IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

[Clare73]

Oh, well... It looks like we see Romans 13 differently.

I see this phrase:
"and whatever other commandments there are..."

Leviticus 27 These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai.

Yes, it is being stood on its head for the sake of Judaizing.

"Love fulfills the commandments. . .and whatever other commandment there may be" (Romans 13:8-10) becomes "love does the commandments," instead of "loving is the fulfillment of the commandments."

 

[Icyspark]

I don't see it as "harmonizing," I see it as modifying and altering until it becomes something different.

For me, you will have to explain the Cain and Abel account in agreement with Paul, not in disagreement with Romans 5:12-14.

Hi Clare73,

I guess if one prefers to use eisegesis (the interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own ideas) instead of exegesis then what I'm doing may not be considered harmonizing. After all if one prefers to elevate their own opinion above what the inspired text actually says then what more can a person do?

That said, let's move on to the next example of sin which contradicts your imposition that the only sin prior to Moses was the "imputation of Adam's guilt."

Genesis 13:13
Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.​

Whoops! There's that word "wicked" again! And oh my, look at that! The word wicked is used in the context of another word--sinning. Not just sinning, but sinning greatly. Would you be so kind as to exegete this text for me? I've kinda already done some of that for you, but feel free to add your thoughts.

At this point I'd just like to pause to ponder your "imputation of Adam's guilt" so that you and any lurkers may examine it in connection with the evidence I'm supplying. Am I the one making stuff up? Or rather is there actually and factually some other sin besides "Adam's guilt" under consideration here? How can "Adam's guilt" be multiplied and pluralized and then too how can it be amplified?

But this sin-ario gets even worse as further information is revealed:

Genesis 18:20-21
Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”​

Same song, second verse. Using your expressed paradigm that the only sin prior to Moses is the "imputation of Adam's guilt," how is it that this state of being is able to be amplified? Here we see that their sin was "grievous." In Genesis 13 we saw that the people were "sinning greatly." How is that possible? (Answer: It's not) Then too we find that this sin that God considers so "grievous" is in the context of "what they have done." And what they have done is so "bad" that an "outcry" has gone out to the Lord.

Genesis 18:23
Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?​

Words have meaning. Can you supply definitions for these two terms in light of the context? Don't read into the text any preconceived ideas. Let the text interpret itself.

In the following verses Abraham negotiates with God regarding whether "the Judge of all the earth [will] do right" and starting with 50 righteous people he negotiates all the way down to 10 righteous. So if only 10 righteous were found in Sodom and Gomorrah then the Lord said He would not destroy the cities. We know what happened. Not even 10 righteous people were found in these "wicked" cities. How is that possible to quantify wickedness or righteousness in a sin-ario whereby sin is merely a state of being inherited from Adam. How can some people even be considered righteous and others wicked if the only sin is the "imputation of Adam's guilt"? Do you not see the impossibility of your premise in light of these texts? Would it not be better to take a moment and carefully consider your premise in relation of the Bible texts which refute it?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Clare73]

Hi Clare73,
I guess if one prefers to use eisegesis (the interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own ideas) instead of exegesis then what I'm doing may not be considered harmonizing. After all if one prefers to elevate their own opinion above what the inspired text actually says then what more can a person do?
That said, let's move on to the next example of sin which contradicts your imposition that the only sin prior to Moses was the "imputation of Adam's guilt."

Genesis 13:13
Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.​

Whoops! There's that word "wicked" again! And oh my, look at that! The word wicked is used in the context of another word--sinning. Not just sinning, but sinning greatly. Would you be so kind as to exegete this text for me? I've kinda already done some of that for you, but feel free to add your thoughts.

And now we're full circle back to where we started:
The issue in Romans 5:12-14 is the death penalty by disobedience "in the manner of Adam's transgression;" i.e., violation of the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17: "If you do this. . .I will do that," where "that" was the death penalty.
Are there any covenantal laws carrying the death penalty in the Cain and Abel account?
If not, would that account be relevant to Paul's teaching in Romans 5:12-14?

