Galatians 3 - Christ being made a curse

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I am trying to reconcile your earlier comments with Scripture (and themselves).

I think we agree on this:

1. Gentiles were not under the Law of Moses.

2. Those who were under the Law were made curses under the Law for their disobedience.

3. Christ delivered us from the Law of Moses by being made a curse under the Law of Moses (being hung on a tree).

I cannot see how you believe we were delivered from the Law of Moses and that we were never under the Law of Moses.

 

[DaveXR650]

1. Gentiles were not under the Law of Moses.

We gentiles were never given the Law in the sense that in Exodus 20, as it is said, God declares that he brought them out of Egypt and therefore as his people they will now abide by these laws. In that sense, obviously, it was to the Hebrew people and not us. A gentile, wishing to understand how God would have him live, I believe, would have every right to look to that same Law, just as he would have a right to consider a certain behavior, put it up against the Law, and thus declare it sin, if it did not comply with the Law. Let me make this very clear because a lot of Christians nowadays are confused by this: we are still obligated to obey the Law, as in the 10 commandments - just not as a condition of salvation. We are also obligated to obey the further explanations given in the OT and NT regarding the summation as "love God above all, and love your neighbor" and also Jesus interpretation in the Sermon on the Mount".

2. Those who were under the Law were made curses under the Law for their disobedience.

We are all under curse for our sin, and in many ways we are cursed just as part of humanity, with no division between Jew and Gentile.

3. Christ delivered us from the Law of Moses by being made a curse under the Law of Moses.

If you don't believe we (as gentiles) are under curse for sin, then obviously you will separate this into Christ only being made a curse for those who were cursed - those who were given the Law at Mt. Sinai. If you believe we were all under a curse as law breakers then Christ being made a curse would apply to all of us. I don't ask you to accept that but I do expect you to accept the train of thought I am using as being my train of thought. And I do have reasons for doing so.

 

[JonC]

We gentiles were never given the Law in the sense that in Exodus 20, as it is said, God declares that he brought them out of Egypt and therefore as his people they will now abide by these laws. In that sense, obviously, it was to the Hebrew people and not us. A gentile, wishing to understand how God would have him live, I believe, would have every right to look to that same Law, just as he would have a right to consider a certain behavior, put it up against the Law, and thus declare it sin, if it did not comply with the Law. Let me make this very clear because a lot of Christians nowadays are confused by this: we are still obligated to obey the Law, as in the 10 commandments - just not as a condition of salvation. We are also obligated to obey the further explanations given in the OT and NT regarding the summation as "love God above all, and love your neighbor" and also Jesus interpretation in the Sermon on the Mount".

We are all under curse for our sin, and in many ways we are cursed just as part of humanity, with no division between Jew and Gentile.

If you don't believe we (as gentiles) are under curse for sin, then obviously you will separate this into Christ only being made a curse for those who were cursed - those who were given the Law at Mt. Sinai. If you believe we were all under a curse as law breakers then Christ being made a curse would apply to all of us. I don't ask you to accept that but I do expect you to accept the train of thought I am using as being my train of thought. And I do have reasons for doing so.

I do disagree. I believe we are obligated to follow God's law (Christ's law) and in so doing we will fulfill the Law (to include the Ten Commandments).

Most today who believe they are under the Ten Commandments do so by redefining the Sabbath (in the Ten Commandments it was the seventh day and related to God resting from creating).

But more to the point - if you obey God's law, which of the Big Ten would you not fulfill? You would fulfill all of them (except a legalistic approach to the Sabbath, but that is because we have entered that Rest).


So the question is "why demand the superficial when you are commanded to a deeper law?".

If you love God you will have no other gods, you will have no idols, you will not use His name in vane, and you will have entered His rest (He will be your Sabbath). If you love your neighbor as yourself you will honor your parents, you will not murder, commit adultry, steal, lie, or covet what is theirs.

Rather than preaching "do not commit adultry" one gets to God's righteousness when one says don't just. And in not lasting you do not commit adultry. Rather than preaching do not murder one gets to God's righteousness (God's law) by preaching "love even your enemies", do not hate. This takes care of "do not murder".

