Galatians 3 - shows New Covenant Gospel is before Sinai

[HARK!]

In part or in it’s entirety Rom 12:3 says We all been given the measure of faith spoken of in Romans 10:8. He lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

I understand that you might not have been following this conversation very closely; as you weren't involved in it; but I hinted on this back in post 388.:

I'm not even sure why you are asking me any questions about the Torah, if you believe this time has come in its' fullness.

Is there any sin in Yahshua? Can we be in him, and be in sin?

Is the covenant active at the betrothal, the consummation, both? If the covenant is fully active on betrothal; then what is the purpose of the consummation?

 

[HARK!]

I understood you to be asking me to explain some things in Torah based on what was written on my heart. So I did, using the principles, ideas, and concepts that are written on my heart.

I asked you to explain what the lulav represents, and what we are to learn from it, as we rehearse this eternal moed.

Are you saying that not all of YHWH's Torah is written on your heart?

 

[daq]

That Hebrews 8:13 refers to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31, which is quoted in
Hebrews 8:8 is absolutely and unequivocally undeniable.

Topos in Hebrews 8:7 is being used metaphorically. As we all know a covenant isn't a literal place, (topos), so what does it mean in this metaphorical sense in this verse? It's a standing, a position, a condition, like when someone asks where you are spiritually, and the other person says they are "in Messiah" or "in Christ", that's a condition, a standing, an estate, when it comes to the sense of a place (topos).

Hebrews 8:6-7 N/A, T/R, W/H
[06] νυν δε διαφορωτερας τετυχεν λειτουργιας οσω και κρειττονος εστιν διαθηκης μεσιτης ητις επι κρειττοσιν επαγγελιαις νενομοθετηται
[07] ει γαρ η πρωτη εκεινη ην αμεμπτος ουκ αν δευτερας εζητειτο τοπος

Hebrews 8:6-8
[06] And now he has obtained a more excellent service, inasmuch as he is also mediator of a better covenant, which has been established on better promises.
[07] For if that first one had been faultless, a second condition would not have been sought: [τοπος metaphorically, cf. Thayers G5117]
[08] for finding fault with them, He says, Behold, the days are coming, says יהוה, and I will entirely complete [execute] a renewed covenant with the house of Yisrael and with the house of Yhudah:

So the author is speaking of the second in the sense of a condition or status: that means he speaks of a second condition of the same words, the Torah, and that necessarily means that he speaks of a second understanding of the same Torah. This is the reason the author says that He, (Elohim), found fault with them, not with His own Word.

Moreover the word for covenant also does not appear in Hebrews 8:7 either, and has been inserted by many translators, and because they do it there it flows better into their corruption of Hebrews 8:13 where they insert it into the passage yet again a second time. Hebrews 8:13 refers back to what was said in Hebrews 8:7, the first and second topos-conditions or understandings of the covenant.

So because most translators render kainos as new, instead of renewed, the bias has already crept into the text before one even arrives at this chapter: and because of that bias the passage is even more difficult to understand. If they and you would understand from the teachings of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, and his usage of such words, (kainos vs neos, as in the wine-skin sayings), these errors you and they are pushing would have become obsolete and vanished long ago. Anyone who reads the passage to be speaking of a renewed covenant will much more readily and easily see what the author is saying.

All the twisting and contortion is due to an antinomian bias, just as it almost always is: for the natural man refuses to go under the knife of the Torah, for he knows it will kill him, and the old man nature refuses to die.

 

[Leaf473]

I asked you to explain what the lulav represents, and what we are to learn from it, as we rehearse this eternal moed.

Are you saying that not all of YHWH's Torah is written on your heart?

As I talked about earlier, God writing his laws on my heart doesn't give me knowledge of Hebrew.

From your post, it sounded like the lulav was part of the tent festival, yes?

So I told you some of the principles that relate to the tent festival.

 

[Clare73]

Topos in Hebrews 8:7 is being used metaphorically. As we all know a covenant isn't a literal place, (topos),

And "place" is not used to mean "covenant" in Hebrews 8:7, because
topos there does not mean a place, like a field. . .which is chorion.
Topos means "opportunity, room (space)."

the author is speaking of the second in the sense of a condition or status: that means he speaks of a second condition of the same words, the Torah, and that necessarily means that he speaks of a second understanding of the same Torah. This is the reason the author says that He, (Elohim), found fault with them, not with His own Word.

