Scriptur
11-08-2006, 06:01 PM
"Well then, why was the law given? It was given to show people how guilty they are. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of the child to whom God's promise was made" (Gal. 3:19).
Do you keep trying to keep the law as a Messianic? Looking forward to your response. My Bible notes say this is called Judaized Christianity and Legalized Christianity, not True Christianity. How do you interpret this verse?
Do you still require animal sacrifices, not going into a house of a debtor, circumcision, ceremonial laws like the Sabbath that was just for Israel, not eating pork even despite Peter's vision of the blanket that he could eat other foods?
jerusalemcouncil
08-25-2008, 11:22 PM
"Well then, why was the law given? It was given to show people how guilty they are. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of the child to whom God's promise was made" (Gal. 3:19).
Do you keep trying to keep the law as a Messianic? Looking forward to your response. My Bible notes say this is called Judaized Christianity and Legalized Christianity, not True Christianity. How do you interpret this verse?
Do you still require animal sacrifices, not going into a house of a debtor, circumcision, ceremonial laws like the Sabbath that was just for Israel, not eating pork even despite Peter's vision of the blanket that he could eat other foods?
These are all very good questions. I will do my best to answer them one by one.
First, with the verse in question, Galatians 3:19. Whoever provided your translation certainly took what appears to be unwarranted liberties with the text, for the Greek does not translate that at all.
From the NASB: Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
The law was not given "to show people how guilty they are" although that is certainly one of its functions. The law, or "Torah" in Hebrew simply means "teaching and instruction" and is related to the Hebrew root word "yarah" which is an archery term which means to "hit the mark." Conversely, the Hebrew word for sin means "to miss the mark." So then, the Torah is God's teaching and instruction which defines sin.
Why was it given? After all, if God's Word is eternal, then we can rightly assume it has always existed (in fact John in John 1:1 onwards makes the case that it was the Word of God that made everything, so then that means the Torah is that which the world, when it was created good, is made from), even before it was "given." So then it why was it given? Well we know it was given to those who had in fact sinned. Why? Well, if Paul's point is to say that the Torah leads one to Messiah, then it does exactly that: it leads one to Messiah. So then why is that which points us to the Messiah given at all - what need is there for a Messiah? It was given therefore, because of our sin, not because we needed to see how guilty we are. After all, those in sin are blind to their sin anyways, no matter how much you tell them what they are doing is wrong.
So then why is it given because of sin? If it leads us to Christ, then the ony logical conclusion is that the Torah is given because of sin is because the Torah is the instrument of the gospel message (after all it was the only good news for thousands of years) - for the gospel is repentance to the Torah, which leads one to know that Christ died to pay the price for our willful sin, and rose again proving we too will rise from the dead and rule and reign in his kingdom (all this is contained in the Torah, as it was John the Baptist's message also, as well as Jesus' is Mark 1:15). So therefore: as believers, we all desire to imitate Christ, our King, for he is coming soon, and how good will it be for the one who the King finds doing his will when he returns. As Paul said:
1 Corinthians 11:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=11&verse=1&version=31&context=verse)
Imitate me, as I imitate Christ.
We further know that Paul was a Pharisee even at the time he wrote this, since later he says:
Acts 23:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=23&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
..."My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."
Which raises interesting questions, which I do not have time to get into, nor do I believe Christwork would probably want the conversation to steer into this direction.
Instead, let's look at the next part of the verse: "but this system of law was only to last until the coming of the child to whom God's promises were made."
Yet this is not what the Greek says nor implies. The NASB does a better job in getting to the nuances communicated:
"it was added...until the seed would come"
This implies that the Torah (if I may, the gospel,) is given to us until Messiah is "formed in us" as Paul later says in Galatians. Which is certainly true. When we share the gospel with someone, do we have to go over the gospel with them again to get saved again? Of course not. The gospel's function of leading someone to Christ is over. Yet is the gospel dead? By no means. It is by it we live, because of its message telling us to have faith in the work of Messiah. Faith then is what? A trusting obedience to God. It's a verb. Good works is evidence of a saving faith. Works alone do not save, but without works, one has no evidence of their faith. So then, for a new believer, we tell them to "read the bible." Well, what is this, if not repentance - the very message of the gospel: "repent and believe, for the Kingdom of God is at hand."? So then the gospel takes on a different function for the believer. Whereas before it led them to Christ, and that function is over; now it leads them to a life of greater and greater repentance and obedience.