God's law is ontological. It is about who we are. It is about the good or bad tree Rather than the fruit that is produced. A good tree does not produce bad fruit.

 

[DaveXR650]

Most today who believe they are under the Ten Commandments do so by redefining the Sabbath (in the Ten Commandments it was the seventh day and related to God resting from creating).

It is amazing how fast we have changed in the Christian world regarding this. Changing the day to Sunday is no problem because it is found in our NT but I remember pastors questioning Sunday football games, missing church to watch the Superbowl, and of course remember Chariots of Fire, where the guy gave up running a race because it was Sunday. I remember James Dobson once relating a story about him getting ready to go skiing but it was on a Sunday. He usually didn't do that but made an exception, but some of his kids became very upset that they were violating their standards so they didn't go. I used to get criticized in my IFB church for working on Sunday - even though I had to open up the local hospital's pharmacy! That doesn't apply here but it does make you think about how things change.

But more to the point - if you obey God's law, which of the Big Ten would you not fulfill.

If you mean the teachings of Christ or the leading of a Spirit filled Christian, I would say you won't violate any of the Big Ten. Thomas Kempis, in "The Imitation of Christ" even said once, I think, that the highest possible attainment for a person would be to so concentrate on following Christ that his obedience was totally unconscious and so automatic and natural that the person wasn't even aware of deliberate obedience to any specific commandment.

 

[DaveXR650]

God's law is ontological. It is about who we are. It is about the good or bad tree Rather than the fruit that is produced. A good tree does not produce bad fruit.

This, I think, might be close to what I said here:

Thomas Kempis, in "The Imitation of Christ" even said once, I think, that the highest possible attainment for a person would be to so concentrate on following Christ that his obedience was totally unconscious and so automatic and natural that the person wasn't even aware of deliberate obedience to any specific commandment.

And, I have talked to reformed people who, when they say that we are no longer under the Law in any way, this is what they mean. This of course is fine, and not in any way the easy believism or antinomianism that we worry about, even though they are both saying we can disregard the Law.

 

[JonC]

It is amazing how fast we have changed in the Christian world regarding this. Changing the day to Sunday is no problem because it is found in our NT but I remember pastors questioning Sunday football games, missing church to watch the Superbowl, and of course remember Chariots of Fire, where the guy gave up running a race because it was Sunday. I remember James Dobson once relating a story about him getting ready to go skiing but it was on a Sunday. He usually didn't do that but made an exception, but some of his kids became very upset that they were violating their standards so they didn't go. I used to get criticized in my IFB church for working on Sunday - even though I had to open up the local hospital's pharmacy! That doesn't apply here but it does make you think about how things change.

If you mean the teachings of Christ or the leading of a Spirit filled Christian, I would say you won't violate any of the Big Ten. Thomas Kempis, in "The Imitation of Christ" even said once, I think, that the highest possible attainment for a person would be to so concentrate on following Christ that his obedience was totally unconscious and so automatic and natural that the person wasn't even aware of deliberate obedience to any specific commandment.

Yes, I remember all the controversy about fishing, playing sports. But you know, every Sunday most went out to eat where people had to work on Sunday to staff the restaurant. I doubt some of those restaurants could have survived without the Sunday crowd.

It would be living up to the standard of Christ (obeying His commandments).

The Ten Commandments are, technically, canceled as they are fulfilled in Christ. But we still can look at behavior to know that a person is sinning. Problem is that is not a good test of obedience. We cannot say a person who does not break the Big Ten are not living in horrendous sin.

They may be full of hate but good at policing their behavior.

Today churches accept homosexual lifestyles. After all, it does not violate the Ten Commandments and some things do relate to culture (womem have to have long hair, for example).

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

You said that Gentiles would have every right to look into the Law (the Old Covenant) and I agree. Today we can benefit from studying the Law, learning of the sacrifices, the statutes, the civil regulations....all of it.


My question is how we, long after the Law was canceled, fulfilled and nailed to the tree, the "us" who were never under the Law of Moses were delivered from the Law by Jesus being made a curse under the Law

If we were speaking of the "moral laws", or even just the Ten Commandments, I could see your view (I still do not believe the Law can be divided but I could at least understand your view).

