Paul in Galatians

[mark kennedy]

It's not hard to forget the body when one is part of it. Maybe it wasn't Paul's anger you were speaking of?

I'm really not sure what you mean, Paul is angry that a drift back to Sinai was going to jeopardize the Gentiles. He was angry about the party of the circumcision and put the matter to rest. He speaks late in the book of bearing the fruit of the Spirit, the whole objective of grace. You will find that everywhere the gospel is preached. There is a balance and two extremes, on the one hand you have a works righteousness, on the other is grace being a license for sin. Somewhere in the middle grace produces the righteousness of God in Christ. We all work that out in fear and trembling.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[JAL]

klutedavid and Soyeong, I'd like to respond to you both.

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

Incorrect. Since circumstances vary, the letter of the law has never governed anyone in a justice-based society. The MEANING of the written words (what Soyeong calls the spirit or INTENT of the law) is the actual law. That meaning is always love, and thus the law itself is never changed nor abrogated.

Example. The 10 commandments advise to work six days. What about a Jew 102 years old and handicapped? What about infants? Obey the LETTER of the law? Hardly, because circumstancs vary. The Spirit's leadings guide us in our varying circumstances - here too is Soyeong correct. This is the only sure way to fulfill the law.

Admittedly many NT passages SEEM to abrogate the Mosaic law, but that's only because, due to changes in historic circumstances, some of the Mosaic LETTER, and many man-made Jewish laws, were contradicting the Spirit's guidance/leadings. But we're still under Mosaic law (love).

Here's where I disagree with both of you. There isn't a new covenant or a new economy of any kind. Nothing has changed across the testaments. In fact Galatians is insisting, particularly in chapter 3, that both OT and NT saints:
(1) must follow the Spirit's leadings
(2) are sanctified by doing so
(3) are all under the Abrahamic covenant.
For example the law did not originate on stone but was voiced by God to all Israel (Ex 20) - this too is just the leading of the Spirit, for 'My sheep know my voice.'

Galatians 3:15 and 3:17 insist that the Abrahamic Promise/Covenant is INVIOLABLE. Its terms do not change. Even the Mosaic law-covenant, introduced 430 years later, did not interrupt or alter the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:17).

Each subsequent covenant - each (allegedly) 'new' covenant - is actually the Abrahamic Covenant/Promise freshly ARTICULATING its own blessings, commands, and promises. Both Israel's old covenant, and her 'new' covenant, are just manifestations of the Abrahamic Promise/Covenant working behind the scenes.

The logical underpinning of my position (aside from the seemingly clear teaching of Galatians 3) is that the cross is retroactive. Since NT saints don't get a better cross than OT saints, they don't get a better - nor even a different - relationship/covenant with God. Based on this logic, the ONE unchanging covenant is termed the Covenant of Grace (or 'Covenant Theology') in the Reformed tradition, and rightly so.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Our mother, the New Jerusalem. Not that Jerusalem that killed the prophets. Not that which keeps Him in perpetual childhood, or trapped in death within His human body but risen above principalities that have any claim on His humanity. His divinity is shared in adoption into the family of God with whosoever He will, to those who gather into His Name.

Galatians 4:26

 

[mark kennedy]

klutedavid and Soyeong, I'd like to respond to you both.

Incorrect. Since circumstances vary, the letter of the law has never governed anyone in a justice-based society. The MEANING of the written words (what Soyeong calls the spirit or INTENT of the law) is the actual law. That meaning is always love, and thus the law itself is never changed nor abrogated.

Example. The 10 commandments advise to work six days. What about a Jew 102 years old and handicapped? What about infants? Obey the LETTER of the law? Hardly, because circumstancs vary. The Spirit's leadings guide us in our varying circumstances - here too is Soyeong correct. This is the only sure way to fulfill the law.

Admittedly many NT passages SEEM to abrogate the Mosaic law, but that's only because, due to changes in historic circumstances, some of the Mosaic LETTER, and many man-made Jewish laws, were contradicting the Spirit's guidance/leadings. But we're still under Mosaic law (love).

Here's where I disagree with both of you. There isn't a new covenant or a new economy of any kind. Nothing has changed across the testaments. In fact Galatians is insisting, particularly in chapter 3, that both OT and NT saints:
(1) must follow the Spirit's leadings
(2) are sanctified by doing so
(3) are all under the Abrahamic covenant.
For example the law did not originate on stone but was voiced by God to all Israel (Ex 20) - this too is just the leading of the Spirit, for 'My sheep know my voice.'