So then, from a Messianic perspective, we follow Paul's advice to Timothy in his second letter to him when he says:
2 Timothy 2:16-17
All Scripture (including the Torah) is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
So this is how we view Galatians 3:19. Paul is teaching clearly that the Torah is given because we are sinners, it leads us to Christ, and once we have Christ, its function to lead us to Christ for salvation is finished. Yet we see from other scriptures that the Torah has other functions, but not for an unbeliever, but for a believer.
Your next question, "Do you keep trying to keep the law as a Messianic?" the answer to that would be: yes, not just as a Messianic, but all Christians do keep the law in some way or another. Do all Christians love God? Do all Christian love their neighbor at one point or another? Then all Christians keep the law at some point, for these are the greatest commandments of the law.
Your next question, "Do you still require animal sacrifices," we would respond with, "required for what?" The commons response to our question is "for salvation!" To which we reply "but the sacrifices never saved anyone, that is not their purpose, nor was it ever." The next question, "well what are the sacrifices for?," is responded to with: for many good reasons. So many in fact, that even the Jerusalem Council in Acts chapter 22 tells Paul (well after he's written Galatians) to not only offer sacrifices for his nazirite vow, but to also pay for the sacrifices of other "devout believers!" - well after Christ had died and risen from the dead!
"Do you still require not going into a house of a debtor," I am not sure where this is found in the Torah.
"Do you still require circumcision," for what? Salvation? No. That was never the purpose of the original commandment, however over time it was so closely associated with Jewish conversion that it was equated with the false gospel of salvation by Jewish identity alone - the subject would take too long to get into here in this thread.
"Do you still require ceremonial laws like the Sabbath that was just for Israel," to which I ask, if God commands something, is it morally imperative that we do it (especially if all commands "hang" from "love the LORD your God" thus making all commandments acts of love of God), and does not Paul call you, a believer, "Israel"?
"Do you still require not eating pork even despite Peter's vision of the blanket that he could eat other foods?"
Contrary to popular opinon, Peter's vision was not about eating unkosher food, but rather clean food that was defiled by contact with unclean things. Specifically the phrase "rise, kill, and eat" is a term for making a sacrifice, and we know from scripture that only clean animals are allowed in making a sacrifice. However the problem in the vision relates to when a sacrifice is made, how the sacrifice can be defiled by contact with unclean animals - such as when Abraham drove off the vultures from his sacrifice. The vision was not about the unclean animals, but about the sacrifice, which came in contact with unclean things and defiled it, but God says to Peter "do not call defiled that which God has made clean." God was not calling the unclean animals "clean." He was calling the defiled sacrifice, clean. The difference is made more obvious in the Greek manuscript, since it clarifies the difference as being an issue with the word koinos (clean things that are defiled) versus akathartos (instrinsically unclean things like the bat or vulture). God tells Peter not to call koinos (clean things that have been defiled with unclean things) that which he has made clean (since some koinos things can be made clean according to the Law, such as utensils, certain foods, and gasp...humans! But an unclean thing can never be made clean, such a pig all of a sudden being made fit for sacrifice!). Sadly, translators would rather make this verse say "do not call akathartos that which I have made clean" but because of their bias, they certainly translate it that way. Go look for yourself. God tells Peter "do not call common, that which I have made clean." "Common" is the common way to translate "koinos" and it means ritually defiled. God can certainly make anything which was originally created clean, clean again, even after it has been defiled with contact with unclean things! Unlike a pig, who nature is unclean, and will always be considered unclean forever since that is how it was created; a sheep (specifically the sacrifice he is told to "rise, kill, and eat"), though coming in contact with unclean things, like a pig, can be made clean again.
What is interesting is that many people stop at Peter's vision and do not bother to keep reading. The vision is not about food, because its meaning applies to a fast approaching situation. The vision is that it was about the defiled sacrifice being offered (three times) which God had cleansed (made clean again), and God is telling Peter not to call that sacrifice hopelessly instrinsically unclean (like a pig) by simply forcing Peter to limit his thoughts on the matter to just do "not call defiled (koinos) what I have made clean" - implying that Peter's thinking on the matter is totally off base in thinking that the sacrifice is hopelessly unclean (akathartos). In reality God is teaching Peter that the sacrifice in the vision is really only koinos, and because it is only koinos, God can make it clean, and has, and thus Peter is not to call it koinos, let alone akathartos!
