Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217117 | ||
Tim, Okay, I guess it's been over a year so I can discuss this again. There were two things you mentioned. 1) the way of the slave is the Mosaic law; 2) Paul [never says]...we are still subject to the Law. 2 first: It is true that Paul does not say, "..but you should still obey the commandment of God given through Moses." Here is a bad analogy, but the best I can come up with. We do not say now that we have a new president, "Attention all US Citizens: you still have free speech, and it's still illegal to (fill in the blank)." We don't say that because it's self evident (or should be.) Same in Paul’s day, the only Scriptures they had were the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. In these there was taught a clear "way" to live as well as judges/elders to help them live that way best they could in their specific situation. I will admit that Paul's letter to the Galatians is quick and to the point. I also believe that others in his day also came away with your thoughts on the Law too. "Is Paul saying we should stop obeying the Law?" (Acts 21 shows Jewish Christians who think Paul was teaching this, but Luke makes it clear that these were false charges.) Of course he couldn't say that and remain true to God's Word. I think that when he wrote Romans, he went to much greater lengths to explain himself on this issue. In Rom. 3:31, "Then is the Law annulled through faith? Let it not be! But we establish Law." And since you know Greek, you can confirm that "establish" here can be read, "make stand more firm." Here is the closest place where we see Paul saying that we still obey the Law. I know it’s a big book, but space is short so indulge me :-) 1) The slave is the Mosaic Law? Paul uses a great analogy in Galatians that strikes at the heart of his “adversaries.” They claimed to be “children of Abraham.” But Paul turns their argument around on them and claims they are not the children of Sarah, but Hagar. Why? Abraham received the covenant promise of the seed, but he had no children. Gen 12, and then Gen 15 we clearly see God promise, without condition, to bless Abraham and his seed and the nations. But Abraham didn’t have children. He attempts to cause the Promise to come true in his own strength and ability by taking Hagar. The son of the slave women is the son of “works salvation.” After this, while Abraham believes he has solved the conundrum, God returns and says, No! Not Ishmael, but a son from Sarah. It was Isaac who was the son of the Promise, and that was not by works (of Abraham) but by Faith. Therefore, the attempt to enter the covenant of Promise by works of Law is equal to Hagar the slave women. Enter into the Promise by Faith is Sarah. Also, circumcision was the covenant of the Promise, not the Mosaic Law. I believe circumcision was a reminder that the Promised Seed (and therefore eternal salvation) would come not by man’s strength or ability, but by God. Therefore the very organ used to attempt to secure the promise by works is cut. Yet, in Paul’s day this very sing of the Promise was misconstrued to mean just the opposite. In the end, the Sarah and Hagar comparison to the Law is not to toss out the Law as God’s Way, but to show salvation is not obtained by works. MJH PS-I too enjoy the conversation. I’ve learned so much as a result of this forum over the years. |
||||||
2 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217123 | ||
Greetings MJH! I pray that all on the forum will follow your example of grace my friend! We can disagree without being disagreeable. :-) I've been up all night and day, so I'll try to make my response brief. 1) I agree that Paul was not against the law. But, he argues that the law has now (after Christ) served it's purpose. That is how I understand his various comments, such as we are dead to the Law, and we are no longer under it's supervision. As you noted, many did not understand Paul. They thought he was arguing for lawlessness. We are not free to sin. In fact, we now have a much higher standard than the moral law in that we are indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit. His law is now written in our hearts. So, I hope everyone understands that I am not advocating lawlessness. :-) But, I believe that Paul is saying that the Law has run it's course and we are no longer under it in any way. Rituals, feasts, ect..., have all been fulfilled in Christ - and were never meant to save us anyway. 2) Hagar and Sara: You break the illustration down pretty well, but I don't think you give enough credit to Gal. 4:24: "These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar." Paul isn't just contrasting grace and works, but two entirely different covenants - Abraham and Sinai (Promise and Law). In v. 30, he tells us to 'get rid of the slave woman', not just understand her better or apply her in the proper manner. :-) This is one of the reasons why I don't think the justification by law argument goes far enough. Paul calls for a clean break from the entire covenant of Sinai and compares it to slavery. Well, I'd better get some sleep my friend. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||