Gal 4 and Gal 5 and "under Law" explained without deleting God's Commandments

[BobRyan]

Given this --

Rev 14:12

• "The saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus

1 John 5:2-3

• "2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and a]">[a]observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome."

Matthew 19

• Christ said "Keep the commandments" and is asked "which ones" -- then Christ gives the same list we see Paul giving in Romans 13 -- quoting from the TEN Commandments

===============================================
Let's Read Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

In Romans 3:19-21 Paul already defined his use of the phrase "Under the Law"
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul makes the case that the Law is still binding
And it defines what sin is.
And it condemns all mankind - showing that all need salvation... need the Gospel for "All have sinned" Rom 3:23

The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.
And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?

Here Paul is expanding on what He thinks of certain Gentiles in Galatia

Gal 5
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Back to Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Why does Paul think the gentiles in Galatia are guilty of this?

ANSWER:
Gal 5
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

Ah-hah -- is that the great sin of the gentiles in Galatia??

Nope. Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised

Acts 16
a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.


Gal 5 - whether you are circumcised or not - does not matter.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God.

Repeatedly Paul teaches that while it is true that it does not matter if one is circumcised or not - yet when the gentiles in Galatia do it -- they are "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". Gal 5:4

Why?

Because they are doing it as a "sign" that they wish to be "justified by law" Gal 5:4

Where did the GENTILES in Galatia get that idea if not from Paul?

Answer: a certain small contingent of Christian Jews from Judea

Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”​

They simply made that idea up -- no OT or NT scripture required it. The Christian gentiles in Galatia were giving in to Jewish practice of "making stuff up" and setting their own tradition = the Bible.

Gal 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic.

• Paul now tells the reader he is switching over from real-life-literal to "symbolic".
• In real life it is the children of Isaac son of Sarah that gather at Sinai - not the children Ishmael son of Hagar.

So this is not Paul claiming that Moses and Elijah who stand "with Christ" in Matthew 17 - in glory-- are standing in opposition to Christ, opposition to Grace, opposition to the Gospel.

Gal 4
For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

Paul argues that in rejecting the Messiah -- The non-Christian Jews (as well as Christian Jews that choose to "make stuff up" place tradition above the Bible) -- and by symbol - Jerusalem as their capital - stand in opposition to the Gospel - as a counterfeit to it - just as Hagar and Ishmael represented a counterfeit to the promise - that was to come through Sarah's son Isaac.


Gal 4
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jerusalem above "is mother of us all" - of both Christian gentiles and Christian Jews. Our "heritage" our "national and family identity" is united in the "Jerusalem above" which was in heaven at the time of Sinai and still is to this very day.

Paul is taking away the "heritage problem" that he brings up in Gal 4

8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.

That was the gentile pagan "heritage" and that is apparently what the Christian Jews promoting circumcision of gentiles were selling them - a "deal" for getting rid of their pagan heritage by identifying with literal Jews or by engaging in other forms of syncretism

9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.


Gal 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now

Indeed - Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews from Judea

 

[drjean]

There appears to be a choice that the Jews of that time could make, and perhaps still? The Gentiles, having never been under the Law did not have to keep the Law (613 of them God-given to the Israelites to try and show them no man can keep the whole law) but were encouraged to keep the New Covenant Commandments of love.

Paul wrote to the Jews at that time trying to explain how if they choose to stay under the law and try to keep it, they will be judged by that law (and found lacking?)

We have a similar situation within the Gentiles of "today" who insist upon adding "works" to their salvation requirement. They will also be judged the same, and their works will not be sufficient for salvation. (For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God).

Does this agree with your findings?

 

[Sageykins]

A very dishonorable topic for those claiming honor and entitlement.

 

[BobRyan]

A very dishonorable topic for those claiming honor and entitlement.

There is a clear degree of "harrumph!" in that post - but no effort to prove anything by scripture. You knew that right?

So then - Christians have no right to study or discuss this topic?

really??

 

[BobRyan]

There appears to be a choice that the Jews of that time could make, and perhaps still? The Gentiles, having never been under the Law did not have to keep the Law (613 of them God-given to the Israelites to try and show them no man can keep the whole law)

On the contrary

Isaiah 56:6-8 gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping
Isaiah 66:23 "All mankind" specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping for all eternity after the cross and New Earth.
Mark 2:27 - all mankind specifically identified as the recipients of the Sabbath "the Sabbath was made for mankind"

It has "always" been a sin for gentiles to 'take God's name in vain" Exodus 20:7 and we all know it.