Galatians 3:15 and 3:17 insist that the Abrahamic Promise/Covenant is INVIOLABLE. Its terms do not change. Even the Mosaic law-covenant, introduced 430 years later, did not interrupt or alter the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:17).

Each subsequent covenant - each (allegedly) 'new' covenant - is actually the Abrahamic Covenant/Promise freshly ARTICULATING its own blessings, commands, and promises. Both Israel's old covenant, and her 'new' covenant, are just manifestations of the Abrahamic Promise/Covenant working behind the scenes.

The logical underpinning of my position (aside from the seemingly clear teaching of Galatians 3) is that the cross is retroactive. Since NT saints don't get a better cross than OT saints, they don't get a better - nor even a different - relationship/covenant with God. Based on this logic, the ONE unchanging covenant is termed the Covenant of Grace (or 'Covenant Theology') in the Reformed tradition, and rightly so.

The Law could never be abolished because it reflects God's divine attributes and eternal nature. In Galations starting with circumcision there were mandatory requirement. For example you had to be in Jerusalem for Passover and stay through Tabranackes. There were burnt offering, meal offerings, trespass offerings, sin offerings and the sacrifice of the peace offering. There were special sabbaths, tithes a temple tax and a long list of dos and don'ts in you diet and even things you could touch. What we as sinners need isn't the Law telling us about righteousness, godlness, and holiness. What we need is new birth, the divine nature received by Grace through faith. Galations is a dire warning not to go back to Sinai, but to press on to Zioj.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'm really not sure what you mean, Paul is angry that a drift back to Sinai was going to jeopardize the Gentiles. He was angry about the party of the circumcision and put the matter to rest. He speaks late in the book of bearing the fruit of the Spirit, the whole objective of grace. You will find that everywhere the gospel is preached. There is a balance and two extremes, on the one hand you have a works righteousness, on the other is grace being a license for sin. Somewhere in the middle grace produces the righteousness of God in Christ. We all work that out in fear and trembling.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Is it unrighteousness anger to not want the circumcision party coming into the church under false pretenses and misrepresenting themselves?

Did Christ have unrighteousness anger in Matthew 23?

Explain the difference if there is one please

 

[ToBeLoved]

klutedavid and Soyeong, I'd like to respond to you both.

Incorrect. Since circumstances vary, the letter of the law has never governed anyone in a justice-based society. The MEANING of the written words (what Soyeong calls the spirit or INTENT of the law) is the actual law. That meaning is always love, and thus the law itself is never changed nor abrogated.

Example. The 10 commandments advise to work six days. What about a Jew 102 years old and handicapped? What about infants? Obey the LETTER of the law? Hardly, because circumstancs vary. The Spirit's leadings guide us in our varying circumstances - here too is Soyeong correct. This is the only sure way to fulfill the law.

Admittedly many NT passages SEEM to abrogate the Mosaic law, but that's only because, due to changes in historic circumstances, some of the Mosaic LETTER, and many man-made Jewish laws, were contradicting the Spirit's guidance/leadings. But we're still under Mosaic law (love).

Here's where I disagree with both of you. There isn't a new covenant or a new economy of any kind. Nothing has changed across the testaments. In fact Galatians is insisting, particularly in chapter 3, that both OT and NT saints:
(1) must follow the Spirit's leadings
(2) are sanctified by doing so
(3) are all under the Abrahamic covenant.
For example the law did not originate on stone but was voiced by God to all Israel (Ex 20) - this too is just the leading of the Spirit, for 'My sheep know my voice.'

Galatians 3:15 and 3:17 insist that the Abrahamic Promise/Covenant is INVIOLABLE. Its terms do not change. Even the Mosaic law-covenant, introduced 430 years later, did not interrupt or alter the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:17).

Each subsequent covenant - each (allegedly) 'new' covenant - is actually the Abrahamic Covenant/Promise freshly ARTICULATING its own blessings, commands, and promises. Both Israel's old covenant, and her 'new' covenant, are just manifestations of the Abrahamic Promise/Covenant working behind the scenes.

The logical underpinning of my position (aside from the seemingly clear teaching of Galatians 3) is that the cross is retroactive. Since NT saints don't get a better cross than OT saints, they don't get a better - nor even a different - relationship/covenant with God. Based on this logic, the ONE unchanging covenant is termed the Covenant of Grace (or 'Covenant Theology') in the Reformed tradition, and rightly so.

