Gman wrote:Then you have no prerogative... Unless you claim G-d's..
That's my point, G. And likewise, nor do you. When you put people under the Law when Paul says explicitly that are
not under it, you presume to lay upon men a burden God does not, and you are preaching a false Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).
Gman and cheezerrox wrote:Very funny Jac.. Let's read the passage..
Ephesians 2:11-13
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
As we can clearly see, we are part of the commonwealth of Israel.
--------------------------------
Well, the passage says to Gentiles that they were FORMERLY cut off from the Messiah and the commonwealth of Isra'el, and NOW they are brought near through His blood. At least on a plain reading of the verse, it does give the impression that Gentiles are no longer excluded from the commonwealth of Isra'el.
And, again, there's nothing here saying we are not a part of the commonwealth of Israel. You are both reading into the text something you want to see. He says that we were without Christ; why, because we were not part of Israel. Christ is the Jewish Messiah, and being non-Jews, we were separated from the covenants and thus without hope and without God. The solution to the problem of being without God isn't being united with Israel's commonwealth. It is to be in Christ.
You have an unstated premise here, namely, that the only way to have hope and to be with God is to be a part of Israel. That's not true. In OT times, it was true, but Christ has extended the promise to the Gentiles as well. That's what made the Gospel so perplexing to Peter--even the Gentiles can be saved. You are basically undoing all of that work.
Anyway, the point is simply that the text doesn't say that we are made part of Israel in Christ. It says that since we were NOT a part of Israel, we were not heirs to the promise. But that is changed
in Christ. Your unstated premise needs to be proved before you can get that out of the text. Shy of that, you are, again, just reading your theology into the text and coming up with a false gospel in doing so.
Gman and cheezerrox wrote:What verse do you think it is referring to?
-------------------------
Again, since this is in the context of the above quoted passage, and refers specifically to citizenship, it certainly seems to be talking about Gentiles becoming joined together with the citizens of Isra'el (not the secular nation, but G-d's chosen people).
Citizenship
in the Kingdom of God. You do realize that the Kingdom is
centered in Israel but not
identical with it, right? If everyone in the Kingdom is part of Israel, then it makes no sense for the OT to talk about the nations (e.g., Egypt) coming to worship in Jerusalem.
Again, that's another unstated, and incorrect, premise in your theology.
Gman and cheezerrox wrote:Where does it say you have to become Jewish?
-----------------------
Indeed, there's nowhere in Scripture that indicates that Gentiles become Jewish (or that Jews become Gentiles, for that matter). We're all one in the Body of the Messiah, and ethnicity has nothing to do with our status before G-d, our salvation, or what's required of us (Romans 10:12, Galatians 3:28). But there's a difference between becoming a Jew, and being grafted into Isra'el.
So then you either have to argue that the commonwealth of Israel is not Jewish (which is absurd), or you have to argue that the Church is the New Israel (which is heresy).
Both the Jew and Gentile are, for now, united in one new body--the Church. The Church is not under the Mosaic Law, since the Mosaic Law governs Israel. The Church is saved thanks to Israel's salvation (which is yet future), for we will reign
with Israel. We are not identical with her.
Gman wrote:Who are the promises or covenants made to?
Primarily to Israel, and that for universal blessing. But you cited this verse to prove that we are a part of Israel's commonwealth. The verse doesn't say that. Not even close. It says that Gentiles through faith in Christ are Sons of God. Your unstated premise is that Sons of God are always part of Israel's commonwealth. Prove that.
Gman wrote:I've already provided the relevant verses.. Who did Christ come for?
You've provided NO verses that say as much. You cited one that used the phrase and noted that Gentiles were not a part of Israel's commonwealth, and then
assumed the verse teaches that we are now a part of Israel, when in fact,
it does not say that. You are going beyond the text
So, again, do you have ANY verses in Scripture that says the Gentile is a citizen of Israel?
Gman wrote:Those verses say nothing about Israel... You are simply reading your theology into it.. Also we have been freed from the curse pronounced in the Torah Deut 27,28, but not from G-d's instructions or Law itself. G-d's Laws are not evil.. They are what set us to be free..
Wrong, ALL mention Israel. "We" and "Us" in Galatians always refers to Israel. "You" always refers to the Galatian Christians. "They" refers to the Judaizers Paul was so against. Moreover, Paul does not say that we are free from the curse pronounced in Deut 27-28. It compares the LAW to a curse; it compares the LAW to a jailor; it compare the LAW to a nanny; it compares the LAW to a house manager; it compares the LAW (and those who live under it) to the slave woman Hagar and says it (and her children) are to be EXPELLED, since they share NO INHERITANCE with the children of freedom (those not under the Law).