So how does this relate to the immediate situation that happens? Well, immediately three Gentiles show up at his door.
Now if you had no understanding of Jewish law at this point, you would probably think that Peter just got a free ticket to eat a pork meal with the Gentiles that just arrived. Nothing could be farther from the truth:
The vision clearly stood for the three Gentiles eventually knocking on his door, since the sheet was let down three times. Each one represented the sacrifice Peter was to "rise, kill, and eat" - not literally of course, but now if you know a thing about Jewish law, you will realize that this is quite the pickle he is in. In Judaism, there is both the written Torah and what they call the oral Torah, or traditions. In the traditions it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with a Gentile, because the viewpoint is that the Gentiles were all considered akathartos, that is, hoplessly, instrinsically unclean like the pig, bat, or vulture, and thus contact with them would render the Jew koinos, or unclean/defiled.
But Peter puts two and two together and realizes that God is telling him to not even consider the Gentiles as his door as koinos, let alone akathartos! For they (the Gentiles coming to him) are made clean by God! The Jews viewed Gentiles as totally irredeemable as Gentiles (thus the reason some Pharisees sought to convert them and turn them into physical Jews, so they could be saved! Oy, what a mess.)
Yet what does God tell Peter? He corrects his viewpoint of the Gentiles: they are not to be considered koinos, let alone akathartos! They aren't even akathartos to begin with. Peter gets it, and realizes that the Gentiles he is facing are not akathartos at all, and also not even koinos - because God has made them clean, and because only koinos things can be made clean! The Gentiles are not to be considered like pigs, but instead like the sheep offering in the vision that became defiled with contact with pigs, an offering of themselves which God has made clean by their faith in Messiah! They are not to be considered as hopeless pagans, but rather like children of God, defiled by paganism, made clean by their faith in Messiah! So, Peter gets this point, and reiterates that he is not to call ANY man defiled (koinos) let alone intrinsically unclean (akathartos) - which was completely contrary to Jewish oral law that said otherwise, and this is the justification for why he decided to come with the Gentiles into Cornelius's house, contrary to Jewish tradition. So then we see Peter's vision had nothing to do with food at all, but everything to do with how Gentiles are to be viewed. They were created as the children of God, clean, then became defiled through sin (sin, which can never be considered clean, ever!), but God is able to make them clean from sin again by faith in the Messiah. That is the point of Peter's vision!
Most of Christianity has misunderstood this vision, but the answers are right there in the original language, for all to see. Unfortunately it has been clouded by centuries of translator and translator school bias. I hope that helps, and I look forward to your or Churchwork's responses. :)
Scriptur
08-26-2008, 11:58 AM
I don't see any major difference among the Bible versions for Galatians 3.19 from what you said. Since today, ceremonial laws of animal sacrifices have ended, so has the Sabbath.
I don't think Christians have misunderstood the said vision, for it pertains to accepting the Gentiles as well as addresses what can be eaten. Even God said, elsewhere, we can eat other stuff now.
The Holy Spirit has told me that you are not a Christian because you seek to Judaize Christianity. By trying to exalt Judaism above Christianity you have created an idol for yourself, thus breaking the ten commandments, for you shall place no idols before the Lord thy God; you reject God's atoning work on the cross that does away with the law, for I have died to my flesh as well as to the law. Now should you!
Because you have not died on the cross with Christ you try to keep a law unto yourself and are too selfish to be willing to die on the cross with Christ. The Bible says we shall know them by ther fruit. This is how I know you by.
If none of this can be understood by your tiny brain, at least accept this. Since the beginning the Church has never practiced animal sacrifices or keeping the Sabbath. That should right there tell you something you are on the path to destruction.
jerusalemcouncil
08-26-2008, 02:14 PM
I don't see any major difference among the Bible versions for Galatians 3.19 from what you said. Since today, ceremonial laws of animal sacrifices have ended, so has the Sabbath.
