Paul in Galatians

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The law misused is in opposition to Christ because of flesh that fights the spirit ..

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!​

The cross has nullified the distinctive "I" of the flesh that seeks to keep the law along with the lust that fights the spirit.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.​

In order for Christ to replace the law and for the Holy Spirit may replace the flesh.

Being in the Spirit negates the lust of the flesh, that is how a Christian is to live but there's an added element ... that is walking in the Spirit ..

Acts 21:24
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
Romans 4:12
and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.​

walk= Gk. stoicheo, meaning to walk orderly, derived from steicho, which means to range in regular line, to march in military rank, to keep step, to conform to virtue and piety.

Walking in accordance to God .. a walk that follows the Spirit as the elementary rule, the basic principle.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The law misused is in opposition to Christ because of flesh that fights the spirit ..

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!​

The cross has nullified the distinctive "I" of the flesh that seeks to keep the law along with the lust that fights the spirit.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.​

In order for Christ to replace the law and for the Holy Spirit may replace the flesh.

Being in the Spirit negates the lust of the flesh, that is how a Christian is to live but there's an added element ... that is walking in the Spirit ..

Acts 21:24
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
Romans 4:12
and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.​

Walking in accordance to God .. a walk that follows the Spirit as the elementary rule, the basic principle.

Hebrews 7 a relevant passage also.

Hebrews 7.12 says the law was changed. Hebrews 7.19 says that what the believer now has is better than the law.

 

[Soyeong]

The law misused is in opposition to Christ because of flesh that fights the spirit ..

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!​

​

The phrase translated as "works of the law" has no definitive article in the Greek, so it is literally translated in the YLT as "works of law", so it does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as the Law of Moses, but rather Paul used it as a catch-all phrase to refer to a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that they taught people needed to obey in order to become saved. For example, in Acts 15:1, while God certainly required all Jews to become circumcised, He did not require all Gentiles to become circumcised, and did not even require Jews to become circumcised in order to become saved, so if God did not require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, then it is therefore part of man-made work of law. In Act 10:28, it refers to a law that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, which is not found anywhere in God's Law, so it is again part of the works of law. In Galatians 2:11-16, it was this law that Peter was obeying when he stopped visiting or associating the the Gentiles, and by doing so he was giving credence to the group that was saying that Gentiles needed to obey their works of law in order to become saved, which is why Paul rebuked Peter and immediately reiterated that we are not saved by works of law, but by faith.

The cross has nullified the distinctive "I" of the flesh that seeks to keep the law along with the lust that fights the spirit.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.​

In order for Christ to replace the law and for the Holy Spirit may replace the flesh.

If we do not correctly distinguish between what is said about God's Law and what is said about man-made works of law, then we will end up at a truly strange position that it is somehow a bad thing for someone to seek to obey our God's instructions by faith. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to do away with or replace to Law, but to to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are zealous for doing good works, so we were set free from sin so that we could obey God's instructions for how to do good works found in His Law. The Law instructs us how to walk in God's ways (Deuteronomy 10:12-13) and God's ways are eternal and have no need for replacement, but rather the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). For example, God's Law reveals that helping the poor is acting in accordance with His righteousness and there is no need to replace it or to replace the righteousness of God that it is based upon, but rather the Spirit will lead us to obey it Law, so walking in the Spirit does not refer to following a different set of laws that are based upon the ways of some other God, but refers to the manner in which we obey them.

Being in the Spirit negates the lust of the flesh, that is how a Christian is to live but there's an added element ... that is walking in the Spirit ..

Acts 21:24
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
Romans 4:12
and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.​

Walking in accordance to God .. a walk that follows the Spirit as the elementary rule, the basic principle.

The Spirit is not in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have and will not lead us to disobey anything that He has commanded, so if we are walking in the Spirit, then we are walking in obedience to God's Law. As Acts 21:24, notes, Paul continued to walk in obedience to God's Law.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The phrase translated as "works of the law" has no definitive article in the Greek, so it is literally translated in the YLT as "works of law", so it does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as the Law of Moses, but rather Paul used it as a catch-all phrase to refer to a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that they taught people needed to obey in order to become saved. For example, in Acts 15:1, while God certainly required all Jews to become circumcised, He did not require all Gentiles to become circumcised, and did not even require Jews to become circumcised in order to become saved, so if God did not require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, then it is therefore part of man-made work of law. In Act 10:28, it refers to a law that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, which is not found anywhere in God's Law, so it is again part of the works of law. In Galatians 2:11-16, it was this law that Peter was obeying when he stopped visiting or associating the the Gentiles, and by doing so he was giving credence to the group that was saying that Gentiles needed to obey their works of law in order to become saved, which is why Paul rebuked Peter and immediately reiterated that we are not saved by works of law, but by faith.

You've taken that from the scripture passage to dispute but if you have another more accurate translation that's fine but whether it's an inclusion of rabbinical law or not still no one is justified by it. So the point is moot.

If we do not correctly distinguish between what is said about God's Law and what is said about man-made works of law, then we will end up at a truly strange position that it is somehow a bad thing for someone to seek to obey our God's instructions by faith.

