Galatians verse by verse [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

Richard Amiel McGough

07-04-2007, 01:12 PM

This thread is dedicated to a verse by verse discussion of the Book of Galatians. The goal is to come to a consensus at each major break in the text concerning our agreements, disagreements, unanswered questions, and whatever other issues remain to be settled. I am not expecting that we will come to a perfect agreement on the interpretation of every point (though that would be wonderful indeed!), but I am expecting that each point of view will be heard, respected, and evaluated in light of the rest of Scripture, and that each of us will have a clearer understanding of where we agree and disagree. All to the Glory of God.

Let me begin:

Galatians 1:1-5 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; ) 2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3 ¶ Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. I do not anticipate any disagreements on the interpretation of the first five verses, but who knows? In any case, comments are welcome.

Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Question: What is the "other Gospel" that Paul is so concerned about?

I'll let someone else answer first.

Richard

joel

07-04-2007, 02:17 PM

Richard, you are a jewel, for sure.

Quote:
Galatians 1:1-5 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; ) 2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3 ¶ Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

After quoting the verses above, you commented;

"I do not anticipate any disagreements on the interpretation of the first five verses, but who knows? In any case, comments are welcome."
---------------------------------------------------

So, I will make some comments that I believe apply, and, in so doing, realize that from the outset of this noble task, we may surely encounter a disagreement, in spite of Richard's anticipation of the mutual agreement.

1.) Paul, formerly known as Saul, ravaged the church in his zeal as a Pharisee, and in his determination to fulfill every aspect of the law of Moses. So, when he opens the letter he makes a definitve statement as to his apostleship......it does not come from men. Nor was it received by him through a man. (This method of conveyance of truth, I would assume you agree, is the common way we all receive the truth......through someone else who received it before us). But, Paul's ministry is unique.
Paul's apostleship came through Jesus Christ, and God, the Father, Who raised Him from the dead.
Therefore, based on these facts, his authority is of the highest order.

2.) The grace and the peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ focuses on....."(Jesus)....Who gives Himself for our sins, so that He might extricate us out of the present wicked eon."
Let us note that the KJV renders the word aion as "world". However, it may be more appropriate to refer to "aion" as a period of time, "eon", rather than a physical place, "world".
To extricate is to "pluck out". And at this juncture, we may have to come back later in order to arrive at the true meaning of what he is saying. Is it a "spiritual" extrication, or, is it an actual "physical" deliverance such as that which is believed by some (myself included) to refer to the "snatching out" physically that will occur in the future, at the end of "eon"?
If, we see "aion" as an eon, and the extrication as a literal plucking out, then, Richard, and others who may join in, we may not all be on the "same page" concerning this opening section. (Probably, by now, Richard, you are wondering if we who are now a part of your "cyber" family will ever agree on anything!:lol:)

So, that being said;

You, continued;

Quote:
Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Question: What is the "other Gospel" that Paul is so concerned about?
----------------------------------------------------

We all would agree (so I am bold to presume) that we are all under one gospel. Called "into the grace of Christ" indicates that we are in the same realm of God's grace as was declared by Paul in Romans 5.

It was the gospel that Paul presented to the Romans that he was making mention. There is not another gospel for any of us now. There was no other gospel applicable to them at that time.

To be anathema is to be moved out of place. If we are standing in the realm of God's grace due to the justification of faith in His blood, to be placed under a different evangel would be to be affect our proper standing with another. Anyone who brings forth a "good news" message which is contrary to that which Paul delivered is affecting the standing of those who hear, as well as the standing of the one who delivers such a message. We will hear more of this when we hear of "falling from grace" which is given in this Galatian letter.

It was the evangel delivered by Paul that was preached unto the Galatians.

The gospel which they received from Paul was the gospel that they were to retain.

Before we move along, can we agree that;
1.) the gospel for believers today is that which was received by Paul, and delivered to others, by Paul.
2.) when that gospel is believed, any other gospel which is contrary, is not to be received, nor believed.

Either way, a departure results in "anathema", a movement away from a proper standing.

Joel

Rose

07-04-2007, 04:23 PM

This is going to be fun :woohoo:

I love this kind of Bible study :D

Thanks Joel,for your insights :thumb:

The way I look at verse 4) "who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us form this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father"

is that from the time Jesus gave Himself for our sins, up to present time (the times we all live in), we have a way of deliverance from evil through Jesus. This present age, meant at that time, as well as the time we live in.

on to the next point:
Question: What is the "other Gospel" that Paul is so concerned about?

Before we move along, can we agree that;
1.) the gospel for believers today is that which was received by Paul, and delivered to others, by Paul.
2.) when that gospel is believed, any other gospel which is contrary, is not to be received, nor believed.

Either way, a departure results in "anathema", a movement away from a proper standing.

Joel

I would like to add one more point to yours Joel

3.) the reason I think Paul said ....you are turning away...to a different gospel which is not another, is because Paul was making the point, that what they were turning to, should not even be called "gospel" there is only one "Gospel" '"the good news" and that is Jesus Christ.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

07-04-2007, 04:34 PM

1.) Paul, formerly known as Saul, ravaged the church in his zeal as a Pharisee, and in his determination to fulfill every aspect of the law of Moses. So, when he opens the letter he makes a definitve statement as to his apostleship......it does not come from men. Nor was it received by him through a man. (This method of conveyance of truth, I would assume you agree, is the common way we all receive the truth......through someone else who received it before us). But, Paul's ministry is unique.
Paul's apostleship came through Jesus Christ, and God, the Father, Who raised Him from the dead.
Therefore, based on these facts, his authority is of the highest order.

Amen! I strongly agree with that deduction. And this comment is important to set the tone for how we approach the letter to the Galatians.

2.) The grace and the peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ focuses on....."(Jesus)....Who gives Himself for our sins, so that He might extricate us out of the present wicked eon."
Let us note that the KJV renders the word aion as "world". However, it may be more appropriate to refer to "aion" as a period of time, "eon", rather than a physical place, "world".
Absolutely correct. There is a "world" of confusion over that word "aion." I intend on opening a thread on it, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

To extricate is to "pluck out". And at this juncture, we may have to come back later in order to arrive at the true meaning of what he is saying. Is it a "spiritual" extrication, or, is it an actual "physical" deliverance such as that which is believed by some (myself included) to refer to the "snatching out" physically that will occur in the future, at the end of "eon"?
If, we see "aion" as an eon, and the extrication as a literal plucking out, then, Richard, and others who may join in, we may not all be on the "same page" concerning this opening section. (Probably, by now, Richard, you are wondering if we who are now a part of your "cyber" family will ever agree on anything!:lol:)
Hey Joel, I can tell this is going to be both fun and fruitful.

But as for the word "delivered" literally meaning "plucked out" ... it sounds like you are reading a "rapture" idea into this passage, which seems a little unlikely since Paul included himself amongst those who were so "raptured" by Christ's sacrifice. It makes me think of a similar passage in Col 1:13:

Who hath delivered [4506 rhoumai: Meaning: 1) to draw to one's self, to rescue, to deliver ] us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

So it sounds like Paul is talking about the spiritual effect of Christ's salvation. Nothing strikes me as "physical" at all, especially since nothing "physical" like you suggest has happened to any believers in the last 2000 years or so (as far as I know).

So, that being said;

You, continued;

Quote:
Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Question: What is the "other Gospel" that Paul is so concerned about?
----------------------------------------------------

We all would agree (so I am bold to presume) that we are all under one gospel. Called "into the grace of Christ" indicates that we are in the same realm of God's grace as was declared by Paul in Romans 5.
Actually, there is a form of dispensationalism that distinguishes between the "Gospel to the Gentiles' vs the "Gospel to the Jews." I strongly oppose that idea. If anyone in our community believes it to be true, it would benefit us all if he or she started a thread on that topic.

It was the gospel that Paul presented to the Romans that he was making mention. There is not another gospel for any of us now. There was no other gospel applicable to them at that time.

To be anathema is to be moved out of place. If we are standing in the realm of God's grace due to the justification of faith in His blood, to be placed under a different evangel would be to be affect our proper standing with another. Anyone who brings forth a "good news" message which is contrary to that which Paul delivered is affecting the standing of those who hear, as well as the standing of the one who delivers such a message. We will hear more of this when we hear of "falling from grace" which is given in this Galatian letter.

It was the evangel delivered by Paul that was preached unto the Galatians.

The gospel which they received from Paul was the gospel that they were to retain.
OK - but I think we can be more specific, though we need to read more of the letter to get the details. But that's how we are supposed to study the Bible anyway. Read the book all the way through a few times for context, and to get the big picture, then analyze the pieces in extreme detail.

I think the answer is obvious. The "other Gospel" is the Gospel that says we need to be under the Jewish Law (circumcision, dietary, etc). The first explicit statement of this is in

Galatians 2:4-5 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage [to the Law]: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

I won't bother proving this point further unless someone disagrees with it. I therefore request that all posters in this thread make their opinion on the "first question" known to the rest of us, since it is fundamental to the interpretation of the whole book.