At this point I'd just like to pause to ponder your "imputation of Adam's guilt" so that you and any lurkers may examine it in connection with the evidence I'm supplying. Am I the one making stuff up? Or rather is there actually and factually some other sin besides "Adam's guilt" under consideration here? How can "Adam's guilt" be multiplied and pluralized and then too how can it be amplified?

And for the sake of you and those same lurkers, let me point out that no other sin besides the imputed guilt of Adam is involved here.
The only sin to which Paul is referring in terms of man's guilt
(in paralleling the imputation of the two Adam's of 1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49)
is sin against covenantal law, which carries the death penalty, as in Genesis 2:17, or sin against the Mosaic law of the Mosaic covenant.
Paul excludes all other sin apart from covenantal law from causing physical death (Romans 5:12-14).

Paul's point there is that man's physical death is due only to violation of (sin against) covenantal law,
that there was no covenantal law anywhere between Adam and Moses, including with Cain and Abel,
so why did they all die?
And his answer to the question is that they died because of Adam's guilt imputed to all those born of the
first Adam (Romans 5:18), he being the pattern (Romans 5:14) of the
second Adam, Christ, whose righteousness is likewise imputed to all those born of him (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22).

 

[daq]

And we're full circle back to where we started:
The issue in Romans 5:12-14 is the death penalty by disobedience "in the manner of Adam's transgression;" i.e., violation of the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17: "If you do this. . .I will do that," where "that" was the death penalty.
Are there any covenantal laws carrying the death penalty in the Cain and Abel account?
If not, would that account be relevant to Paul's teaching in Romans 5:12-14?

No other sin besides the imputed guilt of Adam is involved here.
The only sin to which Paul is referring in terms of man's guilt
(in paralleling the imputation of the two Adam's of 1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49)
is sin against covenantal law, which carries the death penalty, as in Genesis 2:17, or sin against the Mosaic law of the Mosaic covenant.
Paul excludes all other sin apart from covenantal law from causing physical death (Romans 5:12-14).

Paul's point there is that man's physical death is due only to violation of (sin against) covenantal law,
that there was no covenantal law anywhere between Adam and Moses, including with Cain and Abel,
so why did they all die?
And his answer to the question is that they died because of Adam's guilt imputed to all those born of the
first Adam (Romans 5:18), he being the pattern (Romans 5:14) of the
second Adam, Christ, whose righteousness is likewise imputed to all those born of him (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22).

Now that you have made it clear that you are speaking of physical death the scripture refutes your entire understanding of the whole matter. Adam was not physically killed, obviously, for he lived 930 years.

Moreover Paul cannot mean physical death for the same reason I brought up earlier, the statement that Paul makes in the passage, that death reigned from Adam until Mosheh. Why does he say this? Why does he mention only until Mosheh and not rather say that death reigned until the Messiah?

If the death which Paul speaks of only reigned from Adam until Mosheh then Paul cannot be speaking of physical death.

 

[Clare73]

Now that you have made it clear that you are speaking of physical death the scripture refutes your entire understanding of the whole matter. Adam was not physically killed, obviously, for he lived 930 years.

"Dying, you will die." (Genesis 2:17).
Dying spiritually, he would die physically.
His later physical death was proof of his earlier spiritual death.

Moreover Paul cannot mean physical death for the same reason I brought up earlier, the statement that Paul makes in the passage, that death reigned from Adam until Mosheh. Why does he say this? Why does he mention only until Mosheh and not rather say that death reigned until the Messiah?

If the death which Paul speaks of only reigned from Adam until Mosheh then Paul cannot be speaking of physical death.

It doesn't. . .and he was.
If we weren't such "good buddies," I wouldn't. . .never mind.

In Romans 5:12-21,
Paul is applying the doctrine of the two Adam's (1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49),
presenting the first Adam as the pattern for the second Adam (Romans 5:14).