Can you give me an example of that logic?

In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to do away with or replace to Law, but to to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are zealous for doing good works, so we were set free from sin so that we could obey God's instructions for how to do good works found in His Law.
The Law instructs us how to walk in God's ways (Deuteronomy 10:12-13) and God's ways are eternal and have no need for replacement, but rather the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). For example, God's Law reveals that helping the poor is acting in accordance with His righteousness and there is no need to replace it or to replace the righteousness of God that it is based upon, but rather the Spirit will lead us to obey it Law, so walking in the Spirit does not refer to following a different set of laws that are based upon the ways of some other God, but refers to the manner in which we obey them.



The Spirit is not in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have and will not lead us to disobey anything that He has commanded, so if we are walking in the Spirit, then we are walking in obedience to God's Law. As Acts 21:24, notes, Paul continued to walk in obedience to God's Law.

Let's just cut to the chase @davew says that only Jewish descents are to follow the law and gentiles are not. I've pointed that out to you before iirc. But do you insist that gentiles are to follow the law also?

Edit to correct tag @Dave-W

 

[Soyeong]

You've taken that from the scripture passage to dispute but if you have another more accurate translation that's fine but whether it's an inclusion of rabbinical law or not still no one is justified by it. So the point is moot.

God's Law was never given for the purpose of providing a means of becoming justified, so it is that much more true for man-made works of Law, but it is nevertheless important not to take what was only against obeying man-made laws as being against following the Law of the God that we follow.

Can you give me an example of that logic?

For example, people often interpret Acts 15:10 as saying that the Law is a heaven burden that no one could bear, or interpret Galatians 5:4 as saying that someone who seek to obey God's Law means that they have fallen from grace, or they will consider obeying God's Festivals and dietary laws as something to shun rather than a delight and a divine privilege that were commanded by God for our own good.

Let's just cut to the chase @davew says that only Jewish descents are to follow the law and gentiles are not. I've pointed that out to you before iirc. But do you insist that gentiles are to follow the law also?

Would you consider it to be strange for someone to decide to follow Islam, but reject what Allah has commanded or to follow Buddhism, but to reject the teachings of Buddha? If so, then it is equally strange for someone say that we should have faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live, but should not follow the instructions that He has given in His Law for how to do that, or for someone to say that we should follow Christ, but that we should not follow the prefect example that he set for his followers to follow of how to obey the Law.

So yes, I think Gentiles should do what God has revealed in His Law to be holy, righteous, and good and to refrain from doing what He has revealed to be sin, especially now that Christ has given himself to free us from sinning in transgression of the Law, but not for the purpose of trying to become justified. The Law teaches us how to walk in God's ways, so Gentiles should not seek to deprive themselves of that privilege and we should let no man keep us from the delight of obeying what God has commanded. David and Paul both said that they delighted in obeying God's Law, and we should have the same attitude.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

God's Law was never given for the purpose of providing a means of becoming justified, so it is that much more true for man-made works of Law, but it is nevertheless important not to take what was only against obeying man-made laws as being against following the Law of the God that we follow.



For example, people often interpret Acts 15:10 as saying that the Law is a heaven burden that no one could bear, or interpret Galatians 5:4 as saying that someone who seek to obey God's Law means that they have fallen from grace, or they will consider obeying God's Festivals and dietary laws as something to shun rather than a delight and a divine privilege that were commanded by God for our own good.



Would you consider it to be strange for someone to decide to follow Islam, but reject what Allah has commanded or to follow Buddhism, but to reject the teachings of Buddha? If so, then it is equally strange for someone say that we should have faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live, but should not follow the instructions that He has given in His Law for how to do that, or for someone to say that we should follow Christ, but that we should not follow the prefect example that he set for his followers to follow of how to obey the Law.

So yes, I think Gentiles should do what God has revealed in His Law to be holy, righteous, and good and to refrain from doing what He has revealed to be sin, especially now that Christ has given himself to free us from sinning in transgression of the Law, but not for the purpose of trying to become justified. The Law teaches us how to walk in God's ways, so Gentiles should not seek to deprive themselves of that privilege and we should let no man keep us from the delight of obeying what God has commanded. David and Paul both said that they delighted in obeying God's Law, and we should have the same attitude.

As for me I will follow the Lord, not into that of ceremony but away from that to freedom from obeying that which is not written in stone ... Basically love God and neighbor. If you feel that you can preach law then I guess all the more of the natural inheritance to you. And if others want to follow law that are not Jews then that's there perogative. But if it had been meant to perfect there would not have been any need for a new covenant.

 

[Halbhh]

If I could mention, at a much lower level than this discourse so far, that very often these days it seems we are challenged that we not be thinking we are saved by our own works -- as if we thought we were, or as if many people thought they were, or even some do....

Yet....this is so basic, and how could anyone not already know it? That's usually one reaction I have, and perhaps I underestimate, but I bet it's rare.

But there is a 2nd thought, a more important thing by far.