Before we move along, can we agree that;
1.) the gospel for believers today is that which was received by Paul, and delivered to others, by Paul.
2.) when that gospel is believed, any other gospel which is contrary, is not to be received, nor believed.

Either way, a departure results in "anathema", a movement away from a proper standing.

Joel
I agree with both points. But I disagree with the meaning of anathema as "moving away" or "wrong standing." I agree with Thayer's definition:

331 anathema
Meaning: 1) a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept 1a) specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place 2) a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction 2a) a curse 2b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

Good post Joel! We are on our way to a very enlightening discussion! :D

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

07-04-2007, 04:56 PM

This is going to be fun :woohoo:

I love this kind of Bible study :D

Thanks Joel,for your insights :thumb:
Me too! :bounce:

The way I look at verse 4) "who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us form this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father"

is that from the time Jesus gave Himself for our sins, up to present time (the times we all live in), we have a way of deliverance from evil through Jesus. This present age, meant at that time, as well as the time we live in.
Actually, that is a really important point. It seems to me that its primary meaning must be the deliverance Christ has brought to all believers through His sacrifice. That is, after all, the fundamental Gospel message. I suppose it is not impossible that it could apply to a future rapture event, but that meaning seems quite a stretch, and it wouldn't mean much to believers in Paul's time since it didn't apply to them, and it also seems to detract from the glory of its true Christ-centered meaning.

on to the next point:
Question: What is the "other Gospel" that Paul is so concerned about?

I would like to add one more point to yours Joel

3.) the reason I think Paul said ....you are turning away...to a different gospel which is not another, is because Paul was making the point, that what they were turning to, should not even be called "gospel" there is only one "Gospel" '"the good news" and that is Jesus Christ.

Rose
Amen! Your intuition is right on, as a little peak into the Greek will show. There are two words translated as "another" in that verse.

Galatians 1:6-7 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another (heteros) gospel: 7 Which is not another (allos); but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

These two words are generally synonymous, but Longenecker (Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians Vol. 41 (15) noted that "in context there seems little doubt that he means to suggest a qualitative difference, with ἕτερος signaling “another of a different kind” and ἄλλος ”another of the same kind.”

Indeed, what Paul was really saying is that the "other Gospel" is not even worthy to be called a "Gospel" at all!

RAM

joel

07-05-2007, 07:17 AM

Richard, Rose, and others who may joining now by observing, or, may be joining now or later by posting, I, too, am eager to discuss these matters as presented in Galatians.

I would ask you, Richard, to be the one who actually posts the scripture verses. You are able to present them in a suitable format which is helpful to keep them separate from the discussion portions of our posts.

With that said, please post the verses that remain in chapter 1 when you see that it is time to move on.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-05-2007, 09:33 AM

It seems there is a consensus amongst the three posters in this thread on the following fundamental Q & A:

Q1: What is the 'other Gospel' Galatians 1:6-9 warns of?
A1: The teaching that Christians are bound by the Jewish Law.

This answer will be the working assumption unless and until it is challenged (which is may well be, since we have not heard from many of our members yet).

This exemplifies how we will be conducting this Bible study. We aim to explicitly state all the primary questions and their various answers that are held by our members. Thus, for example, if someone had offered a second answer to Q1 that held up under scrutiny so as to remain a viable possibility, it would have been listed as A2 along with A1, and we all would have known that there were currently two possible answers on the table before we moved on.

With that, let us continue in the book of Galatians:

Galatians 1:10-12 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11 ¶ But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. As noted by Joel in his first post, this passage shows that Paul's "authority is of the highest order." Paul's rhetorical question "do I seek to please men?" pre-shadows his accusation against the Judaisers who "desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh" (Gal 6:13). It shows the difference between his motivation and theirs. Paul was not putting him through all that suffering to "please men." He was fulfilling his call of God.

RAM

joel

07-05-2007, 01:01 PM

Before we move on, please allow an observation concerning spoke 4 of the wheel;
In Numbers we find Israel moving towards the border of the Promised Land
(ch. 13), and the spies entering into the land, in anticipation of the invasion to conquer the land.
As we recall, they found a land of great promise, but, also filled with mighty groups of "strong" people who would resist them. Two spies (Joshua and Caleb) gave a good report, whereas the other 10 gave an "evil" report.
We know from the account that they were turned back into the desert for 40 years so that the unbelieving generation would die out.

Paul, in Galatians, is faced with a challenge which can be compared to that event in Numbers.
In this first chapter of Galatians (the door), we find a new group who are attempting to turn the people around and head them back in the wrong direction.
If I may take some liberty, the first of 12 spies in Numbers, had two distinct "gospels" which they came back to report. One was appropriate, the other was not.

Joel

joel

07-05-2007, 03:59 PM

Richard, you posted;

"Galatians 1:6-7 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another (heteros) gospel: 7 Which is not another (allos); but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

These two words are generally synonymous, but Longenecker (Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians Vol. 41 (15) noted that "in context there seems little doubt that he means to suggest a qualitative difference, with ἕτερος signaling 'another of a different kind' and ἄλλος 'another of the same kind.'
Amen. There is not "another of a different kind", nor, at present, is there "another of the same kind"

Indeed, what Paul was really saying is that the "other Gospel" is not even worthy to be called a "Gospel" at all!"

But, can we be in agreement that during this current time, the above statements are true. However, pertaining to another "time" there may be another gospel? If you closely follow the word "gospel", there have been many different gospels proclaimed throughout the human history as proclaimed in the scriptures. Such "gospels" were "good news" to certain people, at certain times.

This may help us understand why the word "eon" is so important. During a certain period of time, a gospel may be proclaimed which is applicable to that time, but, which may not be applicable during a different eon. And, if presented, "out of context", may indeed prove to be a hindrance and not a help towards salvation.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-06-2007, 08:04 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

07-06-2007, 08:34 AM

Amen. There is not "another of a different kind", nor, at present, is there "another of the same kind"

Indeed, what Paul was really saying is that the "other Gospel" is not even worthy to be called a "Gospel" at all!"

But, can we be in agreement that during this current time, the above statements are true. However, pertaining to another "time" there may be another gospel? If you closely follow the word "gospel", there have been many different gospels proclaimed throughout the human history as proclaimed in the scriptures. Such "gospels" were "good news" to certain people, at certain times.I agree that the words translated as "gospel" or "good news" in the Bible - basar in Hebrew and evangelion in Greek - can be used in a variety of contexts, but I do not see how that could suggest multiple "gospels" comparable in any way to the "Gospel of Christ" since the words are never used that way in the "other contexts." For example, basar can refer to any old news, good or bad, that is published or proclaimed publicly. But basar is never used for an alternative "Gospel" from God. And as for the NT the case is even stronger. Off the top of my head, I am not aware of any use of evangelion or its cognates with a reference to anything other than the singular Gospel of Christ.

This may help us understand why the word "eon" is so important. During a certain period of time, a gospel may be proclaimed which is applicable to that time, but, which may not be applicable during a different eon. And, if presented, "out of context", may indeed prove to be a hindrance and not a help towards salvation.

Joel

I agree wholeheartedly that a proper understanding of the word aion is extremely important for a proper understanding of the Bible, but I don't think it has anything to do with different "gospels" for different "aions." That idea just doesn't sit right. Its like the old confusion about "how Jews got saved in the OT." People unfamiliar with the full truth of the Gospel have mistakenly taught that Jews were saved by works, whereas Christians are saved by faith. That seems to be a very disjointed view of God and His Gospel. The genesis of the Gospel is found in Genesis 15:6 when Abram "believed in the Lord, and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness." This is the foundation of the Gospel of Righteousness through Faith as preached pre-eminently in Romans (aligned with Genesis on Spoke 1). Paul made this explicit in Romans 9:30-33:

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

So the Gospel of Righteousness through Faith is the only Gospel there ever has been, and I am convinced it is the only Gospel there ever will be unto the aions of the aions.

Richard

joel

07-07-2007, 04:32 AM

Richard, you said;

"People unfamiliar with the full truth of the Gospel have mistakenly taught that Jews were saved by works, whereas Christians are saved by faith. That seems to be a very disjointed view of God and His Gospel. The genesis of the Gospel is found in Genesis 15:6 when Abram "believed in the Lord, and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness." This is the foundation of the Gospel of Righteousness through Faith as preached pre-eminently in Romans (aligned with Genesis on Spoke 1)."
-----------------------------------------

Amen.

We all would agree that the gospel has a single subject; "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:3a).

Abraham's believing in God was the initial act of beliving in the "gospel" recorded for us, as it pointed forward to the Son without making an express declaration about it.

"Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness."...is quoted again by Paul in Romans 4:3. Paul continues in that section;
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

It was not that Abraham is cited for believing any specific words, but, that God helped Abraham see that a). Abraham was ungodly, and, b.) God justifies the ungodly, and Abraham "believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly."

The gospel is a proclamation concerning Christ. As we hear it, we, too, are brought to the realization that we are ungodly and are in need of a saviour.
And, so, God, graces us with a revelation of His Son, Who, by His sacrifice, brings forth justification for the ungodly.