Except that the author is quoting prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34, not Torah.

So because most translators render kainos as new, instead of renewed, the bias has already crept into the text before one even arrives at this chapter: and because of that bias the passage is even more difficult to understand.

Because "renew" is anakainoo, and "new" is kainos, as in Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25;
2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 9:15.

So regarding Hebrews 8:13, we have:
1) It does not refer to the new "covenant" of Jeremiah 31:31, even though it quotes it in Hebrews 8:8;
2) Rather, it is refers to the Torah, even though the word "new" in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is used only of the covenant;
3) It mistakes kainos as "new" instead of "renew" (which is actually anakainoo).

 

[daq]

And "place" is not used to mean "covenant" in Hebrews 8:7, because
topos does not mean a place, like a field. . .which is chorion.
Topos means "opportunity, room (space)."

Topos is being employed metaphorically in Hebrews 8:7, that's why I cited Thayers, which lists the verse under metaphorically, b, (the last verse cited in the entry). Topos can indeed refer to a field but not generally when it is being used in this manner. This point in your commentary is irrelevant to what was said.

Except that the author is quoting prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34, not Torah.

Because "renew" is anakainoo, and "new" is kainos.

In the Hebrew text hadash is the same word, to renew, rebuild, refresh, etc., etc. The Masorete pointed text is only a thousand years old: these are not two completely different words just because lexicons came along later and decided they should have separate entries and number classifications.

1 Samuel 11:14 KJV
14 Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew [H2318 hadash] the kingdom there.

H2318 (Mickelson's)
H2318 חָדַשׁ chadash (chaw-dash') v.
1. to be new.
2. (causatively) to rebuild.
[a primitive root]
KJV: renew, repair.

Jeremiah 31:31 contains H2319 hadash, which is actually the exact same word without the pointing which came about a mere thousand years ago.

H2319 (Mickelson's)
H2319 חָדָשׁ chadash (chaw-dawsh') adj.
new.
[from H2318]
KJV: fresh, new thing.
Root(s): H2318

Pointed:
H2318 חָדַשׁ
H2319 חָדָשׁ

In the time of the writings of the apostles:
H2318, H2319 חדש

So regarding Hebrews 8:13, we have:
1) It does not refer to the Jeremiah 31:31, even though it quotes it in Hebrews 8:8;
2) It is refers to the Torah, even though it quotes prophecy.
3) It mistakes kainos as "new" instead of "renew" (which is actually anakainoo).

Luke 5:37-39 ASV
37 And no man putteth new [νεος] wine into old wine-skins; else the new [νεος] wine will burst the skins and itself will be spilled, and the skins will perish.
38 But new [νεος] wine must be put into fresh [καινος] wine-skins.
39 And no man having drunk old wine desireth new; [νεος] for he saith, The old is good.

Testimony of the Son:
νεος = new, brand new, totally new
καινος = refreshed, renewed

The skin must be repurposed because, well, quite obviously, it formerly belonged to an animal, a goat or sheep, (usually a goat). The skin was carefully removed from the goat after its head and legs were cut off, (in order to avoid cutting the belly). Then the skin was tanned by soaking it in acidic vegetable oils, then the hair was cut as short as possible or removed, and then the skin was rinsed in running water and sewed up and dried, and then filled with new wine, νεος-new wine. And since the wine created gas as it fermented within the skin, the wine skin was forced to stretch, and therefore could not be used again for new wine because the overstretching of the skin a second time would cause it to burst.

The other companion passages are all the same, neos wine and kainos wine skins: there is no legitimate reason not to believe the Testimony of the Son of God and his usage of these words in these passages.
Covenant Renewal Post#20

The Testimony of the Master and the scripture disagree with your conclusions: and I know that the scripture interprets itself, and especially by contexts. The more one comes to understand and believe this, in prayerful open-heart study of the original languages, the more the errors in lexicons and their creators come to be exposed by the scripture. I'm not saying lexicons are bad: they are very useful, but they are not perfect.

 

[HARK!]

As I talked about earlier, God writing his laws on my heart doesn't give me knowledge of Hebrew.

From your post, it sounded like the lulav was part of the tent festival, yes?

So I told you some of the principles that relate to the tent festival.

Lulav is English for (לולב). I don't need the Torah to be written on the organ, that nourishes and purifies every cell in my body, to know that much. I could just open up a English dictionary.

I'll withdraw the question.