Very often we seem to hear a kind of .... beneath the words suggestion we can entirely think our...being Christian....is done, "finished", because we already have done the 'work of God' to go to faith, in that it seems as if the impulse then is to try to avoid knowing/hearing what Christ said, as if Christ is only the One Who went to the cross for us, but has nothing to teach us. It seems like that is the between-the-lines message too often in that 'grace and done' rhetoric we hear at times. It's like they are eager to find someone claiming we are saved by our own mere works of law, our own self-righteous stuff. But there is almost no one anyone that actually thinks we are saved by our own works without faith. That's a chimera.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

If I could mention, at a much lower level than this discourse so far, that very often these days it seems we are challenged that we not be thinking we are saved by our own works -- as if we thought we were, or as if many people thought they were, or even some do....

Yet....this is so basic, and how could anyone not already know it? That's usually one reaction I have, and perhaps I underestimate, but I bet it's rare.

But there is a 2nd thought, a more important thing by far.

Very often we seem to hear a kind of .... beneath the words suggestion we can entirely think our...being Christian....is done, "finished", because we already have done the 'work of God' to go to faith, in that it seems as if the impulse then is to try to avoid knowing/hearing what Christ said, as if Christ is only the One Who went to the cross for us, but has nothing to teach us. It seems like that is the between-the-lines message too often in that 'grace and done' rhetoric we hear at times. It's like they are eager to find someone claiming we are saved by our own mere works of law, our own self-righteous stuff. But there is almost no one anyone that actually thinks we are saved by our own works without faith. That's a chimera.

That's the satanic blockage put into place so that the inner works of spirituality are deemed as nothing. Sorry but blunt seems to be my thing these days. In fact it can be nothing else because that is where the cross leads is to death of self. It's not a zombie running around doing random acts of kindness. Strong towers of the devil vs the strong tower that is God.

 

[Halbhh]

That's the satanic blockage put into place so that the inner works of spirituality are deemed as nothing. Sorry but blunt seems to be my thing these days. In fact it can be nothing else because that is where the cross leads is to death of self. It's not a zombie running around doing random acts of kindness. Strong towers of the devil vs the strong tower that is God.

Not sure what you mean in this new wordings, but perhaps you mean the things you said in the OP, on which I already agree with you fully. Even emphatically.
It's only by being in Christ, on the true vine, that we can bear true fruit. John chapter 15 is so wonderfully helpful to me that way. We are even, as He said, lifted even just by hearing His words, and keeping them in our minds.

But as you read in John Chapter 15, and you see that some branches will be removed and later "thrown into the fire" (!). Those branches even once on the very vine!

Into the fire. Hell.

Then we all would know it's not merely faith alone and done, but following where faith would lead us, bearing fruit, because of faith, the listening and following that faith would bring us to do.

The teaching from Him in John 15 is there because we need to hear it, of course. It's not a redundant or useless teaching, unneeded if we have faith, but the teaching to us, what to do with our faith -- follow the spirit and do the things Christ commanded, His "commandments" as He said this word to us. It actually applies in real life every day, in that we can sometimes ignore that guiding in us that would have us follow Him, and just do whatever else instead of that guiding. We continue to have that freedom of will, and an ability to stumble or stray even.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not sure what you mean in this new wordings, but perhaps you mean the things you said in the OP, on which I already agree with you fully. Even emphatically.
It's only by being in Christ, on the true vine, that we can bear true fruit. John chapter 15 is so wonderfully helpful to me that way. We are even, as He said, lifted even just by hearing His words, and keeping them in our minds.

But as you read in John Chapter 15, and you see that some branches will be removed and later "thrown into the fire" (!). Those branches even once on the very vine!

Into the fire. Hell.

Then we all would know it's not merely faith alone and done, but following where faith would lead us, bearing fruit, because of faith, the listening and following that faith would bring us to do.

Why does it say that works (outside of God) (like a fungus growing on a branch) are cut off and thrown into the fire but they themselves would be saved if it meant that they would not be saved?

 

[Halbhh]

Why does it say that works (outside of God) (like a fungus growing on a branch) are cut off and thrown into the fire but they themselves would be saved if it meant that they would not be saved?

The way for us is to just really listen to Him, and hear what He says. I'll copy over the entire passage, which is one of our greatest treasures.

 

[Halbhh]

1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other."

 

[klutedavid]

​

The phrase translated as "works of the law" has no definitive article in the Greek, so it is literally translated in the YLT as "works of law", so it does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as the Law of Moses, but rather Paul used it as a catch-all phrase to refer to a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that they taught people needed to obey in order to become saved. For example, in Acts 15:1, while God certainly required all Jews to become circumcised, He did not require all Gentiles to become circumcised, and did not even require Jews to become circumcised in order to become saved, so if God did not require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, then it is therefore part of man-made work of law. In Act 10:28, it refers to a law that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, which is not found anywhere in God's Law, so it is again part of the works of law. In Galatians 2:11-16, it was this law that Peter was obeying when he stopped visiting or associating the the Gentiles, and by doing so he was giving credence to the group that was saying that Gentiles needed to obey their works of law in order to become saved, which is why Paul rebuked Peter and immediately reiterated that we are not saved by works of law, but by faith.