Paul did not have a set formula for his messages. He referred to the proclamation in I Corinthians 2, as;
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

The testimony, as presented by Paul, concerns Christ, ....and him, crucified. It begins in Romans 1, and is explained/expanded throughout his letters.

Nowhere does he state that a specific set of facts must be stated. There was no creed to be learned and recited to others as a basis for what they must believe.

Joel

joel

07-08-2007, 08:03 AM

In the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Galatians, in the first 12 verses which have given a preliminary glance and some discussion in our thread, the word "gospel" is the dominant word.
"Gospel" appears 5 times in these twelve verses. Such a concentration calls attention to the overall purposes of Paul's letter which expands over the full six chapters, but is exposed, without delay, in these first twelve verses.

In verse 6, Paul expresses strong feelings towards what is happening to them;
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel:

Notice that he uses specific words; soon, removed, called, grace, Christ, another, gospel.
This thing that has happened has occured quickly. Paul marvels at the speed of the transition.
To be removed, means to be "after-placed" as if they are being transferred to another position, or standing.
They had been called into the grace of Christ, and were "standing" there. They had been justified in His blood (even though that fact had not been stated specifically), and he did say in verse 3 that Jesus....."gave himself for our sins."
As Richard pointed out, what they were hearing was not an alternate gospel of the same kind. It was different.

And, because it was different, this "other" gospel would turn them in a direction away from that intended by Paul, as their apostle.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-08-2007, 11:24 AM

Nowhere does he state that a specific set of facts must be stated. There was no creed to be learned and recited to others as a basis for what they must believe.

Joel
I think that is the essential insight required to answer the question "What about those who never heard of Jesus?"

I believe that every soul ever born has responded to the "Gospel" through faith in the witness God gave them directly in their spirit. Thus, when the missionary meets the tribesman and tells him the Gospel, the tribesman who had already responded to God through faith will declare "Praise God! I believe in Jesus!" because the Spirit of God will bear witness in his heart to the truth of the missionary's words. The tribesman who has mocked God in his heart, and resisted the witness of God's Spirit, will continue to do so when the missionary preaches to him. Thus the sons of God and the sons of the devil are revealed through preaching.

This also impacts the question of what happens when an apparent unbeliever dies. I believe he will "see the light" of Christ and hear the Gospel and make the choice to follow Him or reject Him, just as people do when they hear the Gospel down here on earth. The absurd doctrine that there is no "second chance" after death appears to be a "strong arm" attempt to force people to convert to a fleshly imitation of Christianity. But that's another thread ...

RAM

Richard Amiel McGough

07-08-2007, 11:49 AM

:plane:

Since no new questions have been introduced, I will move on to the next passage:

Galatians 1:13-17 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
I find the contrast to between "the Jews religion" and the "the Church of God" and "Gospel" extremely revealing. It is consistent, of course, with the answer to the first question concerning the nature of the "other gospel" which now is seen as some combination of "the Jews religion" and the True Gospel.

Continuing on in Galatians:

Galatians 1:18 - 2:6 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.Why is it important to Paul to affirm the truth of his statement here? I think it is the fact that he did not get his Gospel from men, but from God.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. 24 And they glorified God in me.

Galatians 2:1 ¶ Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: Here is the key - Paul is explicitly talking about the relation between the True Gospel and the Jewish Law, and contrary to the popular song, when Paul "fought the Law" it was not the Law that won!

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. Note the words BONDAGE, SUBJECTION. That is the essence of the Jewish Law.

Galatians 2:6-10 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: This is an essential point. Paul got the WHOLE GOSPEL directly from God, the other Apostles added nothing.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )This is the root of the theory that there are "two gospels" - one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles. The irony is overwhelming - this false doctrine is derived from the very book that God designed to refute it!

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. This reveals the truth about the "two Gospels." The ONE GOSPEL was preached to two very different groups of people. So the preaching style would have to be different, but not the Gospel itself.

Galatians 2:11-16 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Well, that text pretty much speaks for itself. If anyone has any questions or comments, please post them!

Richard

joel

07-08-2007, 12:02 PM

"The absurd doctrine that there is no "second chance" after death appears to be a "strong arm" attempt to force people to convert to a fleshly imitation of Christianity. But that's another thread ..."

RAM
------------------------------

Now that is worthy of discussion for sure. If Love can never fail, then, never will love fail.

Thanks, Richard

Joel

Abigail

07-08-2007, 12:14 PM

"The absurd doctrine that there is no "second chance" after death appears to be a "strong arm" attempt to force people to convert to a fleshly imitation of Christianity. But that's another thread ..."

RAM
------------------------------

Now that is worthy of discussion for sure.

I'd be interested in hearing RAM's take on this too. :)

joel

07-08-2007, 05:10 PM

Rose

07-08-2007, 05:12 PM

Hello Folks :yo: Just wanted to let everyone know, that I started a thread on "Second chance before the second death" under Biblical Studies.

Hope to see you there :)

Rose

joel

07-09-2007, 01:58 PM

"14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To render just, i.e. righteous, to be put into right standing with God.....
can only come through the "faith of Jesus Christ".

Many may see this as "faith in Jesus Christ", but, that is not what is said here. It is not "my" faith, it is "His" faith that secures justification.

Nothing of mine, not my efforts, not my understanding, not my belief, can be the basis of "justification". It was His faith, and in the process of being shown this truth, as I am given sight to see my irreverent condition, I am given faith as a gift to "believe in Jesus Christ.....that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified".

This is the solid foundation of the truth as presented by Paul.

Joel

joel

07-11-2007, 10:50 AM

joel

07-12-2007, 11:50 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

07-12-2007, 11:56 AM

I resubmitted this post to see if the new picture was included.

Joel
What new picture?

joel

07-12-2007, 12:39 PM

What new picture?

It's really kind of funny......I thought that I had been able to include a picture from my computer into my profile........but,........I suffer from "geezer-itis". When I realized that I had failed, I then attempted to delete the post, and I couldn't even do that!

I marvel, Richard, at your computer "savvy-ness", as I also marvel at the wide expanse of knowledge that the forum members display.

Can you walk me through a simple tutorial on how to display a picture on my name banner?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-12-2007, 01:13 PM

Can you walk me through a simple tutorial on how to display a picture on my name banner?

Joel
I posted an answer in the "General Discussion" forum. If you still have problems you can post them in that thread.

Richard

joel

07-13-2007, 07:10 AM

Thanks, I'll go there and seek help.

In the interim, can we continue in Galatians?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-13-2007, 08:34 AM

Richard, you said;

Quote:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )

This is the root of the theory that there are "two gospels" - one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles. The irony is overwhelming - this false doctrine is derived from the very book that God designed to refute it!
------------------------------------------------------------

Could it be that what Paul is asserting here is that
1.) there are not two different evangels, but,
2.) the emphasis which Paul's apostleship focuses upon, vs. that of Peter, is different?

If there were no difference whatsoever, why make a distinction concerning "the gospel of the uncircumcision", and, "the gospel of the circumcision"?

To demand that the rite of circumcision is to be a part of the proclamation of the evangel is obviously not correct. Nothing done outwardly by man, circumcision or otherwise, can justify a man. This is true to the Jew, as well as the Greek.

However, when those things which accompany salvation through justification are discussed, then, there are differences between that which was proclaimed to the Jews, and that which is proclaimed to the nations.

And, this has to do with their respective callings, and ties into the "latter days", of which matters we are endeavoring to understand, believe, and, then, proclaim.

Joel

I was about to move on to the next section when I noticed I had not responded to this question. I think it is very important that we try to find a consensus on it:

Q2: What did Paul mean by the "Gospel to the circumcision" vs. the "Gospel to the uncircumcised"?

I think Joel is on the right track. The difference seems to be in how the Gospel is presented with a sensitivity to the special needs of the different people groups. It seems to me the word "Gospel" in this passage really carries the meaning of "preaching the Good News" to these two groups. This is supported by Longenecker's translation of this passage as "when I saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching to the uncircumcised just as Peter was entrusted with preaching to the circumcised" (Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians. Vol. 41). He went on to comment:

Longenecker: Now it is possible, of course, to lay too much weight on the difference between two kinds of gospels here and Paul’s insistence elsewhere that there is only one gospel, for the point here is not with regard to content but audience and type of outreach.

I agree with Longenecker on this point. It would be good if folks participating in this thread would register their agreement or lack thereof so we can have a consensus.

Thanks!

Richard

joel

07-13-2007, 12:20 PM

I was about to move on to the next section when I noticed I had not responded to this question. I think it is very important that we try to find a consensus on it:

Q2: What did Paul mean by the "Gospel to the circumcision" vs. the "Gospel to the uncircumcised"?

I think Joel is on the right track. The difference seems to be in how the Gospel is presented with a sensitivity to the special needs of the different people groups. It seems to me the word "Gospel" in this passage really carries the meaning of "preaching the Good News" to these two groups. This is supported by Longenecker's translation of this passage as "when I saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching to the uncircumcised just as Peter was entrusted with preaching to the circumcised" (Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians. Vol. 41). He went on to comment:

I agree with Longenecker on this point. It would be good if folks participating in this thread would register their agreement or lack thereof so we can have a consensus.