In Romans 5:12-14,
Paul is dealing with three specific things in regard to Adam's patterning of Christ:
covenantal law
which sin against
is death.
He is not treating of sin against the law of conscience, or any other kind of sin or command, nor the consequences of any thereof.
Therefore, we can draw no conclusions regarding these other things from Romans 5:12-14.
He is dealing only with these three specific things to demonstrate that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind (Romans 5:18).

His demonstration is simple: there was no covenantal law pre-Sinai to sin against and cause death, as there was, and it did, with Adam in the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17 ("If you do this. . ."I will do that"), yet all mankind died anyway.
The reason: imputation of the guilt of the first Adam's sin. . .which is the pattern for
the imputation of the righteousness of the second Adam's obedience (Romans 5:18-19).

He mentions death only pre-Sinai because it illustrates his point of physical death even when there was no covenantal law in force causing man to be guilty of the death penalty.
Such a law was in force post-Sinai and, therefore, does not serve to illustrate the guilt of Adam's sin against covenantal law being imputed to all mankind (Romans 5:18), when man (Israel) was under covenantal law of the Mosaic covenant and, therefore, subject to a death penalty of his own.

 

[daq]

If we weren't such "good buddies," I wouldn't. . .never mind.

In Romans 5:12-21,
Paul is applying the doctrine of the two Adam's (1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49),
presenting the first Adam as the pattern for the second Adam (Romans 5:14).

In Romans 5:12-14,
Paul is dealing with three specific things in regard to Adam's patterning of Christ:
covenantal law
which sin against
is death.
He is not treating of sin against the law of conscience, or any other kind of sin or command, nor the consequences of any thereof.
Therefore, we can draw no conclusions regarding these other things from Romans 5:12-14.
He is dealing only with these three specific things to demonstrate that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to mankind (Romans 5:18).

His demonstration is simple: there was no covenantal law pre-Sinai to sin against and cause death, as there was, and it did, with Adam in the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17 ("If you do this. . ."I will do that"), yet all mankind died anyway.
The reason: imputation of the guilt of the first Adam's sin. . .which is the pattern for
the imputation of the righteousness of the second Adam's obedience (Romans 5:18-19).

He mentions death only pre-Sinai because it illustrates his point of physical death even when there was no covenantal law in force causing man to be guilty of the death penalty.
Such a law was in force post-Sinai and, therefore, does not serve to illustrate the guilt of Adam's sin against covenantal law being imputed to all mankind (Romans 5:18), when man (Israel) was under covenantal law of the Mosaic covenant and, therefore, subject to a death penalty of his own.

"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin", (John 15:22), and the only true reason for this is because the Messiah had not yet come before their time and had not yet expounded the true spiritual and supernal way of the Torah, (for the Torah is spiritual, Romans 7:14). Therefore until the advent of the Messiah the Father "winked" at this in the times of the ignorance to the true and correct interpretation and understanding of the Torah.

But what of the Torah? Not only does it define sin but it also prevented spiritual death until the advent of the Messiah. This is the only reasonable explanation for what Paul says when he states that death reigned from Adam until Mosheh. That's why he says it the way he does and does not say that death reigned from Adam until the Messiah. The Torah therefore still remains necessary for babes and children in the milk of the Word, until the time appointed of the Father when a child becomes a tried and true tested and confirmed son, (Galatians 4:1-2).

So what does Paul say of the Torah now? Even though there is not a law given that can make alive, and therefore righteousness comes by faith, (Galatians 3:21), still yet the Torah is our paidagogos unto Messiah, (Galatians 3:24).

 

[Clare73]

"Dying, you will die." (Genesis 2:17).
Dying spiritually, he would die physically.
His later physical death was proof of his earlier spiritual death.

It doesn't. . .and he was.
If we weren't such "good buddies," I wouldn't. . .never mind.

In Romans 5:12-21,
Paul is applying the doctrine of the two Adam's (1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49),
presenting the first Adam as the pattern for the second Adam (Romans 5:14).