If we do not correctly distinguish between what is said about God's Law and what is said about man-made works of law, then we will end up at a truly strange position that it is somehow a bad thing for someone to seek to obey our God's instructions by faith. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to do away with or replace to Law, but to to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are zealous for doing good works, so we were set free from sin so that we could obey God's instructions for how to do good works found in His Law. The Law instructs us how to walk in God's ways (Deuteronomy 10:12-13) and God's ways are eternal and have no need for replacement, but rather the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). For example, God's Law reveals that helping the poor is acting in accordance with His righteousness and there is no need to replace it or to replace the righteousness of God that it is based upon, but rather the Spirit will lead us to obey it Law, so walking in the Spirit does not refer to following a different set of laws that are based upon the ways of some other God, but refers to the manner in which we obey them.



The Spirit is not in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have and will not lead us to disobey anything that He has commanded, so if we are walking in the Spirit, then we are walking in obedience to God's Law. As Acts 21:24, notes, Paul continued to walk in obedience to God's Law.

Hello Soyeong.

Circumcision is a work of the law, probably one of the best examples of a work of the law.

The law states in no uncertain terms.

Leviticus 12:3
On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Any Jew who is not circumcised has broken the law, Jews are bound by the letter of the law.

A Gentile is not under the letter of the law, hence, a Gentile is not bound by the law of circumcision. An uncircumcised Gentile cannot break the law, because a Gentile is not under the letter of the law.

Peter was not straight forward about the truth of the Gospel in the letter to the Galatians, because Peter was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews.

Galatians 2:14
...If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Jews were under the letter of the law, Peter was under the letter of the law, Peter was trying to get the Gentiles to follow the law. Paul opposed Peter because Paul taught that the Gentiles were not under the letter of the law. Paul not only opposed Peter, Paul was opposed to the church in Jerusalem, Paul was indirectly opposing James also.

Galatians 2
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

Jews under the law cannot marry Gentiles, Jews do not associate with Gentiles, Jews do not eat with dogs.

Men that belonged to James were the initial culprits, these men followed the letter of the law. These men advocated the law of circumcision, these men obeyed the law in it's fullness.

If Gentiles needed to follow the law, then the Gentiles would be under the entire letter of the law. Of course Gentiles would need to be circumcised, if they are considered as being under the law!

 

[Soyeong]

As for me I will follow the Lord, not into that of ceremony but away from that to freedom from obeying that which is not written in stone ... Basically love God and neighbor. If you feel that you can preach law then I guess all the more of the natural inheritance to you. And if others want to follow law that are not Jews then that's there perogative. But if it had been meant to perfect there would not have been any need for a new covenant.

In Joshua 24:15, what do you think he meant when he said that he and his house would serve the Lord? Do you think it meant that he would follow some of God's commands, but not others? Why do you say that you will follow the Lord, but then but then make exceptions for areas where you won't follow the Lord? The Law requires us to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), so the medium that a law is written on doesn't change the content of what it commands us to do. The New Covenant does not involve God putting His Law in our minds and writing in our hearts so that we will disregard it, but so that we will obey it. It is a mistake to focus too much on who the Law given to so much that you lose focus on who it was given by because it was not given as instructions for how to live like Jews, but for how to walk in God's ways in accordance with His holiness, righteousness, and goodness. The covenant instructs how to be perfect, not how to become perfect, and it does not follow that because it does not perfect that therefore we should not seek to obey it. The reason why a New Covenant was necessary was because of the hardness of the people's hearts who broke their covenant and would not submit to God's Law, and we are told to learn from Israel as an example about what not to do, not to emulate their mistakes.

 

[Soyeong]

If I could mention, at a much lower level than this discourse so far, that very often these days it seems we are challenged that we not be thinking we are saved by our own works -- as if we thought we were, or as if many people thought they were, or even some do....

Yet....this is so basic, and how could anyone not already know it? That's usually one reaction I have, and perhaps I underestimate, but I bet it's rare.

But there is a 2nd thought, a more important thing by far.

Very often we seem to hear a kind of .... beneath the words suggestion we can entirely think our...being Christian....is done, "finished", because we already have done the 'work of God' to go to faith, in that it seems as if the impulse then is to try to avoid knowing/hearing what Christ said, as if Christ is only the One Who went to the cross for us, but has nothing to teach us. It seems like that is the between-the-lines message too often in that 'grace and done' rhetoric we hear at times. It's like they are eager to find someone claiming we are saved by our own mere works of law, our own self-righteous stuff. But there is almost no one anyone that actually thinks we are saved by our own works without faith. That's a chimera.

I think there is something deep inside of us that yearns for justice, for wrongs to be righted, and for doing right to be rewarded. Many religious ideas are based on these concepts, such as reincarnating into something according to what your past life was like or Islam where people will be rewarded for being good enough. Even Christianity contains concepts such as Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Revelation 22:12 where we will be repaid according to what we have done, so it is a natural and easy mistake to think that we are salved by our works.