A lot of your own thoughts and no scripture.

Saying that the New Covenant is not a better or different Covenant goes against the Old Testament then and maybe it’s not correct under your theology.

 

[JAL]

A lot of your own thoughts and no scripture.

Galatians is not Scripture?

Saying that the New Covenant is not a better or different Covenant goes against the Old Testament then and maybe it’s not correct under your theology.

These kinds of objections are understandable but merely manifest the larger problem, namely that the innumerable passages on covenant, promise, law, grace, fulfilled eschatology, pending eschatology, Israel, and the Gentiles jointly create a theological maze too confusing and thorny for even the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars to reliably navigate exegetically. Making the attempt will leave you with conclusions much too questionable, facile, and dubious for comfort.

It's much safer to begin with a strong logical underpinning, as my post exhibited, and then allow it to be the guiding light for navigating all those confusing passages, abandoning it only if the data really so compels.

Appealing to simple logic again, here's the underpinning once again. NT saints are saved by grace, not by works. If the OT saints were under a different covenant, how were they saved? By good works? That doesn't make much sense.

You wrote:

Saying that the New Covenant is not a better or different Covenant goes against the Old Testament then and maybe it’s not correct under your theology.

Israel's New Covenant is MUCH better and VERY different than Israel's Old Covenant. Isn't the heavenly tabernacle better than the earthly one, for example? Isn't the New Jerusalem better than the old? You see, the Abrahamic covenant provides SUNDRY blessings. Israel's old tabernacle was ONE of those blessings. Her new one is a BETTER blessing. And there are other aspects of improvement as well. The Abrahamic covenant provides for two types of promises:
(1) Conditional promises. Disobey God and you lose the blessing.
(2) Unconditional promises. God grants some blessings even to sinners.
Israel's Old Covenant mostly expressed the conditional promises. Her New Covenenant mostly expresses unconditional promises, and thus is 'founded on better promises.'

Incidentally the reason the Reformation called it the Covenant of Grace rather than the ABRAHAMIC Covenant of Grace is that it's bigger than Abraham. Gal 3:16 says that God voiced the covenantal promises both to Abraham and to Christ. As the Father-Son covenant, therefore, it preceded Abraham.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Galatians is not Scripture?

You talked a lot about what you thought. You included it, but no scripture references.

Just because you include a little scripture. Doesn’t mean that you didn’t say a lot of other things that were not supported by that small amount of scripture

 

[ToBeLoved]

Galatians is not Scripture?

These kinds of objections are understandable but merely manifest the larger problem, namely that the innumerable passages on covenant, promise, law, grace, fulfilled eschatology, pending eschatology, Israel, and the Gentiles jointly create a theological maze too confusing and thorny for even the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars to reliably navigate exegetically. Making the attempt will leave you with conclusions much too questionable, facile, and dubious for comfort.

It's much safer to begin with a strong logical underpinning, as my post exhibited, and then allow it to be the guiding light for navigating all those confusing passages, abandoning it only if the data really so compels.

Appealing to simple logic again, here's the underpinning once again. NT saints are saved by grace, not by works. If the OT saints were under a different covenant, how were they saved? By good works? That doesn't make much sense.

You wrote:

Israel's New Covenant is MUCH better and VERY different than Israel's Old Covenant. Isn't the heavenly tabernacle better than the earthly one, for example? Isn't the New Jerusalem better than the old? You see, the Abrahamic covenant provides SUNDRY blessings. Israel's old tabernacle was ONE of those blessings. Her new one is a BETTER blessing. And there are other aspects of improvement as well. The Abrahamic covenant provides for two types of promises:
(1) Conditional promises. Disobey God and you lose the blessing.
(2) Unconditional promises. God grants some blessings even to sinners.
Israel's Old Covenant mostly expressed the conditional promises. Her New Covenenant mostly expresses unconditional promises, and thus is 'founded on better promises.'

Incidentally the reason the Reformation called it the Covenant of Grace rather than the ABRAHAMIC Covenant of Grace is that it's bigger than Abraham. Gal 3:16 says that God voiced the covenantal promises both to Abraham and to Christ. As the Father-Son covenant, therefore, it preceded Abraham.

Then if the Bible is so hard to understand, how we’re you able to come up with so much detail in telling others the wrong thing to believe?

Are you just making it up

 

[ToBeLoved]

Galatians is not Scripture?