 

[Clare73]

Topos is being employed metaphorically in Hebrews 8:7,

"Place" is not used to mean "covenant" in Hebrews 8:7, because
topos does not mean a place, like a field. . .that word is chorion.
Topos means "opportunity, room (space)."

 

[daq]

Topos is metaphorical by definition.

"Place" is not used to mean "covenant" in Hebrews 8:7, because
topos does not mean a place, like a field. . .that word is chorion.
Topos means "opportunity, room (space)."

The usage of the word in the scripture refutes what you say, and again, that's why I have now cited Thayer's twice, and for this third and last time I will quote the entry.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5117: τόπος
τόπος, τόπου, ὁ, in Attic from Aeschylus and his contemporaries on; the Sept. מָקום; place; i. e.:
1. properly, any portion of space marked off, as it were, from surrounding, space; used of

a. an inhabited place, as a city, village, district: Luke 4:37; Luke 10:1; Acts 12:12; Acts 16:3; Acts 27:2, 8; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 2:14; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 18:17 (G L T Tr WH); τόν τόπον καί τό ἔθνος, the place which the nation inhabit, i. e. the holy land and the Jewish people, John 11:48 (cf. 2 Macc. 5:19f); τόπος ἅγιος, the temple (which the Sept. of Isa. Ix. 13 calls ὁ ἅγιος τόπος τοῦ Θεοῦ), Matthew 24:15. of a house, Acts 4:31. of uninhabited places, with adjectives: ἔρημος, Matthew 14:13, 15; Mark 1:35; Mark 6:31; Luke 4:42; Luke 9:10 R G L, 12; πεδινός, Luke 6:17; ἄνυδρος, plural, Matthew 12:43; Luke 11:24. of any place whatever: κατά τόπους (R. V. in divers places) i. e. the world over (but see κατά, II. 3 a. α.), Matthew 24:7; Mark 13:8; (ἐν παντί τόπῳ, 2 Thessalonians 3:16 Lachmann); of places in the sea, τραχεῖς τόποι, Acts 27:29 (R. V. rocky ground); τόπος διθάλασσος (A. V. place where two seas met); Acts 27:41. of that 'place' where what is narrated occurred: Luke 10:32; Luke 19:5; Luke 22:40; John 5:13; John 6:10; John 18:2. of a place or spot where one can settle, abide, dwell: ἑτοιμάζειν τίνι τόπον, John 14:2f, cf. Revelation 12:6; ἔχειν τόπον, a place to dwell in, Revelation, the passage cited; οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι, Luke 2:7; διδόναι τίνι τόπον, to give one place, give way to one, Luke 14:9a; τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς, Revelation 20:11; of the seat which one gets in any gathering, as at a feast, Luke 14:10; τήν ἔσχατον τόπον, κατέχειν, Luke 14:9b; of the place or spot occupied by things placed in it, John 20:7. the particular place referred to is defined by I the words appended: — by a genitive, τόπος τῆς βασάνου, Luke 16:28; τῆς καταπαύσεώς, Acts 7:49; κρανίου, Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17; (τόν τόπον τῶν ἥλων, John 20:25b L T Tr marginal reading); — by the addition of οὗ, ὅπου, ἐφ' or ἐν ᾧ, followed by finite verbs, Matthew 28:6; Mark 16:6; John 4:20; John 6:23; John 10:40; John 11:6, 30.; ; Acts 7:33; Romans 9:26; — by the addition of a proper name: τόπος λεγόμενος, or καλούμενος, Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:13; Revelation 16:16; ὁ τόπος τίνος, the place which a person or thing occupies or has a right to: Revelation 2:5; Revelation 6:14; Revelation 12:8; where a thing is hidden, τῆς μαχαίρας, i. e. its sheath, Matthew 26:52. the abode assigned by God to one after death wherein to receive his merited portion of bliss or of misery: (ὁ ἴδιος τίνος (τίνος), universally, Ignatius ad Magnes. 5, 1 [ET] (cf. ὁ αἰώνιος τόπος, Tobit 3:6)); applied to Gehenna, Acts 1:25 (see ἴδιος, 1 c.); ὁ ὀφειλόμενος τόπος, of heaven, Polycarp, ad Philip. 9, 2 [ET]; Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 5, 4 [ET]; also ὁ ἅγιος τόπος, ibid. 5, 7 [ET]; (ὁ ὡρισμένος τόπος the Epistle of Barnabas 19, 1 [ET]; Act. Paul et Thecl. 28; see especially Harnack's note on Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 5, 4 [ET]).

b. a place (passage) in a book: Luke 4:17 (καί ἐν ἄλλῳ τόπῳ φησίν, Xenophon, mem. 2, 1, 20 ((but this is doubtful; cf. Liddell and Scott, under the word, I. 4; yet cf. Kühner, ad loc.); Philo de Joseph., § 26; Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 8, 4 [ET]); in the same sense χώρα in Josephus, Antiquities 1, 8, 3).

