His hand with respect to his own Son. If Abraham had been willing to sacrifice his only son, God could do no less.

It therefore seems that the death of Jesus was something far more than an atonement because Israel could not keep the Law or to wipe the stain of sin created by Adam. There has to be another message involved. Jesus' death was an act of faith by God - an act of faith that had as its objective to draw all those who had not been included in the first act of faith.

I think this is what Paul was struggling to articulate - that we, us Gentiles, are grafted to God by His act of faith, just as Israel is grafted to God by Abraham's act of faith - not by anything we might do. We just have to accept.

 

[cyberlizard]

this is good, we are grafted in (to what depends in what you believe, some people say it means Jesus, some say the root of Jesse, some say Israel) and made partakers of the covenant made with Abraham, that is to say we are now his seed, and heirs to his promise.

If we are children of Abraham we are entitled to the provisions of that covenant (just like Israel), but what of the covenant with Moses? When we start looking at the law as a set of instructions for living a godly lifestyle rather than the perverse christian viewpoint that people could use it to attain a standard of righteousness we will see it more for what it is. God's instructions on the best way to live.

You allude to the fact the Jesus' sacrifice removes the stain of sin, and indeed it does, but not in this life. Otherwise the result of sin would end and we would not die. As the wages of sin is death.

I think though your closing comment needs clarification. We just have to accept. Faith is not mental assent. We must remember that the NT was written by people with a hebrew mindset (even though written in greek) and the corresponding word to 'pistis' as a verb.... it is not having faith, it is 'doing' faith. Occasionally I use the non-word 'faithing' i.e. putting what we believe into practice as faith without works is dead.

We need to as James said, look into the law of liberty (a rabbinic / 2nd temple euphemism for Torah), as in it we will find the path that leads to life. The path Jesus taught, the apostles taught and many others.

I think it is very difficuult for the church of today as it has become so far removed from its initial jewish flavour. In truth I do not think Paul would recognise very much of the protestant practices with evangelical christianity, probably more within orthodox settings, but would feel somewhat more at home within a messianic congregation, where they are doctrinally closer to his pharasaic understanding of his beliefs and practices.

Some say, but paul stopped being a jew, but then miss the point that he refers to himself in the present tense as a pharisee near the end of the book of acts. Being a pharisee is not just a doctrinal system, but a pragmatic understanding of how the Torah can be walked (halakhah).


Steve

p.s. sorry for wordy reply.

 

[Cribstyl]

Why does those who are under the law use isolated text to support their highlighted commentary?

Hi Crib ,
Im not sure.. lol ...their main point maybe ?.. peace C

What I'm saying is "their commentary uses keyword from text"........ but their teachings are not alloying God's prophet or apostle speak to God's people.

Is it that hard to post text and comment on what the apostle taught the churches?

It's obvious that some are trying to teach doctrines other than the gospel.

Peace2
CRIB

 

[cyberlizard]

the gospel according to cyberlizard

everyone is born with propensity to sin, their sins separate them from God. To gain acceptance (eternally) and right to enter into the presence of God an eternal sacrifice is required capable of covering over all our sins. This sacrifice was God himself in the person of Jesus the Messiah our Lord and Rabbi.

After being forgiven much, we should lead a life worthy of the path we are walking (timothy) (not to gain right standing with God, but to show we are saved), for if we keep on sinning no sacrifice for sins remains just the very real possibility of judgement (hebrews). How do we define what sin is and is not - the Torah (instruction/teaching) of God. The sacrifice has been made, let us not waste it by continuing to break it. For we are saved by the free gift (grace) which He bestows on those He chooses.

The day we will come when we have to give an account for all we have done (sins of omission and comission (i.e. things we did in ignorance, and things we should have done but didn't). The rightous will inherit eternal life.


Now tell me, how does the gospel I teach differ from yours.


Steve

 

[wayseer]

I think it is very difficuult for the church of today as it has become so far removed from its initial jewish flavour. In truth I do not think Paul would recognise very much of the protestant practices with evangelical christianity, probably more within orthodox settings, but would feel somewhat more at home within a messianic congregation, where they are doctrinally closer to his pharasaic understanding of his beliefs and practices.

I tend to agree but I also rest rather uneasily on an intransigent tradition. I know this means I don't accept the doctrine of an unchanging God. Which brings me back to my point - God had a change of mind - and not for the first time.

Israel was God's living witness among men but which excluded everyone else from the covenant. I'm suggested Paul saw that Jesus' death, echoing the experience of Abraham, was the sacrifice necessary to encompass all nations within God's covenant. That's why Paul left Antioch in a blaze of thunder - Peter, along with Barnabas, had split the congregation along Jew versus Gentile lines over the age old myths, circumcision and dietary requirements - a herald to return to a 'covenant' that never was. Paul knew this was not Jesus wanted.

It is all we can do is to accept. There are no strings attached to this covenant - despite what Timothy, James and others urge us to do.

It was once suggested that the Bible should be quoted while standing one one foot. Here's my attempt -

God loves us all unconditional and without reservation. In return God's asks us to demonstrate that Love to others. The rest is commentary.

No one has to do anything - except demonstrate that Love to others. In that all the Law and the Prophets is satisfied. That's what I believe Paul saw.