- Options
- Login
- Register
- Switch to desktop style
Options
Galatians 3:17, the convenants, and the law
- Galatians 3:17, the convenants, and the law
-
Galatians 3:17, the convenants, and the law
benutils > 05-17-2016, 08:21 PM
Hi!!!
I'm here to ask the "hard questions".
Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Paul witnessed that the fact that the covenant between Abraham and God existed BEFORE the law. Thus, the law could not disannul the promises of God.
Well, the covenant sign of circumcision existed before the law. Would that mean "circumcision" should still be practiced?
Why does Paul exclude the law on Galatians 3:17 and include the law in Galatians 5:3?
Galatians 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. -
RE: Galatians 3:17, the convenants, and the law
The Rogue Tomato > 05-18-2016, 12:41 AM
Circumcision was a sign of a covenant, not the covenant itself. Just because the covenant endures doesn't mean the sign should also endure.
Gal 3:15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
A covenant is a promise, and the promise stands on its own. It doesn't depend on the law. It's as simple as that. -
RE: Galatians 3:17, the convenants, and the law
benutils > 05-18-2016, 12:01 PM
(05-18-2016, 12:41 AM)The Rogue Tomato Wrote: Circumcision was a sign of a covenant, not the covenant itself. Just because the covenant endures doesn't mean the sign should also endure.
Gal 3:15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
A covenant is a promise, and the promise stands on its own. It doesn't depend on the law. It's as simple as that.
Prahaps I might agree. However, that doesn't appear to be the argument that Paul makes. If Paul is appealing to the fact a prior event establishes an unbreakable precedent, then why not include the "sign" of said event? Circumcision. The responsibility of man to comply as witness to that event.
He also charges that those seeking to enforce that sign, have the responsibility to keep the entire law.
The connection seems disjointed. If you're going to appeal to a prior event, then just don't include the aspect of that event fits your narrative. Include it all.
Paul does deal specifically with such things in the book of Romans. However, that is not the argument being made here. -
RE: Galatians 3:17, the convenants, and the law
The Rogue Tomato > 05-18-2016, 06:14 PM
I think you're making too strong a connection between the covenant and the sign.
When you get married, you and your spouse wear a wedding ring as a sign of your covenant. Then for whatever reason (you gain weight and your ring doesn't fit anymore, etc.), you stop wearing your ring. That doesn't mean you're not married anymore. The covenant doesn't depend on the sign. Some people don't even wear wedding rings after they get married. (I'm not talking about people who remove their ring to trick people into thinking they're single. I'm talking about just not worrying about wearing a ring.) They're still married, though.
Incidentally, I gained weight after I got married. I got a cheap, new, bigger ring. I felt "naked" without one. My wife's fingers became larger due to chemo treatment. She stopped wearing her ring. I didn't care. I know she's my wife. I don't need her to wear her ring to prove it. In the end, she had some of her jewelry converted into a new set of rings while she was in China, so now we both have matching rings again.
Paul's lesson is the opposite of what I think you're saying it means. He's saying that if you perform the sign as an act of committing yourself to the law, THAT (committing to the law) is the problem. You've committed yourself to the law, and now you must obey the whole law. But that's foolish and you gain nothing from it, because:
1. You can't keep the whole law. Nobody can.
2. You aren't an heir to the promises via the law. You're an heir because of the promise itself. -
RE: Galatians 3:17, the convenants, and the law
benutils > 05-19-2016, 08:07 PM
(05-18-2016, 06:14 PM)The Rogue Tomato Wrote: I think you're making too strong a connection between the covenant and the sign.
When you get married, you and your spouse wear a wedding ring as a sign of your covenant. Then for whatever reason (you gain weight and your ring doesn't fit anymore, etc.), you stop wearing your ring. That doesn't mean you're not married anymore. The covenant doesn't depend on the sign. Some people don't even wear wedding rings after they get married. (I'm not talking about people who remove their ring to trick people into thinking they're single. I'm talking about just not worrying about wearing a ring.) They're still married, though.
Incidentally, I gained weight after I got married. I got a cheap, new, bigger ring. I felt "naked" without one. My wife's fingers became larger due to chemo treatment. She stopped wearing her ring. I didn't care. I know she's my wife. I don't need her to wear her ring to prove it. In the end, she had some of her jewelry converted into a new set of rings while she was in China, so now we both have matching rings again.
Paul's lesson is the opposite of what I think you're saying it means. He's saying that if you perform the sign as an act of committing yourself to the law, THAT (committing to the law) is the problem. You've committed yourself to the law, and now you must obey the whole law. But that's foolish and you gain nothing from it, because:
1. You can't keep the whole law. Nobody can.
2. You aren't an heir to the promises via the law. You're an heir because of the promise itself.
I believe the sign is important. The circular cut of the foreskin represents the circumcision of the heart spoken about in the book of Romans. \
Abraham wasn't given a wedding ring as sign of the covenant between him and God. I do agree that a ring doesn't matter.
I believe the issue might be related to the audience receiving the letter. They we intimately involved in the discussion at hand. Paul was just dealing with what was involved in that discussion. In a situation like this, there would be some disconnect seen when someone external to the discussion might read the letter.
Do you think that is possible? -
RE: Galatians 3:17, the convenants, and the law
The Rogue Tomato > 05-20-2016, 02:20 AM
Well, if your main question was in your first post:
Quote:Well, the covenant sign of circumcision existed before the law. Would that mean "circumcision" should still be practiced?
I would have to say, no, it shouldn't be practiced for the purpose of following the law. There's nothing wrong with circumcision itself. It's the motive that matters. People have it done to their children all the time for the purpose of hygiene.
But if you're going to do it because it was commanded as part of the law, then you are relying on the works of the law and have lost touch with the concept of faith and grace. I would ask the same thing Paul asks: "After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?"
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
...
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
We are heirs according to the promise, not according to anything we do in the flesh, including circumcision.