In Romans 5:12-14,
Paul is dealing with three specific things in regard to Adam's patterning of Christ:
covenantal law
which sin against
is death.
He is not treating of sin against the law of conscience, or any other kind of sin or command, nor the consequences of any thereof.
Therefore, we can draw no conclusions regarding these other things from Romans 5:12-14.
He is dealing only with these three specific things to demonstrate that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind (Romans 5:18).

His demonstration is simple: there was no covenantal law pre-Sinai to sin against and cause death, as there was, and it did, with Adam in the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17 ("If you do this. . ."I will do that"), yet all mankind died anyway.
The reason: imputation of the guilt of the first Adam's sin. . .which is the pattern for
the imputation of the righteousness of the second Adam's obedience (Romans 5:18-19).

He mentions death only pre-Sinai because it illustrates his point of physical death even when there was no covenantal law in force causing man to be guilty of the death penalty.
Such a law was in force post-Sinai and, therefore, does not serve to illustrate the guilt of Adam's sin against covenantal law being imputed to all mankind (Romans 5:18), when man (Israel) was under covenantal law of the Mosaic covenant and, therefore, subject to a death penalty of his own.

"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin", (John 15:22), and the only true reason for this is because the Messiah had not yet come before their time and had not yet expounded the true spiritual and supernal way of the Torah, (for the Torah is spiritual, Romans 7:14). Therefore until the advent of the Messiah the Father "winked" at this in the times of the ignorance to the true and correct interpretation and understanding of the Torah.

No, the Father "winked" at the ignorance of idolatry and did not judge them for it in the past, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent because he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice (giving everyone their due, what they have earned). (Acts 17:30-31)

But what of the Torah?

The Torah was brought into existence at Sinai to show
1) the meaning of sin (Romans 3:20),
2) its remedy in substitutionary atonement of the animal sacrifices and ceremonial cleansings
(Leviticus 1-16),
3) the impossibility of righteousness by law-keeping (Romans 3:20),
4) thereby leading to Christ for all righteousness (justification) by faith (Galatians 3:24),
5) rendering us no longer under the supervision of the law (Galatians 3:25; Romans 7:3-4),
6) but under the supervision of our own hearts on which the Holy Spirit has written the law. . ."and whatever other commandment there may be," and which law is fulfilled by loving (Romans 13:8-10).

Not only does it define sin but
it also prevented spiritual death until the advent of the Messiah.

The law prevented no spiritual death.
Adam died spiritually when he sinned, proven by his physical death later.
Man is now born in spiritual death, and has to be born again into eternal life (John 3:3-7) to even see the kingdom of God.

This is the only reasonable explanation for what Paul says when he states that death reigned from Adam until Mosheh.

Contraire. . .not only is it not the only one, it is the wrong one.

He says it because it is the only time when man died without being guilty of sinning against covenantal law with its death penalty and, thereby, raising the question, "Then why did they die?"
His answer being that by birth man was made guilty by the imputed guilt of the first Adam,
just as by faith he is made righteous by the imputed righteousness of the second Adam.

That's why he says it the way he does and does not say that death reigned from Adam until the Messiah. The Torah therefore still remains necessary for babes and children in the milk of the Word, until the time appointed of the Father when a child becomes a tried and true tested and confirmed son, (Galatians 4:1-2).
So what does Paul say of the Torah now? Even though there is not a law given that can make alive, and therefore righteousness comes by faith, (Galatians 3:21), still
yet the Torah is our paidagogos unto Messiah, (Galatians 3:24).

Ah, c'mon . . .is that really what the NT teaches?

Is that really right handling of the word of God, or is it distortion of the word of God (2 Peter 3:16)?