Rom 3:19-21 the Law of God has in all ages condemned all mankind as sinners as we are reminded in the OP.

In the NT - Sin "continues" to be defined as "transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4

The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 "I will write My LAW on their heart and mind" - the moral LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers included the Ten Commandments -- a Bible detail so obvious that even these pro-sunday groups admit to it.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

Paul wrote to the Jews at that time trying to explain how if they choose to stay under the law and try to keep it, they will be judged by that law (and found lacking?)

We have a similar situation within the Gentiles of "today" who insist upon adding "works" to their salvation requirement. They will also be judged the same, and their works will not be sufficient for salvation. (For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God).

Does this agree with your findings?

Paul never condemns those who choose to honor their parents or who choose not take God' s name in vain.

Notice Eph 6:2 "Honor your father and mother for this is the first commandment with a promise" -- first commandment in what list? the only one in the OT where that comand is the first one with a promise -- is the TEN Commandments.

Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

 

[1stcenturylady]

On the contrary

Isaiah 56:6-8 gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping
Isaiah 66:23 "All mankind" specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping for all eternity after the cross and New Earth.
Mark 2:27 - all mankind specifically identified as the recipients of the Sabbath "the Sabbath was made for mankind"

It has "always" been a sin for gentiles to 'take God's name in vain" Exodus 20:7 and we all know it.

Rom 3:19-21 the Law of God has in all ages condemned all mankind as sinners as we are reminded in the OP.

In the NT - Sin "continues" to be defined as "transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4

The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 "I will write My LAW on their heart and mind" - the moral LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers included the Ten Commandments -- a Bible detail so obvious that even these pro-sunday groups admit to it.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism




Paul never condemns those who choose to honor their parents or who choose not take God' s name in vain.

Notice Eph 6:2 "Honor your father and mother for this is the first commandment with a promise" -- first commandment in what list? the only one in the OT where that comand is the first one with a promise -- is the TEN Commandments.

Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

The second law of the New Covenant commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself. The last six OT commandments were the only commandments that Jesus said to keep while He was living under the law. They partially embody the New Covenant law of love your neighbor. But the New Covenant second law goes deeper to the core of sin, not just the outward action. And the first commandment of the New Covenant takes sin completely out of us and fills us with the Holy Spirit. The Ten Commandments cannot compare.

 

[BobRyan]

The second law of the New Covenant commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself.

True --(except there is no "second law of the New Covenant commandments" phrase found in the Bible)

Leviticus 19:18 does say that we are to love our neighbor as ourself.

And Deut 6:5 does say that we are to love God with all of our heart.

And the New Covenant is found here Jeremiah 31:31-33 saying nothing at all about "first or second law" .. only that the moral LAW of God (the one that defines sin vs righteousness) known to Jeremiah and his readers is "written on the heart" under the New Covenant.

Ezek 36:26 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Matthew 22 - before the cross - Jesus reminds us that both he and the Jews agree that these two commandments are the bedrock foundation for all "the LAW and the Prophets" -- all of scripture -- all of the Word of God.

 

[1stcenturylady]

True --

Leviticus 19:18 does say that we are to love our neighbor as ourself.

And Deut 6:5 does say that we are to love God with all of our heart.

And the New Covenant is found here Jeremiah 31:31-33 saying nothing at all about "first or second law" .. only that the moral LAW of God (the one that defines sin vs righteousness) known to Jeremiah and his readers is "written on the heart" under the New Covenant.

Ezek 36:26 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Matthew 22 - before the cross - Jesus reminds us that both he and the Jews agree that these two commandments are the bedrock foundation for all "the LAW and the Prophets" -- all of scripture -- all of the Word of God.

I told you the second New Covenant commandment. What is the first New Covenant commandment?

 

[klutedavid]

Given this --

Rev 14:12

• "The saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus

1 John 5:2-3

• "2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and a]">[a]observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome."

