The Galatian church was made up predominantly of Gentiles. If there were any Jews, they were the minority. There no debate about that. Paul wrote the letter because certain people had come in after Paul and were telling those Galatians that they had to keep the Jewish law, not to be saved, but to be perfected in their salvation--what we would call sanctification. Paul condemns that. He points out that you do NOT have to keep the Mosaic Law. You are NOT under it, and anyone who says otherwise is anathema (cursed) for preaching a false gospel. Bear in mind that "gospel" means a lot more than "what you have to believe to be saved." The Gospel leads not only to salvation, but also to fellowship with God.No he didn't. Point out to me one place in Galatians where he says anything about the Sabbath. I seriously doubt that the gist of Paul's letter was because they were taking a day of rest.
And there is absolutely no way you can say there weren't Jews in the galatian church. More than likely there were. And that was what created the point of contention that Paul is dealing with. No? Circumcision is a much more central theme of this letter.
These Galatians were putting themselves under the Sabbath law. They were trying to keep the Mosaic Law, from Sabbath-keeping to circumcision to the dietary laws to everything in between. Paul calls them fools for it. He says to get over it. The Mosaic Law, which included the Ten Commandments, has been done away with. To say otherwise is to be accursed.
You should read the whole passage:That doesn't mean they aren't seperate. In fact the text is very clear in doing so. It is obvious in the reading that there is a distiction from the 10.
And that would require ignoring Deut 5:22 "These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me."
- 23 When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, all the leading men of your tribes and your elders came to me. 24 And you said, "The LORD our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a man can live even if God speaks with him. 25 But now, why should we die? This great fire will consume us, and we will die if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any longer. 26 For what mortal man has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? 27 Go near and listen to all that the LORD our God says. Then tell us whatever the LORD our God tells you. We will listen and obey."
28 The LORD heard you when you spoke to me and the LORD said to me, "I have heard what this people said to you. Everything they said was good. 29 Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!
30 "Go, tell them to return to their tents. 31 But you stay here with me so that I may give you all the commands, decrees and laws you are to teach them to follow in the land I am giving them to possess."
As far as the statement that they are separated, assertions require evidence, my friend. While the passage in Deuteronomy shows the continuity, more importantly, there is nothing in Ex 20 that would lead us to believe that the people were getting two separate laws, one eternal and one temporary. More on that distinction below. Unless you can show me something that says, "These first ten are permanent, and the next 600+ are temporary" then all you have is a separation by narrative. But by that standard, there are dozens of different sets of laws, all separated by narrative. I'm sure you don't hold to that, so in the interest of consistency, I'd like to see what you use to braek the 10 off in Exodus 20 from all the rest.
Wait, wait . . . civil, ETC[]b? Well let's test that hypothesis:And then the Lord specifically states in v. 30 and 31, " Go, tell them to return to their tents. 31 But you stay here with me so that I may give you all the commands, decrees and laws you are to teach them to follow in the land I am giving them to possess." That being the civil, etc.
"Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan." ~Ex. 22:22
"Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people" ~Ex. 22:28
"Do not spread false reports" ~Ex 23:1
"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong" ~Ex 23:2
"Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous." ~Ex 23:8
"Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work" ~Ex 23:12
"Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." Ex 23:13
So, I figured I would stop at 7, since it is a poetic number, and because I didn't want to go further than those two chapters. After that, we get another narrative, and I'm not sure if the laws after that narrative would continue to be civil or not . . . I'll need to get you to clarify that point.
In any case, so those seven . . . are they ONLY civil? No moral laws in there? I see a few repeats from the 10. So what makes these different? Why are we not under these, but we are under the 10? How can you make the distinction, considering that these are, by your own words, part of the civil law?
Now you are putting words in my mouth. And actually its colossians regarding those scriptures.
No, it wasn't. If you look back at the discussion, you'll see that this goes back to your stating "You must remember that the observence of these "special days" involved something. SACRIFICE." The only verse in which I mentioned "special days" was Gal 4:10. Colossians says nothing about it. And the point I made on that passage still stands, which I'll quote again here for your convenience:
- Is the Sabbath not a special day to be observed in the OT law? Were these Gentiles not keeping the special days (Sabbaths, feasts, etc.?), and does Paul not rebuke them for it? But if keeping the Sabbath is no longer necessary (sorry BW!), then what about the other Ten Commandments. Should we talk abotu The Nine Commandments?
Paul includes the issue of food, right there in the mix. The observances of special days included setting asside offerings and tithes. What did they do with those? At the proper times, they would go to the priest to present them. Some for sacrifice, some for consumption. Not to mention the issue of food would relate to what was permitted in the levitical laws.
So I assume by "special days" you are referring to Colossians here and NOT to Galatians (though Galatians is the verse that uses the phrase). Now, you'll have to tell me where you get thi notion of going to a priest at the proper time and presenting tithes and offerings for sacrifice according to the levitical laws. Here is the passage in its context:
- When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
I don't see anything about the levitical law there. What I do see is a statement that the whole law was put on the cross by Christ, which includes the Sabbath laws.
I'm still not sure what theological point we are debating. And am definately not clear on where you think my statements contradicted those scriptures. I have never stated that "keeping" the Law earns salvation.
No, of course not. But you responded by ratgibson's post by talking about some parts of the law being done away with and others remaining. Presumably, he is still under the parts of the law that are still in force. And that is the part I am questioning you on. The Bible says that the LAW, not PART of the Law, was cancelled. I am pointing out that you can't separate it. James says you can't--the person who keeps ONE part must keep ALL of it (written to a JEWISH audience about the JEWISH law); Paul never distinguishes between parts of it. He says it is all gone. Paul says we aren't under the Sabbath Law, which was specifically regulated in the Ten Commandments, a part that you wish to keep enforced.
Bottom line: if you place yourself under the Ten, then you are obligated to keep the WHOLE law. All 613 commandments. If you tell someone, like ratgibson, that they are under the Law, in part or in whole, Paul says you are preaching a different Gospel than he is, which he says is anathema. So I'd say we are debating a very important theological point.