After stating that "the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith,"
the very next verse states: now that faith has come, the law is no longer our paidagogos. (Galatians 3:24-25)

I need an explanation of why you present just the opposite of what the NT teaches.
You're gonna' have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[daq]

No, the Father "winked" at the ignorance of idolatry and did not judge them for it in the past, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent because he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice (giving everyone their due, what they have earned). (Acts 17:30-31)

The Torah was brought into existence at Sinai to show
1) the meaning of sin (Romans 3:20),
2) its remedy in substitutionary atonement of the animal sacrifices and ceremonial cleansings
(Leviticus 1-16),
3) the impossibility of righteousness by law-keeping (Romans 3:20),
4) thereby leading to Christ for all righteousness (justification) by faith (Galatians 3:24),
5) rendering us no longer under the supervision of the law (Galatians 3:25; Romans 7:3-4),
6) but under the supervision of our own hearts on which the Holy Spirit has written the law. . ."and whatever other commandment there may be," and which law is fulfilled by loving (Romans 13:8-10).
The law prevented no spiritual death, we are born in spiritual death, and have to be born again into eternal life (John 3:3-7) to even see the kingdom of God.

Contraire. . .not only is it not the only one, it is the wrong one.

He says it because it is the only time when man died without being guilty of sinning against covenantal law with its death penalty and, thereby, raising the question, "Then why did they die?"
His answer being that man was made guilty by the imputed guilt of the first Adam,
just as by faith he is made righteous by the imputed righteousness of the second Adam.

Ah, c'mon . . .is that really what the NT teaches?

Is that really right handling of the word of God, or is it distortion of the word of God (2 Peter 3:16)?

After stating that "the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith,"
the very next verse states: now that faith has come, the law is no longer our paidagogos. (Galatians 3:24-25)

I need an explanation of why you present just the opposite of what the NT teaches.
You're gonna' have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

To act as if most of these things have not already been explained and debated in our discussions is not forthright. I am not about to post a wall of scripture and commentary all in one post just because you have ignored all the places and times we have already discussed most of these things. Your tactic may work for those who haven't been reading much around here lately, but for those who have, I trust that they will know the reality.

Elohim resists the proud: the Torah makes us humble and keeps us humble, until the Master of the house returns, (as if having been away on a far journey).

 

[Clare73]

So what does Paul say of the Torah now? Even though there is not a law given that can make alive, and therefore righteousness comes by faith, (Galatians 3:21), still
yet the Torah is our paidagogos unto Messiah, (Galatians 3:24).

Ah, c'mon . . .is that really what the NT teaches?
Is that really right handling of the word of God, or is it distortion of the word of God (2 Peter 3:16)?
After stating that "the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith," (Galatians 3:24)

the very next verse states: now that faith has come, the law is no longer our paidagogos. (Galatians 3:25)

I need an explanation of why you present just the opposite of what the NT teaches.
You're gonna' have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

To act as if most of these things have not already been explained and debated
in our discussions is not forthright. I am not about to post a wall of scripture and commentary all in one post

As the Indians came over the hill, said Tonto to the Lone Ranger's instruction about "our" defense,
"Who's this our, white man?"
So where are our discussions?
I haven't seen any such explanation in "our discussion."

And interesting that it takes a wall of Scripture to overturn Galatians 3:25 above.
Are you sure even a wall of Scripture could do it?

All falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration. . .

 

[daq]

I haven't seen any such explanation.

Interesting that it takes a wall of Scripture to overturn Galatians 3:25 above.
Are you sure even a wall of Scripture could do it?

Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration. . .

I guess what some do not realize is that when incorrect interpretations of scripture are presented as fact it takes about ten times as much work to refute the error. But I've already been over most all of what I summarized above, including Galatians 3 and 4, in various places where you were there also.

Moreover we've also been over the plain statement from Paul, that death reigned from Adam to Mosheh, and you sidestepped that statement also and tried to turn it into death reigning from Adam to Messiah, which is not what Paul said.

When you do not have the answer for something like that perhaps you should listen more attentively when someone else actually does have an answer, instead of ignoring what is actually written in the scripture in favor of your own inexplicable theory devoid of actual facts.

The fact is that Paul says death reigned from Adam to Mosheh, not from Adam to Messiah, and this also means that the fact is that Paul cannot be speaking of physical death: that is just logic and common sense, or do you suppose no one has physically died since the giving of the Torah?

