Greetings to all my brothers. My time currently is devoted to understanding how the Moral Law is an intentional step in the stratagem of God to bring redemption through Christ. This in-depth look is an attempt to understand a logical step by step order of the stratagem of God and its 'why's' and wisdom.
I am particularly interested in how, within the stratagem of God, the Moral Law 'must' be given first before the coming of Christ. By using the word 'must' I mean how logically it fits into the overall scheme of what God wanted to do. The wisdom in His order.
The Bible tells of that one purpose, of multiple purposes, of the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection (IDR) was so that Chrst “was manifested to take away our sins” (1John 3:5 NKJV)... So one of the purposes of the IDR was to take away our sins, i.e., ours sins needed to be taken away.
1. Galatians 4:4 says, "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." The words I want to focus on are "born under the law" so as to "redeem those who were under the law". This verse seems to imply that to redeem those under the law, God needed, according to His plan, to have Christ born under the law. Christ being born outside the law would then seem to not bring the result that God wanted.
Related question to the above... why doesn't God send Christ before the Moral Law? In the wisdom of the stratagem of God, was the law needed before the IDR?
2. Romans 7:6 (NKJV) says, "But now we have been delivered from the law". So Christ, who (a) needed to be born under the law, also seen in Gal 4:4, "delivered" us "from the law". Because, according to Galatians 2:19, we all needed to die to the law that we "might live to God".
All this so far seems to imply that God sent the Moral Law as a precursor to Christ to coral sin under the law and count each individual sin to each person, because it wasn't being counted as transgression between Adam and Moses. So that Christ could then deliver us from the Law. So the law needed to come first.
3. Galalians 3:22 says, "But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." This also seems to imply that the Moral Law needed to come first, in God's stratagem, to confine "all under sin" (Gal 3:22) so that the "promise by faith" might be given. Another seeming implication that the Moral Law must be first so that God's stratagem might be fulfilled in the IDR.
4. The Moral Law was therefore given so “all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:10, Gal3:11). So that individual sin might be counted as transgression. The law confines and defines sin through the “knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7); it spotlights sin, so in the light the “offense might abound”(Rom 5:20); therefore being a “tutor” (Gal 3:24), a guide toward the object of this world’s purposeful end, that is the Son of God.
5. After the culmination of times, Christ then “gave himself for [us]” (Gal 2:20) by giving “His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) as a “propitiation by His blood, through faith” (Rom 3:24). These verse appear to create a connection between the IDR and the law through words like "ransom" and "propitiation". Thereby implying a need, a necessity if you will, for the steps to be (1) the Moral Law (2) the IDR.
6. This was accomplished by “committing no sin” (1Pet 2:22) while He lived "under the law" (Gal 4:4) and offering “Himself without spot to God” (Heb 9:14). These verses seem to imply a need for Christ's life, from the exact point of birth to the exact point of death, to be without sin under the law. (under the law being very important, thus the law coming before the IDR)
7. …so that He then could sacrifice himself “to be sin for us” (2Cor 5:21) by bearing “our sins in His own body on the tree” (1Pet 2:24, Gal 6:2).
8. He was therefore “wounded for our transgressions” (Isa 53:5) and “bruised for our iniquities” (Isa 53:5) for taking on “the chastisement for our peace” (Isa 53:5). These verse also seem to imply a relation to the IDR and the law. Thus, the law must come first before the IDR.
Peace to you, brothers
I am particularly interested in how, within the stratagem of God, the Moral Law 'must' be given first before the coming of Christ. By using the word 'must' I mean how logically it fits into the overall scheme of what God wanted to do. The wisdom in His order.
The Bible tells of that one purpose, of multiple purposes, of the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection (IDR) was so that Chrst “was manifested to take away our sins” (1John 3:5 NKJV)... So one of the purposes of the IDR was to take away our sins, i.e., ours sins needed to be taken away.
1. Galatians 4:4 says, "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." The words I want to focus on are "born under the law" so as to "redeem those who were under the law". This verse seems to imply that to redeem those under the law, God needed, according to His plan, to have Christ born under the law. Christ being born outside the law would then seem to not bring the result that God wanted.
Related question to the above... why doesn't God send Christ before the Moral Law? In the wisdom of the stratagem of God, was the law needed before the IDR?
2. Romans 7:6 (NKJV) says, "But now we have been delivered from the law". So Christ, who (a) needed to be born under the law, also seen in Gal 4:4, "delivered" us "from the law". Because, according to Galatians 2:19, we all needed to die to the law that we "might live to God".
All this so far seems to imply that God sent the Moral Law as a precursor to Christ to coral sin under the law and count each individual sin to each person, because it wasn't being counted as transgression between Adam and Moses. So that Christ could then deliver us from the Law. So the law needed to come first.
3. Galalians 3:22 says, "But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." This also seems to imply that the Moral Law needed to come first, in God's stratagem, to confine "all under sin" (Gal 3:22) so that the "promise by faith" might be given. Another seeming implication that the Moral Law must be first so that God's stratagem might be fulfilled in the IDR.
4. The Moral Law was therefore given so “all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:10, Gal3:11). So that individual sin might be counted as transgression. The law confines and defines sin through the “knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7); it spotlights sin, so in the light the “offense might abound”(Rom 5:20); therefore being a “tutor” (Gal 3:24), a guide toward the object of this world’s purposeful end, that is the Son of God.
5. After the culmination of times, Christ then “gave himself for [us]” (Gal 2:20) by giving “His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) as a “propitiation by His blood, through faith” (Rom 3:24). These verse appear to create a connection between the IDR and the law through words like "ransom" and "propitiation". Thereby implying a need, a necessity if you will, for the steps to be (1) the Moral Law (2) the IDR.
6. This was accomplished by “committing no sin” (1Pet 2:22) while He lived "under the law" (Gal 4:4) and offering “Himself without spot to God” (Heb 9:14). These verses seem to imply a need for Christ's life, from the exact point of birth to the exact point of death, to be without sin under the law. (under the law being very important, thus the law coming before the IDR)
7. …so that He then could sacrifice himself “to be sin for us” (2Cor 5:21) by bearing “our sins in His own body on the tree” (1Pet 2:24, Gal 6:2).
8. He was therefore “wounded for our transgressions” (Isa 53:5) and “bruised for our iniquities” (Isa 53:5) for taking on “the chastisement for our peace” (Isa 53:5). These verse also seem to imply a relation to the IDR and the law. Thus, the law must come first before the IDR.
Peace to you, brothers