However, our salvation is from sin, so it necessarily involves being trained to do what is righteous and being trained to stop sinning. However, Titus 2:11-14 describes our salvation as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, which is essentially what the Law was given to instruct how to do. Furthermore, it says both that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, and God's was again given to instruct how to do good works. God does not command us to do good works all throughout the Bible, train us to do them by grace, and then show contempt for our works when we seek to obey Him. People want to quote Isaiah 64:6 as saying that our righteous deeds are like filthy rags, but it was not God speaking, but rather it was the people complaining about how they thought God was viewing their works. The reality is that the righteous deeds of the saints are like fine white linen (Revelation 19:8). Christianity is not about signing up for a ticket to heaven, but rather it is signing up for a transformed life to be restore to the image of God.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

In Joshua 24:15, what do you think he meant when he said that he and his house would serve the Lord? Do you think it meant that he would follow some of God's commands, but not others? Why do you say that you will follow the Lord, but then but then make exceptions for areas where you won't follow the Lord?

Your accusing me of not following what laws that are in need of keeping? I know exactly what Josuah understood when the captain of the army said that He was neither for nor against.

The Law requires us to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), so the medium that a law is written on doesn't change the content of what it commands us to do.

What do you mean the medium that it's written because if you mean the old or new covenant it makes a huge difference of about 600 some odd.

The New Covenant does not involve God putting His Law in our minds and writing in our hearts so that we will disregard it, but so that we will obey it.

Then we agree on that. But it has been individualized away from the nation to become a relationship in which Love is the law and corporate love in actions. That is the whole meaning of all of the law.

It is a mistake to focus too much on who the Law given to so much that you lose focus on who it was given by because it was not given as instructions for how to live like Jews, but for how to walk in God's ways in accordance with His holiness, righteousness, and goodness.

Sanctification after the initial justification is the process of growth. Without that light the focus is not on Christ but on observances or causes. A different point of view.

The covenant instructs how to be perfect, not how to become perfect, and it does not follow that because it does not perfect that therefore we should not seek to obey it.

I beg to differ.

The reason why a New Covenant was necessary was because of the hardness of the people's hearts who broke their covenant and would not submit to God's Law, and we are told to learn from Israel as an example about what not to do, not to emulate their mistakes.

We began with talking about Joshua in the promised land. No one ever sees Caleb living out his life in strength in Hebron, his land, that he shared with his daughter much like how Job began the story.

 

[Soyeong]

Hello Soyeong.

Circumcision is a work of the law, probably one of the best examples of a work of the law.

The law states in no uncertain terms.

Leviticus 12:3
On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Any Jew who is not circumcised has broken the law, Jews are bound by the letter of the law.

Hello,

The Law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so Jews have only ever been bound to the spirit of the Law, while someone who seeks to obey the letter of the law without regard to its spirit is perverting and is just as Lawless as someone who lives in complete disobedience to it. I said in my post that Jews were certainly required to become circumcised, but that they were not required to become circumcised in order to become saved, so the issue was the circumcision was being used for a purpose for which it was never instructed by God, which means that it is a mistake to take something that was against circumcision for this purpose according to man-made works of law as being against obeying what our God has commanded.

A Gentile is not under the letter of the law, hence, a Gentile is not bound by the law of circumcision. An uncircumcised Gentile cannot break the law, because a Gentile is not under the letter of the law.

Gentiles are likewise under the spirit of the Law. If Gentiles were not, then it would be impossible for Gentiles to sin, they would never have needed forgiveness of their sins, they would have never needed grace, and they would never have needed Christ to give himself to redeem them from all Lawlessness. If the nations are not under God's Law, then He has no grounds to judge anyone except Jews. For instance, God would have had no grounds to judge Sodom and Gomorrah if they were not under His Law. Rather, the reason that all Gentiles are not bound to become circumcised because the Law does not require it, much less for the purpose of becoming saved. On the other hand, if God's Law had required all Gentiles to become circumcised, then the Jerusalem Council would have had no authority to countermand God, but rather they were only speaking against man-made works of law.

Peter was not straight forward about the truth of the Gospel in the letter to the Galatians, because Peter was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews.

Galatians 2:14
...If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Jews were under the letter of the law, Peter was under the letter of the law, Peter was trying to get the Gentiles to follow the law. Paul opposed Peter because Paul taught that the Gentiles were not under the letter of the law. Paul not only opposed Peter, Paul was opposed to the church in Jerusalem, Paul was indirectly opposing James also.

Galatians 2
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

Jews under the law cannot marry Gentiles, Jews do not associate with Gentiles, Jews do not eat with dogs.

Men that belonged to James were the initial culprits, these men followed the letter of the law. These men advocated the law of circumcision, these men obeyed the law in it's fullness.

If Gentiles needed to follow the law, then the Gentiles would be under the entire letter of the law. Of course Gentiles would need to be circumcised, if they are considered as being under the law!