Matthew 19

• Christ said "Keep the commandments" and is asked "which ones" -- then Christ gives the same list we see Paul giving in Romans 13 -- quoting from the TEN Commandments

===============================================
Let's Read Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

In Romans 3:19-21 Paul already defined his use of the phrase "Under the Law"
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul makes the case that the Law is still binding
And it defines what sin is.
And it condemns all mankind - showing that all need salvation... need the Gospel for "All have sinned" Rom 3:23

The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.
And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?

Here Paul is expanding on what He thinks of certain Gentiles in Galatia

Gal 5
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Back to Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Why does Paul think the gentiles in Galatia are guilty of this?

ANSWER:
Gal 5
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

Ah-hah -- is that the great sin of the gentiles in Galatia??

Nope. Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised

Acts 16
a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.


Gal 5 - whether you are circumcised or not - does not matter.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God.

Repeatedly Paul teaches that while it is true that it does not matter if one is circumcised or not - yet when the gentiles in Galatia do it -- they are "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". Gal 5:4

Why?

Because they are doing it as a "sign" that they wish to be "justified by law" Gal 5:4

The law includes the ten commandments, the book of the covenant was the ten commandments. Why do you see the ten commandments as not being the law?

 

[BobRyan]

The law includes the ten commandments,

Certainly that is true.

Thus the New Covenant "Will write My Law on their heart" - includes the Ten Commandments.

And Eph 6:2 saying that the 5th commandment is the "first commandment with a promise" - is accurate for the context is the "first commandment in the ten commandments" which is what NT saints are looking at.

Why do you see the ten commandments as not being the law?

I find your logic "illusive" at that point.

 

[BobRyan]

I told you the second New Covenant commandment. What is the first New Covenant commandment?

Indeed you keep quoting your phrase "first new covenant commandment" -- not sure why

 

[BobRyan]

Given this --

Rev 14:12

• "The saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus

1 John 5:2-3

• "2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and a]">[a]observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome."

Matthew 19

• Christ said "Keep the commandments" and is asked "which ones" -- then Christ gives the same list we see Paul giving in Romans 13 -- quoting from the TEN Commandments

===============================================
Let's Read Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

In Romans 3:19-21 Paul already defined his use of the phrase "Under the Law"
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul makes the case that the Law is still binding
And it defines what sin is.
And it condemns all mankind - showing that all need salvation... need the Gospel for "All have sinned" Rom 3:23

The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.
And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?

Here Paul is expanding on what He thinks of certain Gentiles in Galatia

Gal 5
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Back to Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Why does Paul think the gentiles in Galatia are guilty of this?

ANSWER:
Gal 5
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

Ah-hah -- is that the great sin of the gentiles in Galatia??

Nope. Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised

Acts 16
a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.


Gal 5 - whether you are circumcised or not - does not matter.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God.

Repeatedly Paul teaches that while it is true that it does not matter if one is circumcised or not - yet when the gentiles in Galatia do it -- they are "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". Gal 5:4

Why?

Because they are doing it as a "sign" that they wish to be "justified by law" Gal 5:4

Where did the GENTILES in Galatia get that idea if not from Paul?

Answer: a certain small contingent of Christian Jews from Judea

Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”​

They simply made that idea up -- no OT or NT scripture required it. The Christian gentiles in Galatia were giving in to Jewish practice of "making stuff up" and setting their own tradition = the Bible.

Gal 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic.

• Paul now tells the reader he is switching over from real-life-literal to "symbolic".
• In real life it is the children of Isaac son of Sarah that gather at Sinai - not the children Ishmael son of Hagar.

So this is not Paul claiming that Moses and Elijah who stand "with Christ" in Matthew 17 - in glory-- are standing in opposition to Christ, opposition to Grace, opposition to the Gospel.

Gal 4
For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

Paul argues that in rejecting the Messiah -- The non-Christian Jews (as well as Christian Jews that choose to "make stuff up" place tradition above the Bible) -- and by symbol - Jerusalem as their capital - stand in opposition to the Gospel - as a counterfeit to it - just as Hagar and Ishmael represented a counterfeit to the promise - that was to come through Sarah's son Isaac.


Gal 4
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jerusalem above "is mother of us all" - of both Christian gentiles and Christian Jews. Our "heritage" our "national and family identity" is united in the "Jerusalem above" which was in heaven at the time of Sinai and still is to this very day.