Thanks!

Richard

Can we look more closely to the verses, then?

Galatians 2:
7 But contraiwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as (the gospel) of the circumcision (was) unto Peter,
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (should go) unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision

As I try to understand the meaning of verse 7, I find that within the word grouping.....the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me
there is the expression....committed unto me.....which is "pisteuO".

If you take that at its very root basis, it seems to be saying that the gospel that was "believed by Paul"...."pisteuO"....was a distinct message. If it was exactly the same message as was proclaimed by the Jewish apostles, Peter being the chief, to the Jewish converts, wouldn't a different expression be used here for "committed/entrusted" than "pisteuO", such as "tithemi"?

Granted, it seems obvious that the sphere of the ministry of Paul was different than that of Peter. But, what is not obvious, is the application of the gospel.

We have agreed that the basis of justification cannot be the works of the law, that being true for both the Jew and the Greek. Romans 3:20, and Galatians 2:16 are in perfect harmony as to the just standing of any person that it cannot be out of acts of law.

My point is, however, that the Galatians, at the writing of this letter, were already "justified" through the exclusive belief in the blood of Christ. They were already "justified" in that sense. There is no way that anyone can be "un-justified" by an act of the flesh, circumcision or anything else.

But, we can "fall from grace" and that is, what I believe, to be the focal message of Galatians as we work our way through it.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-13-2007, 01:14 PM

Can we look more closely to the verses, then?

Galatians 2:
7 But contraiwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as (the gospel) of the circumcision (was) unto Peter,
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (should go) unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision

As I try to understand the meaning of verse 7, I find that within the word grouping.....the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me
there is the expression....committed unto me.....which is "pisteuO".

If you take that at its very root basis, it seems to be saying that the gospel that was "believed by Paul"...."pisteuO"....was a distinct message. If it was exactly the same message as was proclaimed by the Jewish apostles, Peter being the chief, to the Jewish converts, wouldn't a different expression be used here for "committed/entrusted" than "pisteuO", such as "tithemi"?
You found an important point there. The exact word Paul used is "pepisteumai". This exact form of this word appears only in one other verse, which seems to give us a pretty good idea of what it means in this context. It is found in 1 Corinthians 9:17:

For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed (pepisteumai) unto me.

So though the root of this word is pisteo, and pisteo does indeed carry the primary meaning of "belief", it seems clear that we can not translate it as referring to the gospel that was "believed by Paul" since Paul is specifically talking about a dispensation of the gospel being entrusted, given, committed, to him.

We may have to leave Q2 on the shelf for a while to see if any other insights come up as we study further in the text.

Granted, it seems obvious that the sphere of the ministry of Paul was different than that of Peter. But, what is not obvious, is the application of the gospel.

We have agreed that the basis of justification cannot be the works of the law, that being true for both the Jew and the Greek. Romans 3:20, and Galatians 2:16 are in perfect harmony as to the just standing of any person that it cannot be out of acts of law.
Yep! Perfect agreement.

My point is, however, that the Galatians, at the writing of this letter, were already "justified" through the exclusive belief in the blood of Christ. They were already "justified" in that sense. There is no way that anyone can be "un-justified" by an act of the flesh, circumcision or anything else.
Well, if that's true, then those who were teaching a return to the law may not actually have been justified in the first place.

But, we can "fall from grace" and that is, what I believe, to be the focal message of Galatians as we work our way through it.

Joel
Yes, the "fall from grace" is the language Paul used. But in conjunction with that he said "Christ shall profit you nothing." Now justification is a great profit that comes from Christ, so if we can fall from grace, it looks we can fall from the justification that comes ONLY through grace. Note also that Paul links the attempt to be justified by the law with the fall from grace, so I don't see how we can separate these two critical issues.

Richard

joel

07-13-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by joel
My point is, however, that the Galatians, at the writing of this letter, were already "justified" through the exclusive belief in the blood of Christ. They were already "justified" in that sense. There is no way that anyone can be "un-justified" by an act of the flesh, circumcision or anything else.

Well, if that's true, then those who were teaching a return to the law may not actually have been justified in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joel
But, we can "fall from grace" and that is, what I believe, to be the focal message of Galatians as we work our way through it.

Joel

Yes, the "fall from grace" is the language Paul used. But in conjunction with that he said "Christ shall profit you nothing." Now justification is a great profit that comes from Christ, so if we can fall from grace, it looks we can fall from the justification that comes ONLY through grace. Note also that Paul links the attempt to be justified by the law with the fall from grace, so I don't see how we can separate these two critical issues.

Richard
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Richard, when you said;

Now justification is a great profit that comes from Christ...

I would appeal that "justification" is the great profit of such overwhelming significance that rather than listing it among a group of spiritual graces, it is the paramount of the graces, conferred upon us other than love, which is conferred within us, being the highest of all the graces.

As in Job, when the question that came back again, and again, was.....Can a man be just before God?

Job's "friends" continually called attention to his "works" in that something that he did must be cause of his calamities. But, Job would not accept it. He knew that there was something else behind the scene, but, he did not know what it was.

We are made "just", we are conferred the status of being "just", we have a right standing with God, not because of anything that we have done, or can do, but, solely on the basis of what Christ has done.

And, the most important initial accomplishment is the justification secured by the shedding of His blood. There is no other basis of justification.

That is the most significant accomplishment of Christ for all of us.

His blood, shed for us, is for the covering, overshadowing, of our sins (the misses of us). The mercy seat is type of this truth.

But, it is vital that we also see that justification goes beyond its initial purpose; the covering over of the misses of us, and, is also applicable to the "justification from sin", not just "sins".

Our sins are our "missings".
Sin is "missing".

In Romans 6, Paul addresses "sin/missing", not "sins/missings". There occurs a change of focus from "sins" to "sin".

Paul, in Romans 6, says that we are "justified from sin" by the death of Christ.

Earlier, he stated that we are "justified from sins" by the blood of Christ.

We need to see the difference.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-13-2007, 05:35 PM

Richard, when you said;

Now justification is a great profit that comes from Christ...

I would appeal that "justification" is the great profit of such overwhelming significance that rather than listing it among a group of spiritual graces, it is the paramount of the graces, conferred upon us other than love, which is conferred within us, being the highest of all the graces.
Yes, of course! I agree completely. I didn't intend to put it as one "grace" amongst others.

As in Job, when the question that came back again, and again, was.....Can a man be just before God?

Job's "friends" continually called attention to his "works" in that something that he did must be cause of his calamities. But, Job would not accept it. He knew that there was something else behind the scene, but, he did not know what it was.
Yep. Job and the Question of Righteousness. That sets the tone for Spoke 18 (Tzaddi/Tzaddiq)

We are made "just", we are conferred the status of being "just", we have a right standing with God, not because of anything that we have done, or can do, but, solely on the basis of what Christ has done.
That would make a very interesting thread. It sounds like you believe in the forensic theory of the atonement. For most of my life as a Christian, I didn't even know that it was a theory invented during the 16th century reformation, or that there have been many different theories of the atonement during the history of the Church.

The idea that we are simply "declared" to be righteous does not set well with my sense of the reality of the Gospel. I see it much more organically. We enter in to Christ, and when we are in Christ we share and partake in His Righteousness just as He shared our fate of death when He bore our sins on the cross. I do not like the forensic lawyer language. It makes my skin crawl.

The problem with words like "we are conferred the status of being just" makes it sound like there was some monetary or legal transaction, that something separate from Christ was transfered from Him to me, with Christ still "over there" somewhere and me not really "in Christ" but rather walking around with my "conferred" righteousness. I know this might sound like nit-picking language, but think of the power of metaphors over the minds of men! I choose my metaphors with great deliberation.

And, the most important initial accomplishment is the justification secured by the shedding of His blood. There is no other basis of justification.

That is the most significant accomplishment of Christ for all of us.

His blood, shed for us, is for the covering, overshadowing, of our sins (the misses of us). The mercy seat is type of this truth.
Amen.

But, it is vital that we also see that justification goes beyond its initial purpose; the covering over of the misses of us, and, is also applicable to the "justification from sin", not just "sins".

Our sins are our "missings".
Sin is "missing".

In Romans 6, Paul addresses "sin/missing", not "sins/missings". There occurs a change of focus from "sins" to "sin".

Paul, in Romans 6, says that we are "justified from sin" by the death of Christ.

Earlier, he stated that we are "justified from sins" by the blood of Christ.

We need to see the difference.

Joel
Now this is very interesting. I know a lot of folks teach that there is a difference between "sins" and "sin." They usually explain it in terms of particular sinful acts versus our "sinful nature." But such explanations don't mean much to me since I don't believe the Bible teaches that there is such a thing as a "sinful nature" (as I have laboured to explain at length in that thread).

So I must ask - though I know its off topic - what do you believe is the difference between being "justified from sins" and being "justified from sin"?

I don't understand the idea of making an abstract noun from the verb "to miss." In other words, to what does the noun "Missings" refer?