I don't think Christians have misunderstood the said vision, for it pertains to accepting the Gentiles as well as addresses what can be eaten. Even God said, elsewhere, we can eat other stuff now.
The Holy Spirit has told me that you are not a Christian because you seek to Judaize Christianity. By trying to exalt Judaism above Christianity you have created an idol for yourself, thus breaking the ten commandments, for you shall place no idols before the Lord thy God; you reject God's atoning work on the cross that does away with the law, for I have died to my flesh as well as to the law. Now should you!
Because you have not died on the cross with Christ you try to keep a law unto yourself and are too selfish to be willing to die on the cross with Christ. The Bible says we shall know them by ther fruit. This is how I know you by.
If none of this can be understood by your tiny brain, at least accept this. Since the beginning the Church has never practiced animal sacrifices or keeping the Sabbath. That should right there tell you something you are on the path to destruction.
Have you died to the law that says "Love the LORD your God?"
Tell me, if you have in fact died to that law, then do you love the LORD your God? I would hope as a Christian you would love God, wouldn't you?
If in fact you say you don't think a Christian should love God, for that would be keeping the law (oh my), then how can you say you are a Christian, or even claim to have a discernment from God that says that I am not a Christian, if you yourself don't love God due to your own fear of losing your salvation if you keep any commandment of the law, including the commandment to "love God"?
Do you so fear keeping the law of God (and losing your salvation), that you won't even "love the LORD your God" - which is a commandment of the law (and is its greatest one)? This is the same argument you are presenting to me: that I should so fear keeping the law of God (and losing my salvation), that I shouldn't keep the Sabbath - which is a commandment of the law.
jerusalemcouncil
08-26-2008, 04:52 PM
That's why you still try to keep the Sabbath which is apart from God by your own strength.
I just said I keep God's commandments by God's strength, just as you keep one of His commandments, "to Love the LORD your God," in His strength, and perhaps many many others.
What part of the phrase "I keep God's commandment, the Sabbath, in God's strength" do you not yet understand? Or do you not believe that the Sabbath is God's commandment? If so, I'll be glad to show you where it is written that it is.
jerusalemcouncil
08-27-2008, 12:16 AM
You do not keep God's commandment, because God never said to keep the law of the Sabbath in the new covenant,
Of the new covenant, it is written:
Jeremiah 31:33
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my Torah in their minds and write it on their hearts.
and in God's Torah it is written:
Exodus 16:23
This is what the LORD commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD.
Exodus 31:13
You must observe my Sabbaths.
I wonder what new covenant you are reading from if you totally miss all this.
thus you are being unloving and creating a law unto yourself which is selfish and alters God's Word in your heart.Then according to your belief, if I created no law unto myself, I would never be held accountable as a sinner.
“Esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured” (Rom. 14.5).
The entire context is over food. Regarding food, which days do you think were referred to? Does anyone have a dispute over eating on Sabbath? Heh, of course not. So then the context is referring to fast days - specifically over which days of the week to fast on. We have extrabiblical evidence that also corroborates this conclusion from the Romans 14 context of food. It's called the Didache - which preserves the argument for us: Pharisees fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. The Didache says to fast on Wed and... Preparation Day (Friday) (and isnt it odd that it says "preparation day" which is the day of prepation before the Sabbath!). Obviously the dispute over fast days would be hot between Pharisaic believers holding to Pharisaic traditions, and other believers who didn't hold to them as much.
"Thou shalt not covet” a day of idolatry (Rom. 7.7).not sure what you mean by this one. since when is obeying God's commandments any form of idol worship?
"Let no man therefore judge...a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s” (Col. 2.16-17).Gladly! I will not let you judge me for keeping the Sabbath, which is a shadow of things TO COME (as in, not yet happened in full yet!).
Scriptur
08-27-2008, 01:38 AM
We've gone through this. Everybody knows what the OT says for Israel as a nation, but Jesus came to fill up the law, so the Sabbath has passed and Rom. 14.5 allows any day, not requiring any specific day,
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks” (Rom. 14.5-6).
You are judged for demanding the Sabbath must be kept. You do this because you are not born-again, for the Holy Spirit indwelling replaces the Sabbath rest.
Amen.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.