These kinds of objections are understandable but merely manifest the larger problem, namely that the innumerable passages on covenant, promise, law, grace, fulfilled eschatology, pending eschatology, Israel, and the Gentiles jointly create a theological maze too confusing and thorny for even the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars to reliably navigate exegetically. Making the attempt will leave you with conclusions much too questionable, facile, and dubious for comfort.

It's much safer to begin with a strong logical underpinning, as my post exhibited, and then allow it to be the guiding light for navigating all those confusing passages, abandoning it only if the data really so compels.

Appealing to simple logic again, here's the underpinning once again. NT saints are saved by grace, not by works. If the OT saints were under a different covenant, how were they saved? By good works? That doesn't make much sense.

You wrote:

Israel's New Covenant is MUCH better and VERY different than Israel's Old Covenant. Isn't the heavenly tabernacle better than the earthly one, for example? Isn't the New Jerusalem better than the old? You see, the Abrahamic covenant provides SUNDRY blessings. Israel's old tabernacle was ONE of those blessings. Her new one is a BETTER blessing. And there are other aspects of improvement as well. The Abrahamic covenant provides for two types of promises:
(1) Conditional promises. Disobey God and you lose the blessing.
(2) Unconditional promises. God grants some blessings even to sinners.
Israel's Old Covenant mostly expressed the conditional promises. Her New Covenenant mostly expresses unconditional promises, and thus is 'founded on better promises.'

Incidentally the reason the Reformation called it the Covenant of Grace rather than the ABRAHAMIC Covenant of Grace is that it's bigger than Abraham. Gal 3:16 says that God voiced the covenantal promises both to Abraham and to Christ. As the Father-Son covenant, therefore, it preceded Abraham.

So God telling Abraham ABOUT a Covenant, that would happen a thousand years later, means that Abraham owns that Covenant?

That’s a new one. Never heard that one before. Did God tell you that or is this made up?

 

[JAL]

Then if the Bible is so hard to understand, how we’re you able to come up with so much detail in telling others the wrong thing to believe?

I'm just pointing out it's a lot easier to understand salvation-history in terms of ONE covenant and ONE dispensation than a hundred. If you do the math, I think you'll agree. Now if there were no biblical or logical support for this idea, then I would have to abandon it. But the logic seems irresistible, in the sense that any attempt to put the OT saints under a different covenant leads to contradictions - some of which I haven't mentioned yet.

Are you just making it up

All I have to do is point out contradictions in multi-covenant theology. Doing so pretty much establishes single-covenant theology.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

We know that Christ is the seed that inherited the promises that were of the inheritance of the Abrahamic covenant. The seed is singular. It`s thru Him only that we receive. Hence the covenant is between God and one man Jesus. In order for us to inherit the promise we have to be one with Christ as He is also the blessing that we inherit. Galatians and Hebrews was written to warn against believers turning back from Christ to the law because they would forfeit both the Heir and the inheritance. In essence turning to God away from idols. Failing to move with God in fact. The promise was given to Abraham while the law came 430 yrs later. The promise is permanant, the law was temporary but the Galatians (and Hebrews) were in danger of leaving the permanant promise in Christ and sought to return to the temporary law.

Galatians 3:18-21

 

[JAL]

So God telling Abraham ABOUT a Covenant, that would happen a thousand years later, means that Abraham owns that Covenant?

That’s a new one. Never heard that one before. Did God tell you that or is this made up?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I tried to convey earlier is that the Covenant has the right to articulate itself (describe and unveil itself) in multiple promises, blessings, covenants, laws, and commands. Thus one possible perspective on the Abrahamic covenant is to regard it as one of those articulations. There are alternative perspectives but the point is that we need not be bogged down with who is the 'owner' of the Covenant. Perhaps God regards all of us as owners in some sense. I don't see much worth debating there.

So if you want to debate stuff like ownership, you're diving right into the heart of all those thorny issues I warned you about. You won't end up with anything really SOLID to build a whole theology on. Better to base theology on what we know - that the cross was retroactive.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

.....
Israel's New Covenant is MUCH better and VERY different than Israel's Old Covenant. Isn't the heavenly tabernacle better than the earthly one, for example? Isn't the New Jerusalem better than the old? You see, the Abrahamic covenant provides SUNDRY blessings. Israel's old tabernacle was ONE of those blessings. Her new one is a BETTER blessing. And there are other aspects of improvement as well. The Abrahamic covenant provides for two types of promises:
(1) Conditional promises. Disobey God and you lose the blessing.
(2) Unconditional promises. God grants some blessings even to sinners.
Israel's Old Covenant mostly expressed the conditional promises. Her New Covenenant mostly expresses unconditional promises, and thus is 'founded on better promises.'