2. metaphorically,

a. the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly: ἀναπληρουν τόν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου (R. V. filleth the place of the unlearned), 1 Corinthians 14:16; τῆς διακονίας ταύτης καί ἀποστολῆς (R. V. the place in this ministry, etc.), Acts 1:25 L T Tr WH.

b. opportunity, power, occasion for acting: τόπον λαμβάνειν τῆς ἀπολογίας, opportunity to make his defense, Acts 25:16 (ἔχειν τῆς ἀπολογίας, Josephus, Antiquities 16, 8, 5); τόπον διδόναι τῇ ὀργή (namely, τοῦ Θεοῦ), Romans 12:19; τῷ δαιβόλω, Ephesians 4:27 (τῷ ἰατρῷ, to his curative efforts in one's case, Sir. 38:12; νόμῳ ὑψίστου, Sir. 19:17; τόπον διδόναι τινα, followed by an infinitive, Sir. 4:5); τόπος μετανοίας εὑρίσκειν, Hebrews 12:17, on this passage, see εὑρίσκω, 3 (διδόναι. Wis. 12:10; Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 7, 5 [ET]; Latinlocum relinquere paenitentiae, Livy 44, 10; 24, 26; (Pliny, epistle ad Trajan 96 (97), 10 cf. 2); ἔχειν τόπον μετανοίας, Tat. or. ad Graec. 15 at the end; διά τό μή καταλείπεσθαι σφισις τόπον ἐλέους μηδέ συγγνωμης, Polybius 1, 88, 2); τόπον ἔχειν namely, τοῦ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, Romans 15:23; ἐζητεῖτο τόπος, with a genitive of the thing for which influence is sought among men: διαθήκης, passive Hebrews 8:7 ((cf. μέμφομαι)). [SYNONYMS: τόπος 1, χώρα, χωρίον: τόπος place, indefinite; a portion of space viewed in reference to its occupancy, or as appropriated to a thing; χώρα region, country, extensive; space, yet bounded; χωρίον parcel of ground (John 4:5), circumscribed; a definite portion of space viewed as enclosed or complete in itself; τόπος and χωρίον (plural, R. V. lands) occur together in Acts 28:7. Cf. Schmidt, chapter 41.]
Strong's Greek: 5117. τόπος (topos) -- a place

Inhabited places, cities, villages, districts, cordoned off areas, etc., etc., and many more usages, are not metaphorical places, (generally), but in those many instances topos means a real literal physical place.

 

[Clare73]

The usage of the word in the scripture refutes what you say, and again, that's why I have now cited Thayer's twice, and for this third and last time I will quote the entry.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5117: τόπος

Agreed.

Does not alter
1) the "new" covenant of Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 9:15.

2) nor "new" in Hebrew in the time of the writings of the apostles:
H2318, H2319 חדש

because the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.

Nevertheless, if the "new" covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is a "renewed" covenant,
it is not the Mosaic covenant, for NT apostolic teaching is that it is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

 

[daq]

Agreed.

Does not alter
1) the "new" covenant of Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 9:15.

I'm curious why you did not cite the Matthew and Mark companion passages to Luke 22:20. Might that be the case because you know they do not contain the word kainos in the western text family?

Matthew 26:26-30 ASV
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.

Mark 14:22-25 ASV
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.

The two above statements concern a cup during the Seder, and speak of the covenant which concerns many. The second cup, (of the only two mentioned in the scripture), is the kainos renewed covenant, and is only found in the Luke passage which you cited.

This second cup is after the Seder, and is not the covenant concerning many but "for you", (personal and individual as is all of the Gospel). These things are clear, by the surrounding contexts, to the observant reader who also understands that there are multiple cups at a Seder.

Luke 22:17-20 ASV
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

The observant reader may now also receive an understanding as to why the following two versions of Galatians 3 are different.