Further, your suggestion that we are under all the Law except Deut 27-28 is repugnant. You can't pick and choose which part of the Law you want to be under. Paul and James both say to break one part is to break all of it. Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken. To suggest that the Law remains but not the part that says you are in trouble if you break it points to a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the Law itself. It is written in the form of a vassal treaty. The curses are an essential element. To break the Law is to come under those curses. To keep it is to reap the blessings enumerated in Deut 28. You divide up the Law as if some can be kept some some not, as if some is fulfilled and some not, as if some is active and some is not. That's not the way it works, Gman. You have absolutely no biblical basis for making that distinction. The Law is a whole. Your dividing it into active and inactive parts is just a sign that you don't take it seriously.
Gman wrote:Again... G-d's Laws are not evil or bondage.. According to James, the Law, when practiced correctly brings freedom.
So Paul is wrong? The Law is not a curse? It isn't a jailor? It isn't a nanny? It isn't a house manager? It isn't a slave women to be expelled from the people of God?
Beyond that, you are wrong about James 1:25. The "perfect law" is not the Mosaic Law. It is identical to the Royal Law (see Jas. 2:8), which is to love one another. That law does bring freedom.
Gman wrote:Romans 7:7, What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
Romans 7:12, “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”
And Christ did not come to destroy the law. He came to fulfill it..
Matthew 5:17-19, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Romans 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”
Apparently He came to fulfill and not destroy everything but Deut 27, right?
I'll tell you the same thing I used to tell PL -- if you want to sight a bunch of verses, offer some commentary as to what you think it is saying. Just quoting a lot of verses doesn't add anything to the conversation. I know what they all say and agree with all of them.
cheeserrox wrote:I believe that Ephesians 2:11-19 shows that Gentiles are made a part of the commonwealth of Isra'el (for what reason would there be to say that Gentiles were only "formerly excluded" from it?), but regardless, there's also Romans 11:17-24.
See my comments above.
cheezerrox wrote:Galatians 3:10-14 doesn't say that the Law is a curse. I'm sure you would agree that Paul talks about the Law at different times from different perspectives; sometimes he speaks of its relation to salvation and when it's perverted by people into a system of legalism in order to attain righteousness, and other times he talks about it when applied correctly (through faith). To ignore this distinction is to not rightly divide the Word of Truth.
The verse says plainly, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse." If I said, "Everyone who is under Obama is under a dictator!" you'd have no doubt seeing that I was calling Obama a dictator. Now, if you want to get technical, Paul isn't CALLING the Law a curse. He is
comparing it to a curse. He uses five word pictures (which I have listed repeatedly so far) to which to compare the Law; all of them have something in common--they are things you want to get away from.
cheezerrox wrote:Galatians 3:23-24 doesn't say that Torah is a jailor, or that Isra'el has been "freed" from it. The Greek word paidagogos means literally "boy leader," and was a servant who took care of a child on his way to and from school. In verse 23, the Greek definite article comes before pistis, or "faith," and isn't saying that in times past G-d was fine with people following the "legalism" of the Torah, but now He wants faith. Instead, it's saying that Paul and others subjected themselves to a legalistic understanding of the Law, through which they attempted to gain salvation and righteousness, until the specific faith that Jesus brought released them from this. To take the "faith" this verse is speaking of as faith in general, is to imply that faith either wasn't required or irrelevant in the time before the Messiah came. But that's a ridiculous assertion, and Deuteronomy 6:5 says that it was necessary.
There are two word pictures in Gal 3:23-24.
In 23, the Law is pictured as a jailor. The verse says, "Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed." First look at the word pictures. "We" (Israel -- not Christians!) were
held in custody; Israel was
locked up. Who holds a person in custody and keeps them locked up? A jailor. But that was "before faith came"--the jailor held Israel captive "until the faith" was revealed. Israel, then, is no longer held by her captive. She has been freed from the Law.
We have no English equivalent of the word picture in 24 (which you suggest "boy leader" and I suggest "nanny"). The word was an office or a position that someone held, and it was rather common in Paul's day.