At Sinai the Jew agreed to obey everything Moses said (Exodus 20:19), so Moses had the authority to making rulings about how to obey the Torah, but eventually Moses passed down this authority on Jethro's advice (Exodus 18), and by the 1st century those who had this authority passed down to them were referred to as sitting in Moses' seat. They had added a large body of supplementary oral laws, traditions, ruling, and fences that governed every aspect of a Jew's life down to the order that they put on their shoes, which Jesus referred to as placing a heavy burden on the people (Matthew 23:2-4). In Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:6-9, Jesus was very critical of the Pharisees for not following God's Law and for teaching their own traditions in place of it, so you should to make room for the Bible speaking about the role of these laws in your theology, and it is reasonable that living like a Jew referred to someone who was subject to all of these oral laws, especially when Paul was criticizing Peter for following one of these laws that is not found anywhere in God's Law, and is in fact contrary to it (Leviticus 19:34). A Gentile who agreed to become circumcised was becoming a Jewish proselyte and were joining the group of people who agree to do everything Moses said, so they were agree to live as Jews according to all of their oral laws, and doing all that in order to become saved, and this is what the Jerusalem Council rejected, not obeying the commands of our God.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Soyeong.

I do believe I disagreed with every line you wrote, except for one line.

The Law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so Jews have only ever been bound to the spirit of the Law, while someone who seeks to obey the letter of the law without regard to its spirit is perverting and is just as Lawless as someone who lives in complete disobedience to it.

Jews were bound to both the letter and the spirit of the law. What you wrote is incorrect, Jews were not just bound to the spirit of the law.

I said in my post that Jews were certainly required to become circumcised, but that they were not required to become circumcised in order to become saved

Soyeong, we are not discussing whether circumcision grants salvation? Not one of the laws in the entire Bible grants salvation, why you mentioned that I have no idea.

Circumcision is the law, a Jew must be circumcised because a Jew is under the law. A Gentile does not need to be circumcised because a Gentile is not under the law, simple.

so the issue was the circumcision was being used for a purpose for which it was never instructed by God, which means that it is a mistake to take something that was against circumcision for this purpose according to man-made works of law as being against obeying what our God has commanded.

We are not discussing any additional man made laws?

We were discussing why Paul opposed Peter to his face in Antioch. Peter was trying to get the Gentiles to obey the law, to live like the Jews. The text does not say that Peter was trying to get the Gentiles, to obey man made rules, that is not what the text is saying.

Gentiles are likewise under the spirit of the Law. If Gentiles were not, then it would be impossible for Gentiles to sin, they would never have needed forgiveness of their sins, they would have never needed grace, and they would never have needed Christ to give himself to redeem them from all Lawlessness.

Gentiles are under the law of Christ, not the law of Moses.

Gentiles don't need to be circumcised because they are not under the law. Jesus was circumcised, Paul was circumcised, yet Gentiles are not circumcised because they are not under the law.

Sin is still sin whether the law exists or not, Paul makes this point clear to the Gentiles.

Romans 5
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

We are guilty with or without the law. The law simply increases the transgression, that is why so many Jews were powerfully judged by God during the forty years in the desert.
Even Moses failed, not by breaking any law I might add, Moses was simply disobedient.

The problem with the law is that obedience to the law, in the end makes no difference.
Because obedience to the law cannot change a fallen heart and mind.

If the nations are not under God's Law, then He has no grounds to judge anyone except Jews.

Your statement is incorrect and illogical.

Whether you have the law or not is irrelevant, the way you behave towards God and your neighbor is the telling trait. All humanity was fallen, all alike are sinful, dead in their disobedience and sin. God does not need any laws in order to judge anyone. You can go to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ, that is not even mentioned in the law. You can reach beyond even forgiveness by blaspheming the Holy Spirit, that is not written in the law.

Whether you obey one law or ten laws well, you are still dead in your sin, obedience to any law is not a factor. All Jews broke the law, be it by the letter or even the spirit of the law, all failed. The law amplifies the fundamental problem we all have, the law provides no cure whatsoever.

For instance, God would have had no grounds to judge Sodom and Gomorrah if they were not under His Law.

These ten cities including Sodom were no different really to any other cities in the world.
All cities are fallen entities. God could destroy them anyway, regardless of whether they had the law or not. I can guarantee that Sodom and Gomorrah did not have the law of Moses. Sodom and Gomorrah did not need to be circumcised either.

Where in the scripture does it say that these cities were destroyed because they broke the ten commandments?

Rather, the reason that all Gentiles are not bound to become circumcised because the Law does not require it

The law does require circumcision Soyeong, a Jew must be circumcised.

Gentiles are not under the law, that is why Gentiles are not circumcised.

At Sinai the Jew agreed to obey everything Moses said (Exodus 20:19)

At last you are right on this statement. Note, the Gentiles have not agreed to obey everything that Moses said!

 

[Soyeong]

Hello Soyeong.

I do believe I disagreed with every line you wrote, except for one line.

Awww man...I'll have to try better next time.

Jews were bound to both the letter and the spirit of the law. What you wrote is incorrect, Jews were not just bound to the spirit of the law.