Galatians 3:15-17 KJV
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Galatians 3:15-17 ASV
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.

Hey, lookey there, we are right back at Galatians 3, (the thread topic).

The question is who changed one of these and why? The answer is laid out for the observant reader in what I have offered above herein, (for no doubt the same changed those statements also).

2) nor "new" in Hebrew in the time of the writings of the apostles:
H2318, H2319 חדש

because the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.

Detaching and attempting to distance the apostles from their own Hebrew roots doesn't prove anything except that the one who feels the need to do so most likely does not wish to accept first century Hebrew thinking and reasoning. This is problematic for anyone who claims to believe, uphold as authoritative, and preach the "NT apostolic teachings".

 

[HIM]

I'm curious why you did not cite the Matthew and Mark companion passages to Luke 22:20. Might that be the case because you know they do not contain the word kainos in the western text family?

Matthew 26:26-30 ASV
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.

Mark 14:22-25 ASV
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.

The two above statements concern a cup during the Seder, and speak of the covenant which concerns many. The second cup, (of the only two mentioned in the scripture), is the kainos renewed covenant, and is only found in the Luke passage which you cited.

This second cup is after the Seder, and is not the covenant concerning many but "for you", (personal and individual as is all of the Gospel). These things are clear, by the surrounding contexts, to the observant reader who also understands that there are multiple cups at a Seder.

Luke 22:17-20 ASV
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

The observant reader may now also receive an understanding as to why the following two versions of Galatians 3 are different.

Galatians 3:15-17 KJV
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Galatians 3:15-17 ASV
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.

Hey, lookey there, we are right back at Galatians 3, (the thread topic).

The question is who changed one of these and why? The answer is laid out for the observant reader in what I have offered above herein, (for no doubt the same changed those statements also).



Detaching and attempting to distance the apostles from their own Hebrew roots doesn't prove anything except that the one who feels the need to do so most likely does not wish to accept first century Hebrew thinking and reasoning. This is problematic for anyone who claims to believe, uphold as authoritative, and preach the "NT apostolic teachings".

Hey daq. I assume you prefer the Alexandrian.
In reference to verse 17 in the KJV “in Christ” is probably not the best translation considering the context. It probably should be “unto Christ” like in verse 24.

Speaking of context what is it you think it is in Chapter 3?

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles IN Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

[HIM]

Agreed. . .which law and deeds the apostle applies to the gospel and faith in Romans 10:8.

The answer to your question is found within the post to which you responded to. Here it is again for your convenience.

Amen Daq!

Deut 30:10-14 is the same as the speaking of the New covenant in which our God is putting His laws in our hearts and minds. Or Him telling us that He is giving us His Spirit. What is interesting about Deut 30 and it being quoted in Romans 10 is that in Deut 30:10-14 it gives us the break down of what the New Covenant entails. In the placing of His Law, His Word in our hearts, mouths and hands that we may do it. It is His commandments and His statutes contained in the book of the law. And Romans gives us the How. Which is through Christ. Please take note His judgements are not mentioned in this placing His word in our hearts. And also that this gift of His Spiritual union with us has been available to us since at least then. It is also markable to note that this is being mentioned prior to them entering to the promise land. And it is being stated as a New covenant in chapter 29 verse one where the Spirit states, “These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.” Deuteronomy 29:1

Deuteronomy 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.


Deuteronomy 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deuteronomy 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deuteronomy 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deuteronomy 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

 

[Leaf473]

Hi @daq,

(and anyone else who wants to answer)

Since the new (or whatever word one wishes to use) Covenant is not like the Covenant made with the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, what are the differences between the two Covenants, in your view?

Or perhaps this has been addressed already?

 

[Clare73]

I'm curious why you did not cite the Matthew and Mark companion passages to Luke 22:20. Might that be the case because you know they do not contain the word kainos in the western text family?

I consider the whole picture as drawn from all accounts.

Matthew 26:26-30 ASV
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.

Mark 14:22-25 ASV
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.
The two above statements concern a cup during the Seder, and speak of the covenant which concerns many. The second cup, (of the only two mentioned in the scripture), is the kainos renewed covenant, and is only found in the Luke passage which you cited.

"Renewed" is not kainos, "renewed" is anakainoo.

This second cup is after the Seder, and is not the covenant concerning many but "for you", (personal and individual as is all of the Gospel). These things are clear, by the surrounding contexts, to the observant reader who also understands that there are multiple cups at a Seder.