Richard

joel

07-14-2007, 05:13 AM

"Now this is very interesting. I know a lot of folks teach that there is a difference between "sins" and "sin." They usually explain it in terms of particular sinful acts versus our "sinful nature." But such explanations don't mean much to me since I don't believe the Bible teaches that there is such a thing as a "sinful nature" (as I have laboured to explain at length in that thread).

So I must ask - though I know its off topic - what do you believe is the difference between being "justified from sins" and being "justified from sin"?

I don't understand the idea of making an abstract noun from the verb "to miss." In other words, to what does the noun "Missings" refer?"

Richard
-------------------------------------------------------------

Richard, we are in complete agreement concerning the use of "sinful nature". It is a non-scriptural term that clouds the issue.

The distinction that Paul makes between "sins" and "sin" can be found in Romans 5;
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

In verse 9, we are now justifed by his blood.

In verse 10, he speaks of ...the death of his Son.

If we move ahead into Romans 6;
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

The word freed is "justified".

Justification when used speaking of HIs blood has to do with our "sins". They are covered over by His blood. Our just God sees the blood, not our "sins", and we are saved from wrath through him.

Justifcation when speaking of His death includes us "in Him". We have died with Christ. We are "in Him". And, in that we have died, in Him, we are freed (justified) from sin.

The following verses in Romans 6 say;
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

I do not prefer the word "atonement" in Romans 5:11........"katalagge" is the complete change (exchange) that occured when we were "in Christ" on the cross. Just as we were in Adam, in the garden, when sin entered, and death entered through sin, we were in Christ on the cross, where sin in the flesh was condemned.

That is what I mean by applying "justification" to both the "blood" and "sins", and the "body" of His death for "sin".

It has to be perfectly "legal" as God is "just", but, more than that, He is the "justifier" of those who believe "into" Christ.

Joel

joel

07-17-2007, 09:52 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

07-17-2007, 10:35 AM

Richard, I was wondering if we might move on.............maybe you could post the next section of Galatians and allow comments, if you don't currently have the time to both post verses and comment...??

Joel
Hi Joel,

Sorry for the slow response. Some posts get very long and take a lot of time to compose, and after a long day at the computer programming, I often run out of time and/or energy.

As for the progress of our walk through Galatians, it is perfectly ok with me if you post the next section and comment if I miss a beat. Even if I still have to respond to your previous post, we can move on the the next part and I'll catch up.

With that, lets move on, my brother.

:plane:

I believe we left off at Galatians 2:16:

Galatians 2:16-21 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. I can not move past this passage without lingering on this most wonderful and widely quoted Scripture -

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Praise God! Praise God now and forever! :pray:

I doubt there will be any disagreements to hash out on this one, though we could mine its wealth forever.

Given the ongoing discussion about legalism, antinomianism, Sabbath laws, and all that, I think it very important that we ask ourselves what God intends for us to understand from the statement that we are "justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Would it "please God" if we strove to obey the law that Christ died to free us from? Would God be pleased or displeased if we we ritualistically killed the passover lamb, circumcised all new male believers, ate only kosher food, and kept all the Sabbath laws?

I think He would be displeased because that would be missing the whole point of what the law was intended for. The law is a schoolteacher to lead us to Christ, and looking back to the law now that we have Christ is to take our eyes off Christ, and that is not pleasing to the Father. In anticipation of the section we will soon be reading, this is what I think God meant when He inspired Paul to write:

Galatians 3:24-26 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster [we are not under the law]. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Looking to the "schoolmaster" [Law] would be like a grown man wearing diapers. They are no longer needed, because he has control of his bowels now that he has "put off childish things" and come to the fullness of a mature, adult faith in Christ Jesus.

Richard

joel

07-17-2007, 01:01 PM

Richard, you said;

"... lets move on, my brother.

:plane:

I believe we left off at Galatians 2:16:

Quote:
Galatians 2:16-21 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Some added comments;

Verse 16;.....A person (a human) is not "justified" out of acts of law (as the source)......but, through the belief of Jesus (as the source). This is just a point of clarification; our belief in Jesus is not the source of our justification, any more than our "works" of law, otherwise, our belief may be construed as a "work". It is Jesus' faith that secured our justification.
Verse 17;....there is a shift in the convervation here. If when looking away from ourselves, and seeking to be justified "in" Jesus (which is the correct place to look), we discover in the process that we are "sinners", is Christ then, the "minister of sin"? May it never be.
Verse 18.....If then, I see myself now as no longer, in any way, united with the law as my "justification", and I embrace any form of legalism to build my faith, then, I become a "transgressor" in the process.
Verse 19.....Because Paul claims that "I" (you, me, Paul, and everyone else) died from the law, through the law, that to God "I" (you, me, Paul, and everyone else) should be living unto God.

In these verses, Paul has summarized the truth he presented in Romans 7.
At this juncture, just as was true in that seventh chapter, if I (you, me, Paul and everyone else) try to "do good" for God by obeying law, I find that in my noble attempts, I simply cannot do so.

Just as I was unable to do anything that would cause God to see me as "just" by the "works" of the law, it is equally true that I cannot, of myself, do anything that pleases God through acts of the law now.

It was through law that "I died". And now, it is unto God that I live.........
But, glory to God, as you pointed out Richard;
Verse 20 is the glorious truth that is to be the focus of the continuance of faith;
(I show it in a format which is not standard English, but is an attempt to present it more in line with the Greek);

In the Annointed (Christ), I have been impaled together with Him,
yet, I am living,
Yet, not still "I" am living,
Yet, in me, Annointed (Christ) is living,
which yet now, as I am living in flesh, I am living in the belief of the Son of God,
the One Who is loving me and gives Himself for me

As it was Christ's faith that secured my "justification", it is His faith that undergirds my continued "life". I was crucified with Him, and He is now living in me.

My obedience to law did not get me started, nor, is my obedience to law going to keep me going. It is Christ's faith, from beginning (Alpha) to the end (Omega).

Joel

(By the way, Richard, I really like that little airplane guy.)

Richard Amiel McGough

07-18-2007, 07:55 AM

Some added comments;

Verse 16;.....A person (a human) is not "justified" out of acts of law (as the source)......but, through the belief of Jesus (as the source). This is just a point of clarification; our belief in Jesus is not the source of our justification, any more than our "works" of law, otherwise, our belief may be construed as a "work". It is Jesus' faith that secured our justification.
I think that's an important point. Our faith is like the umbilical cord that connects us to the Life that is in Jesus. We are not justified BY THE POWER OF our own faith but rather through the righteousness of Christ to which our faith connects us. We are like an electrical appliance that is "dead" when it is not plugged in to the socket. It has no life in itself. The plug must be "IN" the socket (Christ) for the power (His Life) to flow.

But I would not confuse the issue by calling faith a "work" since the Bible contrasts faith and works. Of course, there is one verse that speaks of "the work of faith" but that is better translated as meaning "faithful work." I bring this up because the children of the reformation frequently assert that faith is a kind of "work."

Verse 17;....there is a shift in the convervation here. If when looking away from ourselves, and seeking to be justified "in" Jesus (which is the correct place to look), we discover in the process that we are "sinners", is Christ then, the "minister of sin"? May it never be.
Verse 18.....If then, I see myself now as no longer, in any way, united with the law as my "justification", and I embrace any form of legalism to build my faith, then, I become a "transgressor" in the process.
Verse 19.....Because Paul claims that "I" (you, me, Paul, and everyone else) died from the law, through the law, that to God "I" (you, me, Paul, and everyone else) should be living unto God.

In these verses, Paul has summarized the truth he presented in Romans 7.
At this juncture, just as was true in that seventh chapter, if I (you, me, Paul and everyone else) try to "do good" for God by obeying law, I find that in my noble attempts, I simply cannot do so.
No, you can not do anything "good" without faith in God, for without faith it is impossible to please Him. But with faith, we can do many good works. For indeed, "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works."

Just as I was unable to do anything that would cause God to see me as "just" by the "works" of the law, it is equally true that I cannot, of myself, do anything that pleases God through acts of the law now.
The key phrase being "of myself."

It was through law that "I died". And now, it is unto God that I live.........
But, glory to God, as you pointed out Richard;
Verse 20 is the glorious truth that is to be the focus of the continuance of faith;
(I show it in a format which is not standard English, but is an attempt to present it more in line with the Greek);

In the Annointed (Christ), I have been impaled together with Him,
yet, I am living,
Yet, not still "I" am living,
Yet, in me, Annointed (Christ) is living,
which yet now, as I am living in flesh, I am living in the belief of the Son of God,
the One Who is loving me and gives Himself for me

I like the effort to reword things ... but I am not sure that "anointed" clarifies anything to the modern mind, since that idea is not used in the modern vernacular, and it is used in certain charismatic branches of the church to give an entirely wrong sense about it.

As it was Christ's faith that secured my "justification", it is His faith that undergirds my continued "life". I was crucified with Him, and He is now living in me.
I agree that it was Christs faith that "secured" our salvation, but it is our faith that links us to Christ. Of course, the Bible seems to teach that even "our faith" is a Gift from God, so we can't boast about that either. As an aside, this confuses some folks who say that if we can't believe unless God gives us faith, then God can't hold us accountable for not believing! Hummm... I do detect another "loose thread" that may need to be tugged ... :lol:

My obedience to law did not get me started, nor, is my obedience to law going to keep me going. It is Christ's faith, from beginning (Alpha) to the end (Omega).