As is reflected in modern discussions of law enforcement, the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law is not based on whether or not someone obeys the law, but in regard to whether not someone obeys the law with respect to its intent. So someone who obeys the spirit of the law has a correct understanding of its intent and keeps their focus on its intent in their execution of the Law, while someone who obeys the letter of the law focuses on obeying it exactly how it is written without concern for its intent. For example:

Leviticus 19:12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

Someone focused on obeying the spirit of this law understands that the intention is that we should not swear falsely, whereas someone focused on obeying the letter of this law understands that we can swear falsely as long as we don't do so in God's name. So this is why I said that Jews are only required to follow the spirit of the Law and that focusing on obeying the letter of the law is a perversion of it.

However, the spirit of the law goes deeper than that because everything in the Bible is there to teach us about God and how to have a relationship with Him. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith was one of the weightier matters of the Law and obedience to it is straightforwardly about trusting God to guide us in how to rightly live. In John 14:23-24, Jesus said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings, and that his teachings are not his own, but that of the Father, so the goal of obeying God's commands is to grow in a relationship with Him based on faith and love. If I God were concerned with obedience the the letter of the Law, then He would have not disdained it when His people outwardly obeyed His commands while their hearts were far from Him, but rather God has always been concerned with where our hearts are at, so He disdained it because obedience to the letter of the Law completely missed the whole point of why it was commanded. In Matthew 7:21-23, people were outwardly obeying the Law, but they were nevertheless counted as being Lawless because Jesus never knew them, so again they were missing that the whole point of obeying the Law is a relationship with Christ for righteousness everyone who has faith (Romans 10:4).

Soyeong, we are not discussing whether circumcision grants salvation? Not one of the laws in the entire Bible grants salvation, why you mentioned that I have no idea.

P1: None of God's laws grant salvation.
P2: The people in Acts 15:1 were wanting Gentiles to obey a law in order to grant salvation.
C: Therefore, the law they were wanting Gentiles to obey is not one of God's laws.

While God's Law does require all Jews to become circumcised, it does not require either Jews or Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, so there is therefore a man-made requirement.

Circumcision is the law, a Jew must be circumcised because a Jew is under the law. A Gentile does not need to be circumcised because a Gentile is not under the law, simple.

If you were to grant for the moment that Gentiles are under the Law, then all Gentiles would still not be required to become circumcised because the Law does not require all Gentiles to do that. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law by correctly ruling that it does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised, and certainly not for the purpose granting salvation.

We are not discussing any additional man made laws?

We were discussing why Paul opposed Peter to his face in Antioch. Peter was trying to get the Gentiles to obey the law, to live like the Jews. The text does not say that Peter was trying to get the Gentiles, to obey man made rules, that is not what the text is saying.

The issue faced in Acts 15:1 is the same issue faced in Galatians, I brought it up as an example of how we need to be careful to distinguish between what God actually command and what man was requiring. In Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, so I invite you to either show me where God commanded or to grant that God did not command that, and that it is therefore a man-made requirement. I can assure you it is a man-made requirement because it is actually contrary to Leviticus 19:34. If Paul rebuked Peter because Peter was obeying man-made oral law by withdrawing from the Gentiles, then it is reasonable that "living like a Jew" refers to someone who is living in obedience to Jewish oral laws. Another big hint that Paul was speaking about Jewish oral laws is that he spoke against works of law rather than against God's Law.

Gentiles are under the law of Christ, not the law of Moses.

I don't see a good reason to think that the Law is Christ is anything other than the way that he taught to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example. In John 14:23-24, Jesus said that anyone who loves him will obey his teachings and that his teachings are not his own, but that of the Father who sent him, so he did not depart from what the Father had commanded, nor was he in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have.

Sin is still sin whether the law exists or not, Paul makes this point clear to the Gentiles.

Romans 5
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

We are guilty with or without the law. The law simply increases the transgression, that is why so many Jews were powerfully judged by God during the forty years in the desert.
Even Moses failed, not by breaking any law I might add, Moses was simply disobedient.

Now that God's Law is in the world and we are aware of what He has revealed to be sin, we can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse, and as part of the New Covenant we are required to refrain from what God has revealed to be sin. In Romans 7:7, Paul said that God's Law was not sin, so it does not increase transgressions, but rather it is the law of sin that came about for that purpose. The word "Torah" is translated as "instruction", so Moses certainly sinned by not following God's instructions. "Instruction" can be appropriately translated as "law" when it comes with a punishment, so Moses did break God's Law.

The problem with the law is that obedience to the law, in the end makes no difference.
Because obedience to the law cannot change a fallen heart and mind.

Can you honestly read Romans 6:12-19 and tell me that Paul is saying that it makes no difference whether we present ourselves as instruments of sin or as instruments of righteousness? Considering all the many exhortations in the NT for repentance from sin and for obedience, I find your assertion that it makes no difference to be truly bizarre. Jesus didn't begin his ministry by going around and saying that we can continue doing whatever we want because it makes no difference, but rather he began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23). The consistent message all throughout the Bible and on the lips every single prophet up to and include Jesus was to repent from our sins, so the idea that it makes no difference if we repent is completely unbiblical.