Luke 22:17-20 ASV - 17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

These are two different accounts from two different sources.
Paul gives an account of institution as received from Jesus himself in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, where Paul states that Jesus' words were, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. . ."

1) He, being Paul's "dear friend Luke, the doctor" (Colossians 4:14), "fellow worker" (Philemon 24) and companion (we)--Acts 16:10, 20:5, 27:1, Luke's account most likely came from Paul's account from Jesus, and
2) therefore, establishes no connection to Galatians 3:15-17.

The observant reader may now also receive an understanding as to why the following two versions of Galatians 3 are different.

Galatians 3:15-17 KJV
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Galatians 3:15-17 ASV
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.

However, both versions of Galatians 3 state the Mosaic covenant of law which came 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant of grace, neither version states the law itself
(which Abrahamic covenant of grace was not set aside by the Mosaic covenant of law--Galatians 3:17, it being a temporary addition--Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20--to the covenant of grace)
and, therefore, does not support the notion that Hebrews 8:13 is referring to the Mosaic law, rather than the Mosaic covenant.

Any supposed "renewal" would be
1) of the Abrahamic covenant of grace, where righteousness is by faith, apart from the law (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28), as it was for Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3),

2) not of the old Mosaic covenant, which according to NT apostolic teaching was made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13) by the new covenant (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

3) Renewal of the made-obsolete (Hebrews 8:13) Mosaic covenant is a contradiction of terms, for "renewal" would mean from the law written on stone to the law written on the heart, where love is the fullness of the law, where he who loves has thereby fulfilled the law (Romans 13:8-10) because the law is now governing the heart, so that an external written code is no longer needed to know how to obey the law, thereby this supposed "renewal" actually making it obsolete, along with the covenant (Hebrews 8:13) conditioned on it.

Hey, lookey there, we are right back at Galatians 3, (the thread topic).

I don't think we are, because Luke's account of the Lord's Supper is not someone's alteration of anything,
it is an account from a different source; i.e., Jesus, through Paul.

WRAP UP:

The question is who changed one of these and why?

1) The alteration and its answer for Galatians 3 is not related to Luke's account of the Supper,
2) nor to the issue at hand: "renewed" or "new" covenant in Hebrews 8:13, for
the covenant is called "new" (kainos) in numerous places in the NT--Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 9:15, and then
3) most importantly, NT apostolic teaching is that the old covenant has not been "renewed," it has been made obsolete by the new covenant (Hebrews 8:13).

The answer is laid out for the observant reader in what I have offered above herein,
(for no doubt the same changed those statements also).

1) Nothing was altered in Luke. The accounts are from two different sources.

2) Likewise, an addition in Galatians 3:17
a) is irrelevant because it does not change its meaning, nor does it demonstrate an addition in Luke 22:20 of the word "new" (covenant) in the account of the Lord's Supper,
b) it is likewise irrelevant to the absence of the word "new" in Matthew's and Mark's accounts of the Lord's Supper, which were from a different source,
c) it also being irrelevant in Hebrews 8:13 (quoting Jeremiah 31:31) to the addition of "covenant" (to "new"--kainos), and which addition, according to you, supposedly changes its meaning from "renewed" law to "renewed" covenant, when in both of these passages, "new" is never used in reference to the "law," but only in reference to the "covenant."

A supposed alteration of Galatians 3:17 supports neither
1) an alteration of Luke 22:20 to include "new," nor does it support
2) (in the altering of Hebrews 8:13 by adding "covenant") a change of meaning from "renewed" law to "renewed" covenant in Hebrews 8:13.

 

[Clare73]

The answer to your question is found within the post to which you responded to. Here it is again for your convenience.

Thanks. . .appreciate your thoughtfulness, but that wasn't a question, it was a continuation of his "which" in his first sentence.

And feel free to help me out anytime!

 

[guevaraj]

That would be the definition God defines (Romans 13:8) in the language (Greek) of his God-breathed word written (2 Timothy 3:16).

Clare, happy Sabbath! What it says is that love is the goal of the commandments, given by someone who knows how to achieve the goal, guiding us through His commandments.