Joel

Amen, Amen, and Amen!

(By the way, Richard, I really like that little airplane guy.)
Yeah, I should upload more cool smilies. The web is full of them.

Geoffrey

07-18-2007, 04:01 PM

It seems there is a consensus amongst the three posters in this thread on the following fundamental Q & A:

Q1: What is the 'other Gospel' Galatians 1:6-9 warns of?
A1: The teaching that Christians are bound by the Jewish Law.

This answer will be the working assumption unless and until it is challenged (which is may well be, since we have not heard from many of our members yet).
The words heteros and allos may also be interpreted as:

heteros - different
allos - alltogether differentThe other gospel is different from the true gospel, but it is not alltogether different. Paul said in

Gal 1:7:"... and would pervert the gospel of Christ".

Notice: pervert. So, the other gospel is a perversion of the true gospel and at the end time would be so close to the truth that even the elect would be deceived if it were possible (Mat 24:24). God said He would send the wicked strong delusion to believe the lie, the other gospel (2Th 2:11). The delusion is strong, because the lie is so close to the truth.

A good example of this is how the serpent, when he spoke to Eve, only inserted one little word - not - into the true teaching and threw the whole world into chaos. The rest of his gospel was true, because when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit their eyes were opened, they were as gods knowing good and evil.

Cain had a good gospel. He offered the first fruits of the land, which was fundamentally correct, because God required it. But he was supposed to offer the blood of a lamb first. Then he got things messed up again and killed Abel, which was a type of the Lamb of God. That was not the apponted time for a Man to give His life for the sins of the world. Cain had the true gospel, but a perverted gospel, because he did not understand it.

It seems to me that the other gospel is more than merely that Christians are bound by Jewish law.

Richard Amiel McGough

07-18-2007, 05:26 PM

The words heteros and allos may also be interpreted as:
heteros - different
allos - alltogether differentThe other gospel is different from the true gospel, but it is not alltogether different. Paul said in

Gal 1:7:"... and would pervert the gospel of Christ".

Notice: pervert. So, the other gospel is a perversion of the true gospel and at the end time would be so close to the truth that even the elect would be deceived if it were possible (Mat 24:24). God said He would send the wicked strong delusion to believe the lie, the other gospel (2Th 2:11). The delusion is strong, because the lie is so close to the truth.
Excellent points. I agree completely.

A good example of this is how the serpent, when he spoke to Eve, only inserted one little word - not - into the true teaching and threw the whole world into chaos. The rest of his gospel was true, because when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit their eyes were opened, they were as gods knowing good and evil.
Do you mean when the serpent said "Ye shall not surely die?" If so, I wouldn't say that was "close" to the truth at all, since it is an explicit negation of the truth.

Cain had a good gospel. He offered the first fruits of the land, which was fundamentally correct, because God required it. But he was supposed to offer the blood of a lamb first. Then he got things messed up again and killed Abel, which was a type of the Lamb of God. That was not the apponted time for a Man to give His life for the sins of the world. Cain had the true gospel, but a perverted gospel, because he did not understand it.
Two points: 1) I am not aware of anything in the Bible that says Cain was supposed to offer a lamb at all, let alone first. How did you come to that conclusion? 2) I don't think his offering of the fruits of his own labors was pleasing to God because it was not a picture of Christ and His Sacrifice. It seems to me that Cain and Abel form a good picture of the Flesh vs. Spirit. Cain tried to please God with his works, whereas Abel offered a blood sacrifice in faithful anticipation of Christ.

It seems to me that the other gospel is more than merely that Christians are bound by Jewish law.
Could you elaborate on that? It seems to me that in the context of Galatians, the other Gospel is as stated earlier. Your application to the word "gospel" in the case of satan's lie and Cain's error doesn't make sense to me as the "other Gospel" that Paul was talking about in Galatians.

Good chatting Geoffrey! You should hop over to the "General Discussion" forum and tell us a little about yourself.

Richard

joel

07-19-2007, 07:03 AM

Geoffrey, it is good to have another join in the discussion.

Your input has prompted in me thoughts concerning the gospel which I would like to clarify as to my specific beliefs as to what exactly is the gospel that we are discussing in Galatians.

The gospel, that Paul brought to the nations, is set forth in Paul's letter to the Romans. In the first seven chapters he presents it through means of an extended discourse, ultimately tracing the need for the gospel all the way back to Adam.

In his discourse, he takes considerable time through exacting terminology to conclude that no one is "just", nor can anyone become just through acts of the law. Righteousness, or "right standing" with God is revealed in the gospel as Christ Jesus is revealed. The gospel is a revelation of the righteousness of God that is manifested in His Son, Jesus Christ.

As Paul painstakingly outlines our need for the gospel, when the presentation begins, as Paul unfolds it in Romans up through chapter 7, we discover that it contains specific truths concerning our Lord, some of which are;
1.) justification is by faith in His blood, we are saved from wrath through Him, our sins have been covered over by His blood,
2.) justification from sin is provided in that we were included in His death on the cross, we no longer are slaves to sin, His body on the cross is the end of the old humanity, we can walk in newness of life.
3.) exemption from the law occurred in His death as well. His body, on the cross, as the end of the old humanity, terminates the law's demands upon any of us. We can serve God in newness of spirit, not oldness of letter.

Any "gospel" that is presented to us which is contrary to the truths contained in Paul's gospel is a perversion, and a twisting of the truth.

We may have endless discussions on what the gospel "isn't", but, it may be vanity, unless we agree on what the gospel "is".

This is where I have found many different viewpoints coming from all manner of belief systems...........the safe place is to come back to Paul's discourse in Romans and seek to have a solid foundation put down, and then, build the house.

When you look at I Corinthians, chapter 1, that was exactly the problem.....they were divided.....and, why?......Paul reminded them that he only preached Christ, and Him crucified. All other fleshly rites were discarded, including baptism, because it voided the "word of the cross".

The Galatians were facing a new issue; false brethren entered in, and added circumcision to the gospel, which is another tactic to draw attention from the cross.

Joel

Geoffrey

07-19-2007, 10:16 AM

Do you mean when the serpent said "Ye shall not surely die?"
Yes.

If so, I wouldn't say that was "close" to the truth at all, since it is an explicit negation of the truth.
Yes, it is an explicit negation by a slight change to the sentence by the addition of one little word to thirty-one other words. He lied when he said that they would not die, but told the truth when he said that their eyes would be opened:

Genesis 3:7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
And that they would be as gods:

Genesis 3:22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:
Two points: 1) I am not aware of anything in the Bible that says Cain was supposed to offer a lamb at all, let alone first. How did you come to that conclusion?
Abel's sacrifice of a lamb, which was more excellent than that of Cain, was accepted. Had Cain also sacrificed a lamb, he would have been accepted.

Genesis 4:6-7And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? (7) If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
When Adam and Eve realised that they were naked, they took material from plants to cover their shame. God had to rectify the situation and slaughtered lambs so that the blood, which contains the innocent life of the lambs, might cover the sin in their spirits and that the skins of the animals may cover their bodies.

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Cain had the same wrong idea that Adam and Eve had, but Abel received the correct gospel by revelation from God.

The first sacrifice that the Israelites had to make before leaving Egypt were of lambs. They had to cover the door posts with blood so that the angel of death could pass them by. Only after they had settled in the promised land were they supposed to offer the first fruits of the land.

2) I don't think his offering of the fruits of his own labors was pleasing to God because it was not a picture of Christ and His Sacrifice. It seems to me that Cain and Abel form a good picture of the Flesh vs. Spirit. Cain tried to please God with his works, whereas Abel offered a blood sacrifice in faithful anticipation of Christ.
Yes, I agree: Cain tried to please God with works. But the sacrifices were more than symbolic. They were meant to cover their sin. The life of plants do not cover sin. Had Abel not made the sacrifice, God would have destroyed him. Had the Israelites not sacrificed, God would have killed their first born sons and they would never have left Egypt.

Could you elaborate on that? It seems to me that in the context of Galatians, the other Gospel is as stated earlier. Your application to the word "gospel" in the case of satan's lie and Cain's error doesn't make sense to me as the "other Gospel" that Paul was talking about in Galatians.
The gospel is the good news that there is a way for us to be reconciled to God. The way was that the uniquely begotten Son of God would one day give His life to take away our sins, but that the blood of lambs would, in the mean time, cover our sins. Cain thought that the way was to sacrifice the first fruits of the land, by works and by beauty. That was another gospel.

Even if a gospel does not teach that Christians must obey Jewish law, it can still be another. Here are some examples of other gospels:

Ministers must not marry (1Ti 4:1-3)
Women may preach the gospel (1Co 14:34-38; 1Ti 2:11-15)
We do not have to attend church services (Heb 10:25)Geoffrey

Richard Amiel McGough

07-19-2007, 11:07 AM

Abel's sacrifice of a lamb, which was more excellent than that of Cain, was accepted. Had Cain also sacrificed a lamb, he would have been accepted.
I disagree here. A sacrifice offered without faith is an abomination. Cain lacked faith, so no sacrifice would have been accepted.

