[quote="Canuckster1127"][quote="Christian2"][quote]
<snipped>
Here's a reasonably good explanation. There's more at the original site so click on the link if you want to see more.
[url]
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1353[/url]
[color=darkblue][i]At the origional site, it said:"Those who fail to see the Law as inferior to grace (as Paul has taught in Galatians), will inevitably seek to directly relate the Old Testament Scriptures (e.g. contemporary adherence to the Mosaic Laws), or will resort to spiritualizing the Law to make it relevant. Discerning the difference between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic is the basis for Paul's hermeneutic of interpreting the Old Testament literally and then applying it by analogy."
One must believe this before going on to read the commentary. Therefore a complete reading and understanding of the rest of Galatians is a first step.
John 1:17 should first be seen to show how the translaters of most of the Bibles we have, lead us to a false basis of understanding.
John 1:17 is a commonly mistranslated and misquoted verse. The NKJ Bible translates it as "For the Law was given through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ".
It does NOT say that!
The word "but" is NOT there! It was added.
The word "for" should be translated as because
it's real meaning not "for".
John is [b]not [/b]saying that there was no grace of God before Yeshua came!
(For the Law was given through Moses but grace came through Jesus Christ".)
John is [b]not [/b]saying that there was no truth in the writings of Moses! God forbid!
(For the Law was given through Moses but truth came through Jesus Christ".)
The verse really says, "Because the Law through Moses was given, grace and truth through (or by) Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMaschiach) came to be" (ginomai again).
The commentator is basing his comentary on a wrong foundation. There has never been Law without grace. God by nature is, and always has been, a God of grace. He also is a God who gives us Laws. His Law is Holy, just and good said Paul the writer of Galatians. He would never abide anyone calling it inferior.
The commentator also declares that Galatians is about the difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. I firmly disagree.
Paul is writing to the Galatians about the same issue he brought to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:1, the issue of circumcision of gentile believers for conversion to become Jews in order to be saved.
In the 1st chapter, he says, I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Messiah unto another gospel:
[[b]The[/b] gospel is contained in John 3:16.]
Chapter 2: 2-3 says, And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:7)But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 15-17 says, We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by works of law, but by the faith of Messiah Yeshua, even we have believed in Messiah Yeshua, that we might be justified by the faith of Messiah and not by works of law: for by works of law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Messiah, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Messiah the minister of sin? God forbid! 21)I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if justification comes by law, then Messiah is dead in vain.
3:1,14,21,28 say,O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Yeshua the Messiah hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Messiah Yeshua; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Is [b]the [/b]Law then against the promises of God? God forbid : for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily justification should have been by law. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is [b]neither male nor female[/b]: for ye are all one in Messiah Yeshua.
4:7-9, says, Wherefore thou art no more a slave but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Messiah. but at one time indeed not knowing God, you were slaves unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye [b]again[/b] to the weak and beggarly elements, to which ye desire again to be in bondage ? 30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman. 5:1-4)Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled [b]again [/b]with the yoke of slavery. Look, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Messiah shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do [b]the whole[/b] Law.You have become estranged from Messiah you who by law are justified , ye are fallen from grace.
6:15 ends the book saying, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
The problem Paul was addressing was adult circumcision for salvation in this letter to the Galatians. He was not making a theological treatise to compare covenants.
Adult circumcision as Acts 15 states is a custom of Moses. It is not a Mosaic covenant Law. Gentiles do not need to be circumcised and become Jews, as the apostles and the Jerusalem Council ruled according to the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scripture.
Ruth[/i][/color]
All Material below is written by Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.
[quote]The Problem
(4:21)
21 Tell me, you who want to be [b]under law[/b], do you not listen to[b] the law?[/b]
Up to this point Paul has been refuting the message of the Judaizers. Now in verse 21 Paul throws down the gauntlet, exposing the methods of the Judaizers. Paul is operating on the premise that bad methods produce bad messages. Let those who desire to be under [b]the Law [/b]consider the way in which [b]they must learn from the Law[/b].
[color=darkblue][i]See how the commentator, quoting the verse correctly, then changes the verse to suit his interpretation.
Notice the first "law" does not have a "the" in front of it, therefore referring to rabbinic non-Biblical laws ] the law [Mosaic Law ] do ye not hear? If they heard the Torah, they'd see the falseness of the pharisees.