Once a religious leader asked Jesus this question: “Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked him. “Only God is truly good. But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. Honor your father and mother.’” The man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.” When Jesus heard his answer, he said, “There is still one thing you haven’t done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:18-22 NLT)​

The commandments are the minimum love that God demands. If you want to love more, He has given the 11th commandment as the greatest example of righteousness in the life and ministry of Jesus. The first ten commandments tell us what not to do, while the 11th commandment says what to do, by following Jesus' example in how He lived His life and how He carried out His ministry.

Romans 13:8 is not human tradition, it is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16). Rather, it is your denial of authoritative NT apostolic teaching that is human tradition.

Human tradition is in the interpretation of what God wrote, contradicting the very statement of what God wrote. You cannot love as God tells us without obeying the commandments. In the new covenant, the additional eleventh commandment is the "one thing you haven't done" while obeying the previous ten commandments.

Once a religious leader asked Jesus this question: “Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked him. “Only God is truly good. But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. Honor your father and mother.’” The man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.” When Jesus heard his answer, he said, “There is still one thing you haven’t done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:18-22 NLT)​

Do we follow the Spirit of God in the word of God in Romans 13:8-10?

We do not follow a human interpretation that contradicts the very thing the passage says. The passage says that the goal of the commandments is love. God is guiding us toward love through His commandments because He knows the way, unlike the additional Jewish laws written by humans who are "blind" guides. They themselves will not go into the kingdom of heaven, nor do they "allow those who are entering to go in", making others "twice as much a son of hell as yourselves". They do this through human laws that enslave people in their sins because they are "blind" guides. Paul is hard to understand because he speaks of these additional human laws as the way of the flesh versus the way of the Spirit in God's law. Paul speaks of the same issue that Jesus speaks of next, transferring the value that the Jews place on the law to the one who writes the law. Paul makes a distinction between human laws in the way of the flesh, who are "blind" guides, and God's law in the way of the Spirit, who knows the way to guide us through laws. Paul also explains why the law can change, leaving behind the animal sacrifices, because they are a vehicle God uses to guide us, but what is important is that God is our guide, who never changes, and not that the laws of animal sacrifices remain. Paul is not against the laws of God, which is the way of the Spirit.

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it. (Matthew 23:13–22 NKJV)​

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

 

[Clare73]

Clare, happy Sabbath! What it says is that love is the goal of the commandments, given by someone who knows how to achieve the goal, guiding us through His commandments.

Hi, Jorge!

Love is the source of obedience to the commandments.

The law is now written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33) where love resides, it's not just in one's head,
which is why love is the fullness of the law, when the law is written on the heart which loves,
why he who loves has thereby fulfilled the law (Romans 13:8-10), written on the heart which loves,
because the law is now governing his heart,
he no longer needs an external written code to know how to obey the law written on his heart.

This is the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

In the new covenant, love is not the goal in obeying the commandments,
rather love is the source of obeying the commandments.

 

[daq]

Hey daq. I assume you prefer the Alexandrian.
In reference to verse 17 in the KJV “in Christ” is probably not the best translation considering the context. It probably should be “unto Christ” like in verse 24.

How do you know for sure whether or not that is the text that is closer to the original? Why would someone decide to insert the word Christos into that statement? Is that statement related to the Last Supper and the confirmation of the covenants? Did perhaps the early church believe this statement was related to the Last Supper?

Verse 17 speaks of confirming a covenant. What then happens if someone ignorantly added kainos into the Matthew and Mark passages not realizing there are multiple cups being spoken of in Luke? All of the sudden someone has deleted the covenant with Abraham, which is included in the covenant concerning many, (all the covenants except for the renewed, which is only found in Luke).

Speaking of context what is it you think it is in Chapter 3?

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles IN Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Galatians 3:1 ASV
1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth [G4270 προγραφω] crucified?

προεγραφη ~ previously written

I don't know why translators squirm over this passage and refuse to render it for what it says. It overtly implies that Paul had sent them a Gospel account, (his Gospel), which is either the Gospel account we now know as Luke or something very close to that account, for he also quotes from it in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, which quotes from Luke 22:19-20.

The Galatians had the Gospel of Luke or something very near to the same, which Paul delivered unto them, (just as he also says to the Corinthians, that he delivered unto them that which he also received). This is why Paul can say to the Galatians in the above statement that Messiah was crucified before their very eyes: for it was so, having been previously written down and delivered unto them.

Therefore the context of this section begins with the Gospel and what is taught therein, particularly Paul's Gospel, the Gospel we now know as Luke.

 

[HARK!]

The law is now written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33)

When did this happen?