But we are talking about the whole Law of Moses. Under the Law a man was stoned to death and his body was hung on a tree (this was an example to Israel should they disobey). Christvwas made a curse by hanging on a tree (not by sin, not by violating God's law, but in accordance with the Law of Moses).

How did we end up violating the Law that we were not under? We were not commanded to refrain from weaving two types of fabric together or wearing such clothes. We were not commanded never to disagree with a priest (if so, all of us Baptists would be guilty as we are priests and constantly disagree with one another). We were not commanded not to boil a lamb in its mother's milk (although I don't know why we would).


It seems that if Christ was made a curse under the Law to deliver those who were made curses under the Law from the Law by fulfilling and canceling that Law, hanging it on a tree, that there would be some passage in God's Word extending the Law of Moses to Gentiles. Voluntarily putting oneself under the Law is not inclusive.


Do you see what I mean? We are not just talking about the Big Ten but the Law that said anybody hung on a tree is a curse.

So, what if we - who were never under the Law that makes men who are hung on trees curses - were never delivered from that Law?

I am trying to see how you work through Paul's argument that we became curses under the Law for our disobedience, Christ was made a curse under the Law to deliver us so that the blessings would come to Gentiles.

Do you at least see why I am questioning who was delivered from the curse (I know it was for all, so that in Christ the blessings would come to the Gentiles as Christ was creating in Himself one new humanity)?

 

[JonC]

I think Paul is just saying that this is a promise and so has nothing to do with law or conditions.

I agree Paul is saying that the promise predates the Law.

I was asking about the Law that could not impart righteousness, the one that held those under it captive as they were made curses for their disobedience (and that Jesus was made a curse under it for hanging on a tree).

Paul later speaks of that Law as a covenant which had conditions.

That is the Law I was asking about (the Law of Moses).

The problem with viewing no difference between Jew and Gentile as far as this Law goes is Paul directly states that there was a difference.

The covenant God made with Abraham was to his Seed, and this older covenant (430 years before the Law, the "Old Covenant") was not invalid because of the Law.

The purpose of the Law was added because of transgressions until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

You are right that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in terms of being one in Christ.

But this was not true of the Law. The Law was very specific about applying only to Israel as a nation. Israel was a nation created by God to be a unique people set aside from the Gentiles. The Law was a covenant with this nation.

I think what you may me missing is the purpose Israel was created. It was through this people who were held captive by the covenant God had made with them (the Old Covenant) by their own disobedience. This was a temporary covenant as it was designed to keep this people until the "Seed would come to whom the promise had been made".

At no time in the Bible is the Law (the Old Covenant) said to apply outside of Israel.

This is important, otherwise the words that salvation came "first to the Jews and then to the Greeks" only means the gospel was first preached to the Jews (almost happenstance). The significance of salvation first coming to the Jews, of the Samaritan woman's conversation with Jesus, and of redemptive history is lost.

Also, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Jews being under the Law. If we think this applied to everybody what on earth do we do with that passage? Chalk it up to mystery even though it was important to Paul's explanation?

For salvation to come to all the Law had to be fulfilled and canceled. Jesus was made a curse, in this way, for every person. But He did not deliver Gentiles from the curse of the Law as Gentiles were not under the Law.

He redeemed all from the bondage of sin and death. All were under this bondage. But the Law was a covenant with Israel, and it showed them their sins, keeping them captive until the Promise came.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning - this thread will be closed no sooner than 1030 GMT 0430 am EDT / 0130 am PDT

 

[Van]

No one is declared righteous before they are transferred into Christ's spiritual body and made "the righteousness of God" through the washing of regeneration.

Yes, some lost persons, not yet "in Christ" have their faith declared righteous, credited as righteousness, but that makes their faith, and NOT the individual, righteous.

When and if God credits a person's faith as righteousness, then and only then, does God transfer the person out of the realm of darkness and into the kingdom of His Beloved Son.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning - this thread will be closed no sooner than 1030 GMT 0430 am EDT / 0130 am PDT

This thread is closed
feel free to start a new one