Incidentally the reason the Reformation called it the Covenant of Grace rather than the ABRAHAMIC Covenant of Grace is that it's bigger than Abraham. Gal 3:16 says that God voiced the covenantal promises both to Abraham and to Christ. As the Father-Son covenant, therefore, it preceded Abraham.

As the Father-Son covenant preceded

 

[JAL]

We know that Christ is the seed that inherited the promises that were of the inheritance of the Abrahamic covenant. The seed is singular. It`s thru Him only that we receive. Hence the covenant is between God and one man Jesus. In order for us to inherit the promise we have to be one with Christ as He is also the blessing that we inherit. Galatians and Hebrews was written to warn against believers turning back from Christ to the law because they would forfeit both the Heir and the inheritance. In essence turning to God away from idols. Failing to move with God in fact. The promise was given to Abraham while the law came 430 yrs later. The promise is permanant, the law was temporary but the Galatians (and Hebrews) were in danger of leaving the permanant promise in Christ and sought to return to the temporary law.

Galatians 3:18-21

Depends on perspective. The LETTER of the law (much of it anyway) is temporary because circumstances vary and change, especially as history forges ahead century after century. The law itself (love) is, however, permanent. God will never endorse lawlessness.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I tried to convey earlier is that the Covenant has the right to articulate itself (describe and unveil itself) in multiple promises, blessings, covenants, laws, and commands. Thus one possible perspective on the Abrahamic covenant is to regard it as one of those articulations. There are alternative perspectives but the point is that we need not be bogged down with who is the 'owner' of the Covenant. Perhaps God regards all of us as owners in some sense. I don't see much worth debating there.

So if you want to debate stuff like ownership, you're diving right into the heart of all those thorny issues I warned you about. You won't end up with anything really SOLID to build a whole theology on. Better to base theology on what we know - that the cross was retroactive.

All of us as 'owners' of the promise makes no sense when it's a promise to one seed singular. That is not debatable. To whom He shares it that can be debated but never proven until the final count is made.

Depends on perspective. The LETTER of the law (much of it anyway) is temporary because circumstances vary and change, especially as history forges ahead century after century. The law itself (love) is, however, permanent. God will never endorse lawlessness.

The promise of the inheritance is permenant. Lawlessness that you boys keep talking about are not of the promise. They are of the concubine (iow not of the bride) I was gonna say more but forget it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Just an fyi man withholding laying on of hands has no effect on the Holy Spirit's efficency. That too is lawlessness.

 

[JAL]

All of us as 'owners' of the promise makes no sense when it's a promise to one seed singular. That is not debatable.

Not debatable? I warned you guys how thorny this stuff is. It's ALL debatable. In this case, it's ESPECIALLY debatable. Aren't you aware that seed is BOTH singular AND plural? Here's what Paul said, "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed...meaning Christ...but you are Abraham's SEED (plural) and heirs together with him."
Were the promises spoken to Abraham's seed in the plural sense? Yes! God spoke the promises to David and all the prophets and even to each of us as well (or so I could easily argue). In fact, that's what MAKES you an heir! If the Holy Spirit never spoke any of the promises to you, you're not yet an heir!

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not debatable? I warned you guys how thorny this stuff is. It's ALL debatable. In this case, it's ESPECIALLY debatable. Aren't you aware that seed is BOTH singular AND plural? Here's what Paul said, "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed...meaning Christ...but you are Abraham's SEED (plural) and heirs together with him."
Were the promises spoken to Abraham's seed in the plural sense? Yes! God spoke the promises to David and all the prophets and even to each of us as well (or so I could easily argue). In fact, that's what MAKES you an heir! If the Holy Spirit never spoke any of the promises to you, you're not yet an heir!

That means only in Him.

That's like saying he could raise himself out of the ground ... good luck with that

 

[JAL]

That means only in Him.

That's like saying he could raise himself out of the ground ... good luck with that

Sorry I don't follow your argument.

The point is that since God voiced the same Covenants/Promises to many - the Son, Abraham, the prophets, and to us - then we are all potentially joint owners. I fail to see how you have refuted, or can refute, this logic.