When Adam and Eve realised that they were naked, they took material from plants to cover their shame. God had to rectify the situation and slaughtered lambs so that the blood, which contains the innocent life of the lambs, might cover the sin in their spirits and that the skins of the animals may cover their bodies.
Good point. I think there is a very deep parallel there with the offerings of Cain (plants) and Abel (lamb). Thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, I agree: Cain tried to please God with works. But the sacrifices were more than symbolic. They were meant to cover their sin. The life of plants do not cover sin. Had Abel not made the sacrifice, God would have destroyed him. Had the Israelites not sacrificed, God would have killed their first born sons and they would never have left Egypt.
When you say that the sacrifices were "more than symbolic" what exactly are you trying to communicate? If not symbolic, then what? Are you saying the physical red liquid extracted from the dead animals somehow literally "covers" the "sin in their spirits"? I find that combination of physical and spiritual rather confusing.

The gospel is the good news that there is a way for us to be reconciled to God. The way was that the uniquely begotten Son of God would one day give His life to take away our sins, but that the blood of lambs would, in the mean time, cover our sins. Cain thought that the way was to sacrifice the first fruits of the land, by works and by beauty. That was another gospel.
I think you have extrapolated beyond what the text says. Where did you get the idea that Cain's offering had anything to do with "beauty." Myself, I am very uncomfortable asserting anything about the Bible as "true" if it can not be clearly derived from the Bible.

Even if a gospel does not teach that Christians must obey Jewish law, it can still be another.
True. It certainly could be "another" gospel. But we are not here concerned about every possible "other gospel. We are seeking to answer the question of what Paul meant by the "other gospel" in the book of Galatians. I grant that it could have many other applications not explicitly intended by Paul, but that is a different issue.

Here are some examples of other gospels:
Ministers must not marry (1Ti 4:1-3)
Women may preach the gospel (1Co 14:34-38; 1Ti 2:11-15)
We do not have to attend church services (Heb 10:25)Geoffrey

Now there's some good grist for the mills of other threads! I am glad you tossed them out. If you want to pursue them, feel free to begin your own thread.

Nice chatting, and God bless!

Richard

Geoffrey

07-19-2007, 11:09 AM

Any "gospel" that is presented to us which is contrary to the truths contained in Paul's gospel is a perversion, and a twisting of the truth.

That's right.

All other fleshly rites were discarded, including baptism, because it voided the "word of the cross".

Paul never discarded baptism; on the contrary, he insisted on the correct baptism.

Acts 19:1-7And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (7) And all the men were about twelve.
Being baptised in water does not save anyone. We are saved by the faith of the Son of God. Yet, baptism is an integral part of the gospel.

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Acts 2:37-41Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added untothem about three thousand souls.

Mark 16:14-20 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

1 Peter 3:20-22 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (22) Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Geoffrey

07-19-2007, 12:30 PM

True. It certainly could be "another" gospel. But we are not here concerned about every possible "other gospel. We are seeking to answer the question of what Paul meant by the "other gospel" in the book of Galatians. I grant that it could have many other applications not explicitly intended by Paul, but that is a different issue.
OK, Richard, I see what you mean. I agree: the other gospel Paul mentions in Galatians refers specifically to keeping the Jewish law as can be read throughout the epistle.

I disagree here. A sacrifice offered without faith is an abomination. Cain lacked faith, so no sacrifice would have been accepted.
Yes. So, if he had faith and made the correct sacrifice he would have been accepted. :)

When you say that the sacrifices were "more than symbolic" what exactly are you trying to communicate? If not symbolic, then what? Are you saying the physical red liquid extracted from the dead animals somehow literally "covers" the "sin in their spirits"? I find that combination of physical and spiritual rather confusing.
The sacrifices had intrinsic value. The blood is the carrier of the life of the body.

Leviticus 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
When the blood of the lamb was shed, the life, which is spirit, left it and was a covering (religion) for the sins of the soul. The innocent spirit of the lamb covered the guilty soul of the sinner so that God does not see it and destroy it. Yet, the blood of animals could not take away the sin.

Hebrews 10:3-4 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. (4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
When the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ was shed, our sins were washed away and remembered no more and the life or nature that was in Christ came upon us. The life of an animal could not come upon a man.

Galatians 2:20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Notice:"Christ liveth in me."

I think you have extrapolated beyond what the text says. Where did you get the idea that Cain's offering had anything to do with "beauty." Myself, I am very uncomfortable asserting anything about the Bible as "true" if it can not be clearly derived from the Bible.
Cain's altar, covered with fruits and vegetables would certainly have been more beatiful than an altar covered with blood. John said:

1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
Cain was of the devil and had the nature of his father. What was the nature of his father?

Ezekiel 28:17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
In contrast, when we look at the true sacrifice:

Isaiah 53:2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Now there's some good grist for the mills of other threads! I am glad you tossed them out. If you want to pursue them, feel free to begin your own thread.

Nice chatting, and God bless!

Thanks.

Geoffrey

Richard Amiel McGough

07-19-2007, 01:35 PM

OK, Richard, I see what you mean. I agree: the other gospel Paul mentions in Galatians refers specifically to keeping the Jewish law as can be read throughout the epistle.
Excellent! That's what I love about talking with folks like you. A simple admission of the truth we mutually seek. I pray I will always be able to live up to that example.

Yes. So, if he had faith and made the correct sacrifice he would have been accepted. :)
Yes indeed! Faith is the Key to the Gospel, which began in Genesis 15:6 when Abraham believed in the Lord.

The sacrifices had intrinsic value. The blood is the carrier of the life of the body.

Leviticus 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.When the blood of the lamb was shed, the life, which is spirit, left it and was a covering (religion) for the sins of the soul. The innocent spirit of the lamb covered the guilty soul of the sinner so that God does not see it and destroy it. Yet, the blood of animals could not take away the sin.
First, Lev 17:11 is one of the most significant verses in the Bible, as it explains the meaning of the Blood of Christ. But to suggest that the blood of the animals could literally "cover" sin makes no sense to me. The idea that anything like an animals spirit could "cover" sin so that God literally "could not see it" seems very problematic, given God's omniscience and all that.

When the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ was shed, our sins were washed away and remembered no more and the life or nature that was in Christ came upon us. The life of an animal could not come upon a man.
Again, I have trouble forming these literal interpretations in my mind. The term "blood of Christ" is a metaphor for His death, in which He bore the judgment of God in our place. We partake of His life when we enter into Him through faith. Thus we are in Him, and He is in us. We share His life.

To suggest that His Blood literally "washed" away our sins like some kind of detergent just doesn't make sense to me. It is so "literal" it doesn't feel "real", if you get my point.

Notice:"Christ liveth in me."
Yes indeed! That is the way I see it.

Cain's altar, covered with fruits and vegetables would certainly have been more beatiful than an altar covered with blood.
Yes, that is true, and I understand how you came to your conclusion. But we still do not know if "beauty" had anything to do with Cain's sacrifice. And that was my only point; it seemed like you were stating something as a Biblical fact, when in it could actually be proven to be a fact. I'm a real stickler on points like that. That's all I meant.

Richard

joel

07-21-2007, 05:14 AM

:focus:???

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-21-2007, 08:50 PM

:focus:???

Joel

Amen!

Since Geoffrey agreed with our consensus on what Paul meant by the "other gospel" in Galatians, we can move on.

:plane:

Galatians 3:1-3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? This is an exceedingly important passage because explains the fundamental error of those who think we need to do things like keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws and all that. Paul is reminding us that our salvation was entirely a work of God's Spirit through Faith, and had NOTHING to do with works of the law which he identifies here with the works of the flesh.

This is truly a great passage.

Comments?

Richard

joel

07-22-2007, 05:55 AM

Amen!

Since Geoffrey agreed with our consensus on what Paul meant by the "other gospel" in Galatians, we can move on.

:plane:
Quote:
Galatians 3:1-3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

This is an exceedingly important passage because explains the fundamental error of those who think we need to do things like keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws and all that. Paul is reminding us that our salvation was entirely a work of God's Spirit through Faith, and had NOTHING to do with works of the law which he identifies here with the works of the flesh.

This is truly a great passage.

Comments?

Richard

I suggest, at this point, that Paul is expanding his argument in favor of "justification by faith, and not out of works of law" to include the on-going life of faith.

The initial "justification" is the same for all believers. Even though Paul has not stated it in this manner in his Galatian letter, he has done so previously in Romans...........justification comes only by faith in the blood of Christ. In the proclamation of the gospel, this spiritual fact (being a foundation truth) cannot be diluted by any "act" of the flesh.

In this section of Paul's letter, he interjects the truth of what actually happened to each of us when we believed in the justifying blood of Christ......we received the Spirit.

Our justification resulted in the reception of a wondrous gift; God imparted His Spirit into us.