Your statement is incorrect and illogical.

Whether you have the law or not is irrelevant, the way you behave towards God and your neighbor is the telling trait. All humanity was fallen, all alike are sinful, dead in their disobedience and sin. God does not need any laws in order to judge anyone. You can go to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ, that is not even mentioned in the law. You can reach beyond even forgiveness by blaspheming the Holy Spirit, that is not written in the law.

Whether you obey one law or ten laws well, you are still dead in your sin, obedience to any law is not a factor. All Jews broke the law, be it by the letter or even the spirit of the law, all failed. The law amplifies the fundamental problem we all have, the law provides no cure whatsoever.

God judges people according to His righteous standard and His Law instructs us how to live according to that standard, so if we are not under God's Law, then we have no obligation to live according to God's righteous standard, and thus God would have no grounds to judge us according to it. According to John 5:46, Jesus said that Moses wrote about him, according to Luke 24:27, Jesus began with Moses and the Prophets interpreting to them all the things in Scripture concerning himself, according to Hebrews 10:7, the volume of the scroll is written about Jesus, so it is all about believe in him. In Philippians 3:8, Paul had been obeying the Law without having a focus on growing in a relationship with Christ, so he counted it as rubbish because he had completely missed the whole point of obeying the Law. When we fail to obey a law, then that means that we need to repent by faith. Faith is key to everything in the Bible and it not like God suddenly decided to value faith in the NT, but rather faith is always associate with a willingness to obey God's will, and it is faith that makes the difference, not the obedience to God's will.

These ten cities including Sodom were no different really to any other cities in the world.
All cities are fallen entities. God could destroy them anyway, regardless of whether they had the law or not. I can guarantee that Sodom and Gomorrah did not have the law of Moses. Sodom and Gomorrah did not need to be circumcised either.

If Sodom was under God's Law, then they had an obligation to refrain from being wicked, but if they were not under God's Law, then they had no obligation to refrain from being wicked and God would have been unjust to punish them for that reason.

Where in the scripture does it say that these cities were destroyed because they broke the ten commandments?

I didn't say anything about them being destroyed because they broke the Ten Commandments.

At last you are right on this statement. Note, the Gentiles have not agreed to obey everything that Moses said!

Gentiles who chose to become circumcised were becoming Jewish proselytes and agreeing to live as Jews, who agreed at Sinai to do everything Moses said, which included all of their oral laws. This is what Paul was referring to in Galatians 5:3 when he said that anyone who allowed themselves to become circumcised was obligating themselves to obey the whole law. The circumcision group would not have taught Gentiles to obey a law without teaching them all of their traditions for how they taught to keep it correctly.

 

[Soyeong]

Your accusing me of not following what laws that are in need of keeping? I know exactly what Josuah understood when the captain of the army said that He was neither for nor against.

It seems inconsistent to quote Joshua as saying you would serve the Lord while not committing to do what he meant by serving the Lord. It seems like most Christians would agree that we should walk in God's ways, yet seek to make exemptions when Scripture defines what it means to do that.

What do you mean the medium that it's written because if you mean the old or new covenant it makes a huge difference of about 600 some odd.

If God were to write the command not to steal on stone or on our hearts or on something else, it wouldn't change what the law was. The New Covenant involves God putting His Law in our minds and writing on our hearts so that we will obey it and not break our covenant like Israel did.

Then we agree on that. But it has been individualized away from the nation to become a relationship in which Love is the law and corporate love in actions. That is the whole meaning of all of the law.

The Old Covenant contains to law to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) and Jesus said that these were the two greatest commands because they summarize all of the other commands (Matthew 22:36-40), so the Mosaic Law is the Law of Love and this didn't change with the New Covenant. God disdained it when His people outwardly obeyed Him while their hearts were far from Him because it has always been about an intimate relationship him. There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Covenant as a marriage between God and Israel, such as with God describing himself as her husband (Jeremiah 31:32) or with Israel's unfaithfulness being described as adultery, which eventually got so bad that God wrote the Northern Kingdom a certificate of divorce (Jeremiah 3:8), so again the Law has always been about instructing us how to have an intimate relationship God.

Sanctification after the initial justification is the process of growth. Without that light the focus is not on Christ but on observances or causes. A different point of view.

In Romans 9:30 - Romans 10:4, the reason why Israel failed to obtain righteousness was not because they did what God told them to do and God gave them faulty commands, but they did not understand that righteousness of God was always through a relationship with Christ, so they pursued the Law as though righteousness were by works instead of pursuing the Law was through righteousness were by faith. According to John 8:56, Abraham rejoiced to see Messiah's day and was glad, and faith in the promise is of central importance throughout the OT, so the focus of obedience to God's commands has always been about growing in an intimate relationship with Christ.

I beg to differ.

Can you cite anything in the Bible that says anything like that if we can't be perfectly obedient that we should even bother? That it is better to be completely disobedient than to try to be obedient and fail to do so perfectly? The consistent message of every single prophet up to and including Jesus was to repent from our sins, but if we needed perfect obedience, then repentance would be pointless because it would already be too late.