So instead of facing the reality of the situation you chose not to even admit what Paul says into your reasoning, and again, that's the paradigm filter at work: filtering out anything you either cannot or do not wish to incorporate into your doctrine.

What does it mean if one cannot incorporate plain and simple scripture statements into their doctrine? We all know the answer: the doctrine cannot be correct.

 

[daq]

I haven't seen any such explanation.

Interesting that it takes a wall of Scripture to overturn Galatians 3:25 above.
Are you sure even a wall of Scripture could do it?

Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration. . .

"The Law is for the Jews." #13, #25, #27.
Questions for Sabbath practitioners #69

 

[Clare73]

I guess what some do not realize is that when incorrect interpretations of scripture are presented as fact it takes about ten times as much work to refute the error. But I've already been over most all of what I summarized above, including Galatians 3 and 4, in various places where you were there also.

If not addressed to me, I probably didn't take note of it.
If you want to assure that I know of it, you must send it to me.

Moreover we've also been over the plain statement from Paul, that death reigned from Adam to Mosheh, and you sidestepped that statement also and tried to turn it into death reigning from Adam to Messiah, which is not what Paul said.

Don't think so. . .please show where I presented the point of Paul's argument as being death's reign from Adam to Christ.

When you do not have the answer for something like that perhaps you should listen more attentively when someone else actually does have an answer,

Assumption to be proven. . .which is never even attempted. . .only asserted.

instead of ignoring what is actually written in the scripture in favor of your own inexplicable theory devoid of actual facts.

Lotta' assertions. . .still no demonstration to support them.
Assertion without demonstration is still assertion without merit.

The fact is that Paul says death reigned from Adam to Mosheh, not from Adam to Messiah, and this also means that the fact is that Paul cannot be speaking of physical death: that is just logic and common sense, or do you suppose no one has physically died since the giving of the Torah?

I suppose:
1) you are misrepresenting the conversation,

2) you have not demonstrated your assertion that Paul is not speaking of physical death,

3) you assume--without demonstrating, because it cannot be done--that other "plain and simple Scripture statements" contradict Romans 5:12-14, thereby presenting Scripture as contradicting itself, which is why you do not treat of any Scriptures nor arguments, neither presenting nor defending any alternate meanings you assign to them, and then you

4) blame your failure to demonstrate your argument on the other's "paradigm filter" (translate: NT doctrine),

5) thereby thinking you have proven their "doctrine" (which word demonstrates you are not in disagreement with personal arguments, you are in disagreement with NT actual doctrine) cannot be correct, when you've failed to demonstrate anything of the sort, relying only on your unsupported assertion that you have proven it incorrect.
That ain't how it works in discussion.

So instead of facing the reality of the situation you chose not to even admit what Paul says into your reasoning, and again, that's the paradigm filter at work: filtering out anything you either cannot or do not wish to incorporate into your doctrine.

What does it mean if one cannot incorporate plain and simple scripture statements into their doctrine? We all know the answer: the doctrine cannot be correct.

I note the "you must incorporate my contradictions" rather than the "I must reconcile my contradictions."

 

[Clare73]

"The Law is for the Jews." #13, #25, #27.
Questions for Sabbath practitioners #69

I don't do links. . .I do only personal arguments. . .translate the link into your own argument, and I will address it.

 

[expos4ever]

A poster here is claiming that "the Torah therefore still remains necessary for babes and children in the milk of the Word, until the time appointed of the Father when a child becomes a tried and true tested and confirmed son, (Galatians 4:1-2)."
Let's look at the context. Starting chapter 3:

Why the Law then? It was added on account of the violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made

And then this from verse 21:

For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness

Paul is not speaking about development within each Christian's life but rather about history. In verse 19, he asks why was the law added in the first place. In verse 21, he writes about the giving of the law. This is history: Paul is not analyzing individual believers life he's speaking about Gods evolving redemption narrative as it play out through history. So, when he says we are no longer under a guardian, he is referring to the fact that as of the advent of Christ, the law no longer applies.