Paul is taking away the "heritage problem" that he brings up in Gal 4

8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.

That was the gentile pagan "heritage" and that is apparently what the Christian Jews promoting circumcision of gentiles were selling them - a "deal" for getting rid of their pagan heritage by identifying with literal Jews or by engaging in other forms of syncretism

9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.


Gal 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now

Indeed - Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews from Judea

Why do you see the ten commandments as not being the law?

I find your logic "illusive" just then

 

[1stcenturylady]

Indeed you keep quoting your phrase "first new covenant commandment" -- not sure why

Just want to make sure you remember what it is? Can you quote it?

Hint: If the second one is love your neighbor, what is number 1?

This question is for Bob Ryan. No help from the peanut gallery!

 

[klutedavid]

Certainly that is true.

Thus the New Covenant "Will write My Law on their heart" - includes the Ten Commandments.

And Eph 6:2 saying that the 5th commandment is the "first commandment with a promise" - is accurate for the context is the "first commandment in the ten commandments" which is what NT saints are looking at.



I find your logic "illusive" at that point.

Bob, the first and second commandments in the law are below.

Matthew 22:36-39
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

Jesus numbered them, the first and the second commandments, in the law.

And Eph 6:2 saying that the 5th commandment is the "first commandment with a promise" - is accurate for the context is the "first commandment in the ten commandments" which is what NT saints are looking at.

Why are you referring to one of the ten commandments? When Jesus has indicated the first and second commandments!

The fifth commandment is the first commandment with a promise attached to it, a long life.

I find your interpretation utterly illusive.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, the first and second commandments in the law are below.

Matthew 22:36-39
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of the mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.

Why are you referring to one of the ten commandments? When Jesus has indicated the first and second commandments!

Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.

The point remains

The fifth commandment is the first commandment with a promise attached to it, a long life.

In that unit of "TEN"

Yet - Not mentioned at all in Matthew 22.

 

[klutedavid]

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of the mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.

Every other commandment or law follows after the two greatest commandments.



Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.

The point remains



In that unit of "TEN"

Yet - Not mentioned at all in Matthew 22.

Bob, once again.

Are these two commandments below, the first and the second commandments in the law?

Matthew 22:36-39
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, once again.

Are these two commandments below, the first and the second commandments in the law?

Matthew 22:36-39
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

Jesus said they are the greatest commandments in the law.

David - once again, (as you continue to ignore every detail in the posts)

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.

Just as Jesus points to SIX of the TEN commandments in Matthew 19.

The point remains

And as Paul reminds us -- the fifth commandment is the first commandment with a promise
In that unit of "TEN" - Eph 6:2

Yet - Not mentioned at all in Matthew 22.

(hopefully you will ask for these Bible details to be repeated a few more times - by insisting on ignoring them)

 

[listed]

Given this --

Rev 14:12

• "The saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus

1 John 5:2-3

• "2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and a]">[a]observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome."

Matthew 19

• Christ said "Keep the commandments" and is asked "which ones" -- then Christ gives the same list we see Paul giving in Romans 13 -- quoting from the TEN Commandments

===============================================
Let's Read Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

In Romans 3:19-21 Paul already defined his use of the phrase "Under the Law"
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul makes the case that the Law is still binding
And it defines what sin is.
And it condemns all mankind - showing that all need salvation... need the Gospel for "All have sinned" Rom 3:23

The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.
And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?

Here Paul is expanding on what He thinks of certain Gentiles in Galatia

Gal 5
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Back to Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Why does Paul think the gentiles in Galatia are guilty of this?

ANSWER:
Gal 5
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

Ah-hah -- is that the great sin of the gentiles in Galatia??

Nope. Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised

Acts 16
a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.


Gal 5 - whether you are circumcised or not - does not matter.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God.

Repeatedly Paul teaches that while it is true that it does not matter if one is circumcised or not - yet when the gentiles in Galatia do it -- they are "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". Gal 5:4

Why?

Because they are doing it as a "sign" that they wish to be "justified by law" Gal 5:4

Where did the GENTILES in Galatia get that idea if not from Paul?

Answer: a certain small contingent of Christian Jews from Judea

Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”​

They simply made that idea up -- no OT or NT scripture required it. The Christian gentiles in Galatia were giving in to Jewish practice of "making stuff up" and setting their own tradition = the Bible.