Ruth[/i][/color]
This is by no means a problem unique to the Galatian churches, Paul, and the Judaizers. It is the same problem which those who desire to know and to obey the truth face in dealing with those who wish to distort the truth. Peter wrote that false teachers were distorting the Scriptures which Paul had written (2 Pet. 3:16). Our Lord's basic difference with the scribes and Pharisees concerned their method of interpreting the Scriptures. Jesus sought to expose the sloppy way in which His adversaries handled the Old Testament Scriptures (cf. Matt. 22:29-31; 23:24). The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) was our Lord's explanation of the difference between His hermeneutics and those of the scribes and Pharisees.
[[color=darkblue]i]Yeshua condemned the pharisees strongly for adding to and subtracting from the Word of God, which is clearly a sin. This commentator has done the same thing.
Ruth[/i][/color]
If you stop to think about it for a moment you will realize that the first New Testament Scripture which the Galatians read would have likely been the book addressed to them. The vast majority of Scripture available to them at that time would have been the Old Testament. Thus they were challenged with the problem of how a Gentile Christian was to interpret and apply the Old Testament Scriptures, which were written to the Jews.
[color=darkblue][i]The Tanach is the Word of Almighty God for all people. The Jews were given it to record, preserve and share with the whole world. The Bereans were applauded for searching the Tanach to see if what Paul was saying was the truth. All people need to do likewise. The Tanach is the basis for comparison for all truth . The Messiah of the Tanach, is the only true Messiah. The God of the Tanach, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the one and only God. This is the God who so loved the world.
Ruth[/i][/color]
It appears to me that the answer of the Judaizers was quite simple, even if wrong. They taught that a Gentile should become a Jew, and then interpret and apply everything literally and directly to himself. This method fails, however, to take into account the change in God's dealing with the Jews, before and after the coming of Christ. Paul's challenge in verse 21 surfaces this most basic issue of hermeneutics, for different methods result in different messages.
The Passage
(4:22-23)
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
Verses 22 and 23 outline the passage and its essential facts. Paul includes the Book of Genesis under a broader use of the term “law.” The “law” includes more than just the Commandments given to Moses, and must be interpreted in light of the larger context.
[color=blue]
[i]The word, "Law" is only used in verse 21.
Ruth[/i][/color]
Notice how differently the biblical writers referred to their text. Sometimes they simply introduced Scripture with an expression such as, “it is written.” In other instances they would identify the book from which the text was taken. In Luke's gospel our Lord referred to a text in Exodus by the designation, “the bush” (Luke 20:37). You see, they did not have the chapters and paragraphs designated, nor passage divided into verse as we do. Consequently, the way texts were cited may sound strange to us.
[color=blue][i]Luke 20:37 doesn't say that. It says "at the bush". It does not refer to the Exodus text but where Moses was when he called God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The writer didn't look at the Greek.
Ruth[/i][/color]
The events to which Paul refers in this passage are found in Genesis 16-21. It is thus a rather large portion of Scripture, not a mere handful of verses. Paul outlines the text according to his purposes. Abraham had two wives, each of which bore a son. The slave woman, Hagar, bore a son who was the result of mere fleshly effort, while the free woman, Sarah, bore a son who was the product of God's promise and His power. From this account in Genesis, identified by these facts, Paul draws out some significant details in the following verses.
The Parallels
(4:24-27)
24 This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; For more are the children of the desolate Than of the one who has a husband.”
The first expression in verse 24, “This contains an allegory” (NASB), is a puzzling construction to many of the commentators,81 resulting in a number of alternative renderings. I believe that the translators of the NASB have wisely handled the difficulties, stressing that Paul uses the passage allegorically, without interpreting it allegorically.
[color=darkblue][i]But in fact, the covenant from Mt. Sinai is not a covenant of Hagar. She or her descendents were not a part of that covenant. So, if one part of this statement is not literally true, why should the other part be taken as literally true? That the Mosaic Covenant brings forth servitude is only an allegory, not necessarily a true statement. This is really a rabbinic-like midrash not a true allegory. The mixture of truth and untruth, leads to confusion and misinterpretation.
Ruth[/i][/color]
<snipped>