Here's as good an explanation as any I've read of the meaning of the word and the associated word-picture:
- In the figure here used the "pedagogue" is the man--generally a slave-- in whose custody the slave-owners boys were placed, in order that this trusted servant might conduct them to and from school, and might, in fact, watch over their conduct throughout the day. He was, accordingly, an escort or attendant, and also at the same time a disciplinarian. The discipline which he exercised was often of a severe character, so that those placed under his guardianship would yearn for the day of freedom. And, as has been shown, that was exactly the function which the law had performed. It had been of a preparatory and disciplinary nature, readying the hearts of those under its tutelage for the eager acceptance of the gospel of justification by faith in Christ. (Hendriksen 1968:148)
So the Law is a
Paidogogos--the person who discipline children until they became adults. When the boy became an adult, he was free from the authority of the
Paidogogos. The very use of the word points to the temporary nature of the Law's purpose (which is amplified by a proper understanding of the word unfortunately usually translated as "to lead us to"--the word is
eis and ought to be rendered "until").
As to your comments on the definite article, there are many, many ways in which it was used that went far beyond the way we use it in our sentences. Suffice it to say here, the first occurrence of the article should be rendered with the demonstrative pronoun "this," and the second is qualified with the phrase "that was to come." Paul is clearly distinguishing between faith in the OT and faith in the NT. You cannot assert that they are identical without denying Paul's words at the end of verse 23.
cheezerrox wrote:Also, Galatians 5:18 does not say that the Law no longer applies. Again, there is a distinction that needs to be made between when Paul is talking about the Law being made into legalism, and the Law being used "lawfully" (1 Timothy 1:8).
It says bluntly that those lead by the Spirit are
not under the Law. He makes no distinction between legalism and being used lawfully in Galatians, so at best you're doing a bit of eisogesis (do you think that the readers of Galatians needed 1 Tim. to understand how to read the letter?). But let that pass. 1 Tim 1:8 proves my point. Paul says it is good if used
lawfully. He then goes on to tell us how to use it lawfully -- it is to be applied to "lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine," and it is applied to them
because "the law is made not for the righteous." So it doesn't apply to Christians, who are righteous. The context even proves the point -- Paul is blasting those who want to be teachers of the Law. These are people
in the Church. Paul says that, fine, they can teach the Law, but let them teach it to those who are unrighteous, not to apply it to those already righteous. That's basically the same problem he had with the Galatian heretics--you had Christians putting others under the Law for the sake of bringing them to a mature faith. Paul calls that foolishness and witchery, a false gospel, and that those who teach such things are anathema.
cheezerrox wrote:Galatians 3:2-3 says what the Galatian heresy was, which was trying to be perfected and/or justified by obeying commandments and living under legalism. NOT obeying the Torah.
Gman and I, as well as others not on this forum, are convinced that Scripture says nothing of abolishing the Law. Although you may disagree with us, our convictions aren't simply that we individually should obey them, but that it's not what Scripture says. We're convicted BECAUSE we believe it's what Scripture says, and so naturally we'll express our belief in accordance with our conviction.
Wait, wait, wait -- look at the words I bolded and underlined. And/Or? Which is it? To be perfected is not the same thing as to be justified. To be justified is to be declared righteous. Most people wrongly think the Galatian heresy is to attempt to be justified by the Law. But that's not what Paul attacks. He attacks the notion that we can be
perfected by the Law. Having begun in faith, he says, are we now trying to be
perfected by the flesh, by works of the law? The word "perfected" is the word
telos, and means "brought to maturity." In short, Paul is talking about sanctification. Paul is talking to Christians who knew they had been justified by faith but were now trying to be perfected by keeping the Law. That, Paul says, is foolishness, witchery, and a false gospel.
Beyond that, I don't think you've invented your desire to follow the law out of thin air. I know you think you find it in Scripture. But you know what? Some people think they find infant baptism in Scripture. Some think they find replacement theology in Scripture. Some think they find the possibility of losing your salvation in Scripture. Some think they find reincarnation in Scripture.
Just because you think you find something in Scripture doesn't make your practice commendable. The Jews thought they found eternal life in Scripture, and they stoned Jesus for it. The question is what Scripture actually says. And what Scripture says is that CHRISTIANS ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW. Those who attempt to put Christians under the Law are anathema, teaching a false Gospel. This is VERY serious, cheezerrox. You are sincere. I don't doubt that. So is Gman. I don't doubt that. But you are sincerely wrong. And when you tell people they are sinning by NOT keeping the Law, you are committing exactly the same error that Paul so harshly condemned the Galatian Judaizers for.
If you want to keep the Law for cultural or aesthetic reasons, then fine. There's nothing sinful in observing its commandments anymore than there is anything sinful in observing any tradition we choose (so long as that tradition doesn't violate the Gospel). What IS sinful is telling people that they are under the Law, that they are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful. It's the first heresy the Church faced. It is one that some on this board and are still propagating. It's dangerous. It needs to stop.