And now lets's look at what Paul say early in chapter 4:

Note the reference to the "date set by the Father in 4:2. Even more tellingly we have this in verse 4:

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son....

This is not about us developing as individuals - it is about God working through the long sweep of history.

 

[daq]

Don't think so. . .please show where I presented the point of Paul's argument as being death's reign from Adam to Christ.

Wrong. . .

Paul says that death reigned for all men (Romans 5:12), which includes those from Moses to Christ.
It falls to you to explain why he states both.

Let me know when you need help.

1) You have presented nothing from me which is incorrect according to NT apostolic teaching,
2) nor have you demonstrated any error regarding Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-14,
3) and more importantly, you have not Biblically addressed any of the points I presented.

Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

Q.E.D.

Also someone else you were talking with said the following, which you rated with a thumbs up or like, which I also then noted, and you did not object when I noted it. Those things are right here in this thread for anyone who wants to backtrack and read the discussion.

She has made it quite clear on many occasions that death has reigned from Adam to the present, but for Christ. That is my objection.

 

[daq]

I don't do links. . .I do only personal arguments. . .translate the link into your own argument, and I will address it.

Lol, the first three links were a conversation with you, where some of these things were already explained, just as you asked previously above. You are now telling me that you refuse to go back and read your own discussions.

 

[daq]

A poster here is claiming that "the Torah therefore still remains necessary for babes and children in the milk of the Word, until the time appointed of the Father when a child becomes a tried and true tested and confirmed son, (Galatians 4:1-2)."

Obviously that was me, and from one of the links posted to Clare73 above, where she and I discussed this same topic, here is how it began.

Faith doesn't come for everyone all at once but rather each in his or her own appointed times, (times appointed of the Father).

Hebrews 10:35-39 KJV
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

This speaks of an appointed time, and it speaks of that time of testing when real faith comes: the time appointed of the Father when a babe or child in Messiah becomes a son, (Galatians 4:1-2). But until that time the child is under tutors and guardians, (a.k.a. Torah, Prophets, and Writings), though the child be destined to become master of all.

"The Law is for the Jews." #13, #25, #27.
Questions for Sabbath practitioners #69

So we have the passage from Hebrews 10 which clearly states that to receive the promise one must first do the will of Elohim. This has also been explained, and I believe that was a conversation with you, yes, I just went and checked, and you and I just had this discussion on Thursday.

The problem is that you appear to have skipped the whole training process for becoming a son in your doctrine, (which is the typical result of mainstream anti-Torah theology), and have counted yourself a son without having undergone the training process prescribed in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and also by Paul himself here in this passage.

The passage doesn't end with Galatians 3:29, in fact, the conclusion to what he is actually saying has been cut off by the man-made chapter break between chapters three and four.

Galatians 1:1-2 TS2009
1 Sha’ul, an emissary – not from men, nor by a man, but by יהושע Messiah and Elohim the Father who raised Him from the dead –
2 and all the brothers who are with me,* to the assemblies of Galatia:

*Galatians 3:23-25, we*, our*, we*,
Paul "and all the brothers who are with me"

Galatians 3:21-4:2 TS2009
21 Is the Torah then against the promises of Elohim? Let it not be! For if a torah had been given that was able to make alive, truly righteousness would have been by Torah.
22 But the Scripture has shut up all mankind under sin, that the promise by belief in יהושע Messiah might be given to those who believe.
23 But before belief came, we* were being guarded under Torah, having been shut up for the belief being about to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Torah became our* trainer unto Messiah, in order to be declared right by belief.
25 And after belief has come, we* are no longer under a trainer.
26 For you are all sons of Elohim through belief in Messiah יהושע.
27 For as many of you as were immersed into Messiah have put on Messiah.
28 There is not Yehuḏi nor Greek, there is not slave nor free, there is not male and female, for you are all one in Messiah יהושע.
29 And if you are of Messiah, then you are seed of Aḇraham, and heirs according to promise.
01 And I say, for as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, though he is master of all,
02 but is under guardians and trustees till the time prearranged by the father.