Gal 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic.

• Paul now tells the reader he is switching over from real-life-literal to "symbolic".
• In real life it is the children of Isaac son of Sarah that gather at Sinai - not the children Ishmael son of Hagar.

So this is not Paul claiming that Moses and Elijah who stand "with Christ" in Matthew 17 - in glory-- are standing in opposition to Christ, opposition to Grace, opposition to the Gospel.

Gal 4
For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

Paul argues that in rejecting the Messiah -- The non-Christian Jews (as well as Christian Jews that choose to "make stuff up" place tradition above the Bible) -- and by symbol - Jerusalem as their capital - stand in opposition to the Gospel - as a counterfeit to it - just as Hagar and Ishmael represented a counterfeit to the promise - that was to come through Sarah's son Isaac.


Gal 4
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jerusalem above "is mother of us all" - of both Christian gentiles and Christian Jews. Our "heritage" our "national and family identity" is united in the "Jerusalem above" which was in heaven at the time of Sinai and still is to this very day.

Paul is taking away the "heritage problem" that he brings up in Gal 4

8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.

That was the gentile pagan "heritage" and that is apparently what the Christian Jews promoting circumcision of gentiles were selling them - a "deal" for getting rid of their pagan heritage by identifying with literal Jews or by engaging in other forms of syncretism

9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.


Gal 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now

Indeed - Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews from Judea

And this still happens as demonstrated with your statements. You're clearly evangelizing Christians against the TOS. You need to pay attention to what the text says and means. Hagar is represented as the law. We're told very clearly to separate ourselves from her (the law).

 

[listed]

On the contrary

Isaiah 56:6-8 gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping

No gentiles aren't singled out in your reference. Any gentile submitting to the covenant was treated as one born in the land meaning a Jew.

Isaiah 66:23 "All mankind" specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping for all eternity after the cross and New Earth.

I'm still wondering how you get "from... to" to mean "on."

Mark 2:27 - all mankind specifically identified as the recipients of the Sabbath "the Sabbath was made for mankind"

In context this is twisting what Jesus said. I find it amusing that you think God waited bout 2,000 years to reveal some contrary to what He told Israel through Moses.

It has "always" been a sin for gentiles to 'take God's name in vain" Exodus 20:7 and we all know it.

Isn't your real point obligation to the law? Isn't that also opposition to Romans 7:6? or Galatians 4 where you tried to show obligation to the law in the OP when it says to throw out the law?

Rom 3:19-21 the Law of God has in all ages condemned all mankind as sinners as we are reminded in the OP.

So it does and you still try to do the same in opposition to chapter 8.

In the NT - Sin "continues" to be defined as "transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4

No it says "also" which you discard.

The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 "I will write My LAW on their heart and mind" - the moral LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers included the Ten Commandments -- a Bible detail so obvious that even these pro-sunday groups admit to it.

But you ignore verse 32 of your reference. No pro-sunday group teaches or practices the 7th day sabbath as hard as you try to get them to mean. This has been shown with a quote of Moody saying he regards Saturday as a boy does a holiday. That's a very long ways from promoting your version of the 4th commandment.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism




Paul never condemns those who choose to honor their parents or who choose not take God' s name in vain.

Notice Eph 6:2 "Honor your father and mother for this is the first commandment with a promise" -- first commandment in what list? the only one in the OT where that comand is the first one with a promise -- is the TEN Commandments.

Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

We disagree what these commandments are with John 15:10 and 1 John 3:23.

 

[klutedavid]

Sometimes I experience difficulty in following your posts.

Jesus said they are the greatest commandments in the law.

We agree Bob, we have commandment one and commandment two!

David - once again, (as you continue to ignore every detail in the posts)

Not ignoring any details.

Both of them from the LAW of Moses -- Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

Here is where I have some trouble.

What do you mean by saying, 'the law of Moses'?

You definitely have a method of interpretation that is altering what Jesus emphasized.

And only one of them mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 when after Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" - answers with a list from the TEN Commandments (that does not include (do not take God's name in vain) - and end with the second commandment in your quote - completely omitting the first.

A very muddled paragraph, you are seeing something that I do not see?