When Jesus was graphically depicted as being crucified, and the focus of the evangel is on Him alone, no "works of the law" could be held up by us so that we could "receive......the Spirit". It happened by and through faith. It is true. God's spirit resides in us.

And, the Spirit was imparted by "the hearing of faith".

Since the beginning of our faith was due to the Spirit's revelation to us of the blood of Christ, and that nothing related to our flesh has any place whatsoever in the process, how can we now conclude that our continuance in the life of faith can be related to the flesh?

We began "in the Spirit", and, we will be brought to a suitable conclusion "in the Spirit".

When "circumcision" was introduced to the Galatians, Paul had to first review the process of our initial "justification". The Galatians were believers, just like us. And he had to take them back to an essential foundational element of the gospel; justification by faith (in His blood).

Now, in chapter 3, he reminds them of the indwelling Spirit. No outward rite/ritual (circumcision, etc.) can be instrumental in our continued journey in the faith as to helping us reach the goal of the "high calling in Christ Jesus".

The gift of the Spirit is an essential foundation truth of the gospel which is the result of the belief in the truth of the blood of Lamb which takes away the sins of the world.

Joel

joel

07-24-2007, 01:42 PM

:plane:
:plane:

Can we take off again? (assuming we are "in formation")

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-24-2007, 04:41 PM

Can we take off again? (assuming we are "in formation")

Joel

Formation? Yeah, I'd say we're in formation!

:uplane:
:plane:

Nice flying Joel!

Moving on ... There are a couple verses I left hanging that should have been included in the last post:

Galatians 3:4-5 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
I don't think any comment is needed, but this passage should be memorized since it makes the vanity of trying to "perfect" our walk of faith through fleshly works totally obvious.

Moving on ...

:planeup::planeup2:

Galatians 3:6-9 ¶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Scripture foresaw and and Scripture preached the Gospels unto Abraham! Verbs are applied to Scripture as if it were alive! I love it! Galatians is da book for me!

Note also that THE GOSPEL was preached to Abraha, BEFORE the Law was given, so we have a confirmation of our earlier conclusion that the OTHER gospel was the lie that we are supposed to follow Jewish traditions and laws.

The simplicity and consistency of Scripture never ceases to amaze me. The Gospel is perfect.

Praise God!

Richard

joel

07-25-2007, 05:39 AM

The simplicity and consistency of Scripture never ceases to amaze me. The Gospel is perfect.

Praise God!

Richard
--------------------------

Amen!

(Richard, I had a difficult enough time trying to get my pilots in formation, and you get them to do acrobatics!.........which of us was inverted?........you don't have to answer that.....)

Geoffrey, please "re-join" us......this flying in formation is great.

Joel

joel

07-30-2007, 04:20 PM

:woohoo:
O.K.,,,,,,,,where is the "cow" emoticon?????

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-30-2007, 10:30 PM

:woohoo:
O.K.,,,,,,,,where is the "cow" emoticon?????

Joel
Here is is ...

:cow:

.. are you happy now? Can we get back to our study of Galatians?

Richard

Oh, and by the way, that's MY grass! Every blade of it!

joel

07-31-2007, 07:25 AM

:cow:

While she is a grazin'

let's do a little Galatians "acro":uplane:

Joel

Geoffrey

07-31-2007, 10:16 AM

Moving on ...

Galatians 3:6-9 ¶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Scripture foresaw and and Scripture preached the Gospels unto Abraham! Verbs are applied to Scripture as if it were alive! I love it! Galatians is da book for me!

Note also that THE GOSPEL was preached to Abraha, BEFORE the Law was given, so we have a confirmation of our earlier conclusion that the OTHER gospel was the lie that we are supposed to follow Jewish traditions and laws.

:plane:
:plane:
:plane:

Since the gospel was already preached even to Abraham, Christianity did not start 2000 years ago, but in eternity!

Richard Amiel McGough

07-31-2007, 11:31 AM

:plane:
:plane:
:plane:

Since the gospel was already preached even to Abraham, Christianity did not start 2000 years ago, but in eternity!
Perfect agreement there!

But in the "natural" I would say that the first enunciation of the Gospel of Righteousness through Faith is found in Genesis 15:6: "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." That's why Paul quoted it in Galatians 3:6.

RAM

joel

07-31-2007, 01:47 PM

I would say that the first enunciation of the Gospel of Righteousness through Faith is found in Genesis 15:6: "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." That's why Paul quoted it in Galatians 3:6.

Since it was first enunciated in Genesis 15:6, when God was preparing to enter into covenant with Abraham, do you have any thoughts pertaining to Paul mentioning the "And he believed......and it was reckoned..." twice in Romans 4, pertaining to the early part of his life of faith, and the second occurring at least 25 years later?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-31-2007, 02:28 PM

Since it was first enunciated in Genesis 15:6, when God was preparing to enter into covenant with Abraham, do you have any thoughts pertaining to Paul mentioning the "And he believed......and it was reckoned..." twice in Romans 4, pertaining to the early part of his life of faith, and the second occurring at least 25 years later?

Joel
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about two events in Abraham's life separated by 25 years, or two events in Paul's life?

joel

07-31-2007, 02:34 PM

As it appears that we are moving on in Galatians, having entered into Chapter 3, I offer this summary;

The Galatians were believers, so the purpose of the letter is not a pronouncement of the gospel in its introductory form
The gospel was being twisted by means of the introduction of "circumcision" as a means of completing the work of grace that had begun in them
Paul reviewed again that the initial "justification by faith" was not as the result of "law works", but came by the hearing of faith

The elements of the gospel, which focus on the cross of Christ, was expanded from the initial truth of being justified by faith in His blood, to a re-statement of Romans 6 when Paul said in Galatians 2:20;
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

This truth, of our co-crucifixion with Him, is being attacked by the false brethren when they offer an alternative to the flesh. When the strategy is unveiled; "cut the flesh, (it is the sign of the covenant which Israel had with God), and you will continue on in your journey of spiritual growth,....you will be like us.....being completed in our faith".....
that appeals to the flesh, the cross (our co-crucifixion) is circumvented.

Paul is very adamant about this. In the first verse of chapter 3, he tells them;O Foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Then, he asked the question;
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
The gift of the Spirit came to us a result of the justification by faith in His blood, and not by works of law.
The Spirit is to lead us into all truth. This ritual of circumcision being necessary to take us further in our walk of faith is not the truth.

He continues;
3 Are you so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Here is the heart of the issue........not our initial justification by faith, but, where justification is to lead us.......our "completion", our "maturity" in the faith........we know that we are God's children, but.......are we to remain as children?

Is the ongoing ministry of the Spirit in our lives, and the working of His mighty power in us, and through us, to be a result of the works of the law, or like all that has gone before.....by the hearing of faith? (vs. 5).

Abraham believed God. And, God reckoned it him for righteousness.

What do we first believe about God, when He calls us? We believe that the blood of Christ was shed for our sins. We have been saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9).
Christ died for us.

What does He now want us to believe?......Galatians 2:20,
We died with Christ.
The flesh is put on the cross, not cut and maimed by a knife. The word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword...

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

07-31-2007, 03:07 PM

As it appears that we are moving on in Galatians, having entered into Chapter 3, I offer this summary;

The Galatians were believers, so the purpose of the letter is not a pronouncement of the gospel in its introductory form
The gospel was being twisted by means of the introduction of "circumcision" as a means of completing the work of grace that had begun in them
Paul reviewed again that the initial "justification by faith" was not as the result of "law works", but came by the hearing of faith
The elements of the gospel, which focus on the cross of Christ, was expanded from the initial truth of being justified by faith in His blood, to a re-statement of Romans 6 when Paul said in Galatians 2:20;
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

This truth, of our co-crucifixion with Him, is being attacked by the false brethren when they offer an alternative to the flesh. When the strategy is unveiled; "cut the flesh, (it is the sign of the covenant which Israel had with God), and you will continue on in your journey of spiritual growth,....you will be like us.....being completed in our faith".....
that appeals to the flesh, the cross (our co-crucifixion) is circumvented.

Paul is very adamant about this. In the first verse of chapter 3, he tells them;O Foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Then, he asked the question;
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
The gift of the Spirit came to us a result of the justification by faith in His blood, and not by works of law.
The Spirit is to lead us into all truth. This ritual of circumcision being necessary to take us further in our walk of faith is not the truth.

He continues;
3 Are you so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Here is the heart of the issue........not our initial justification by faith, but, where justification is to lead us.......our "completion", our "maturity" in the faith........we know that we are God's children, but.......are we to remain as children?

Is the ongoing ministry of the Spirit in our lives, and the working of His mighty power in us, and through us, to be a result of the works of the law, or like all that has gone before.....by the hearing of faith? (vs. 5).

Abraham believed God. And, God reckoned it him for righteousness.

What do we first believe about God, when He calls us? We believe that the blood of Christ was shed for our sins. We have been saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9).
Christ died for us.

What does He now want us to believe?......Galatians 2:20,
We died with Christ.
The flesh is put on the cross, not cut and maimed by a knife. The word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword...

Joel
A most excellent post Joel! :thumb:

Perfect lucidity.

Thanks!