So then, having entered into the faith, one is counted as a babe or child "in the milk of the Word", though he or she be set to become a master of all, having been counted as an heir.

But until that time, the time appointed of the Father when a child becomes a tried and tested son, the babe or child is under a trainer, (the Torah), and is under guardians and trustees, (Prophets and Writings).

Moreover the heir is according to the promise, (Galatians 3:29), but the promise cannot be received unless and until one has done the will of Elohim. This is expounded for us in Hebrews 10:35-39, and Paul also speaks of doing the will of Elohim, by way of the commandments of the Master, in 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8.

This is not me inserting my paradigm into the text. This is simply a straight reading of what Paul is teaching here.

Questions for Sabbath practitioners

The author of Hebrews therefore teaches the same which I have shown you from the writings of Paul, (if they are not the same author), for he writes to his audience and admonishes them as those who are still in need of the milk of the Word. This therefore is indeed the N/T apostolic teaching and Paul teaches the same, just as both you and Clare73 have already been shown.

Hebrews 5:11-14 KJV
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Hebrews 10:35-39 KJV
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Belief according to the scripture is therefore not what mainstreamers have invented: true faith comes when the professed belief has been tested and found true. We also already discussed this where it is proven by the epistle of James and what he says about Abraham offering up his son, being tested, and that is when the statement of Genesis 15:6 was fulfilled, many years later.

The following post was addressed to you.

Paul teaches these things as examples for all believers, and even Yakob, a.k.a James, uses the narrative of Abraham to teach the same things presented in Paul's teaching here.

James 2:21-24 KJV
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

The scripture which says that Abraham's belief was counted unto him as righteousness is found in Genesis 15:6 and this was at least fifteen years before the birth of his son Yitzhak.

How many years do you suppose Genesis 15:6 was before Genesis 22, where Abraham was TESTED, and the Genesis 15:6 statement was FULFILLED?

All of these things directly from the scripture refute the doctrines which both you and Clare73 uphold.

 

[Clare73]

A poster here is claiming that "the Torah therefore still remains necessary for babes and children in the milk of the Word, until the time appointed of the Father when a child becomes a tried and true tested and confirmed son, (Galatians 4:1-2)."
Let's look at the context. Starting chapter 3:

Why the Law then? It was added on account of the violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made

And then this from verse 21:

For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness

Paul is not speaking about development within each Christian's life but rather about history. In verse 19, he asks why was the law added in the first place. In verse 21, he writes about the giving of the law. This is history: Paul is not analyzing individual believers life he's speaking about Gods evolving redemption narrative as it play out through history. So, when he says we are no longer under a guardian, he is referring to the fact that as of the advent of Christ, the law no longer applies.

And now lets's look at what Paul say early in chapter 4:

Note the reference to the "date set by the Father in 4:2. Even more tellingly we have this in verse 4:

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son....

This is not about us developing as individuals - it is about God working through the long sweep of history.

There's a lot of that kind of misappropriation and "misunderstanding" in that neck o' the woods.

 

[Clare73]

Those things are right here in this thread for anyone who wants to backtrack and read the discussion.

You presented mine following:

Paul says that death reigned for all men (Romans 5:12), which includes those from Moses to Christ.
It falls to you to explain why he states both.

as demonstration of my request following:

please show where I presented the point of Paul's argument as being death's reign from Adam to Christ.

"Those things right here in this thread" do not demonstrate that "death from Moses to Christ" was the point of my argument.
It merely demonstrates my explanation of the correct meaning of Romans 5:12 in relation to my argument.

 

[Clare73]

Lol, the first three links were a conversation with you, where some of these things were already explained, just as you asked previously above. You are now telling me that you refuse to go back and read your own discussions.

I didn't open the links so I don't know what they are.

It falls to you to bring that material forward as your response to the point you are addressing.

I will not be reading the tea leaves to determine how in your mind what applied elsewhere in a link now applies here.

That's not how staying on the point works.