Cast Out The Bondwoman And Her Son!

[wavy]

A Different Perspective On The Meaning Of The Allegory In Galatians (Galatians 4:21-31)

Please keep an open mind.

It seems so clear from Galatians 4:21-31 that Paul is saying that the law (properly torah) is bondage and that we should cast it out along with those who promote torah or keep it themselves.

However, I should first note that Paul was torah observant and promoted it himself in an orderly fashion (Acts 16:3; Acts 16:21; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:21; Acts 21:18-27; Acts 22:3; Acts 23:3-5; Acts 28:17; Romans 2:12-13; Romans 2:25-27; Romans 3:31; Romans 4:3; Romans 4:12; Romans 7:12; Romans 7:14; Romans 7:22; Romans 8:4; Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 9:9-10; 1 Timothy 5:11, and many more)

So let's take a look a look at what Paul has to say about those troubling the Galatians with "works of law".

Galatians 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear the torah?

Here is an interesting passage. Why would they need to listen to what the torah is saying to do if Paul throughout this whole epistle is supposedly telling them to stay away from it because it is "bondage"?

"Under law" does not contain the definite article "the", however, and refers to any form of legislation in general (in context, however, any legislation given by the "works of law" group).

However, "hear the law" does contain the definite article, and in most (all) contexts, this refers to torah (that is, the Pentateuch, the Writings, and the Prophets, or any of these three), so we know Paul is calling us back to what's written in the scripture (which includes Genesis-Deuteronomy - 2 Timothy 3:16).

Here, with this question, Paul is forming his midrash or allegory. Read more about midrash here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

An excerpt:

Some Midrash discussions are highly metaphorical, and many Jewish authors stress that they are not intended to be taken literally. Rather, other midrashic sources may sometimes serve as a key to particularly esoteric discussions. Later authors maintain that this was done to make this material less accessible to the casual reader and prevent its abuse by detractors.

Paul was a Jewish Rabbi and Pharisee, learned in torah and in many ways of Jewish halacha, whether biblical or tradition/oral. Let's not forget this. This is also why people don't see what Paul is about to do with this allegory.

Galatians 4:22
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Galatians 4:23
But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

And what was the point of choosing this? What's the topic of the entire letter? Whether or not these former "gentiles" are part of the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:12) and as such, considered Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:29) and equal heirs in salvation. These Judaizers denied them that by trying to enslave them to themselves through feigning torah with their own dogmas (not by the torah itself alone). Paul makes it clear that they do not "keep law" themselves (and hence were truly lawless - Galatians 6:13). They only want to make a show of the flesh with these new believers to enslave them to themselves, trying to exclude them from the promises and true justification in Messiah (Galatians 4:17). This is why Paul calls us to hear the torah (he is arguing against their interpretation and perpetration of it, not against it itself).

So we have to remember that Abraham had two sons from two women (we can only be born from one woman as one son). One son was born after the flesh (which the "works of law" group is promoting) and the other by the promise of the Spirit (which Paul is promoting).

What Paul is about to do here is explain his interpretation of torah (the right one) which says we are born of the Spirit through the original promise of Abraham, not by "works of law" through a show of the flesh from these Judaizers. The problem here is enslavement to these specific Jews, not a letter about how the torah is truly bondage and the elements of the world (this is refuted in Psalm 111:7-8 and by his own admission in Romans 7:12). What is being under the "elements of the world" is being subject to the slavery of some one else.

Galatians 4:24
Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

What things are an allegory? Abraham and his two sons through two women to the two covenants, children being produced by either one of them. And what are the two covenants? One is the Abrahamic covenant (not the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31, as many people mistake one of these covenants to be) and the other is the one from Mount Sinai. This midrash directs us back to two planes of existence pertaining to how we are born. Some lie and say that it is by works of law (torah corrupted and made into their own version) that we are considered children of Abraham, blessed with Abraham, and receive the promises given to Abraham and his seed when we come to faith in Messiah.

In this midrash, Paul equates Hagar with Mount Sinai (who we should not be born of). Yahweh says that under the Sinai covenant that both houses were in sin and had broken his covenant. He that commits sin (1 John 3:4) is the slave of sin (John 8:34). This is why those in Jerusalem pertaining to the Sinai covenant are in bondage (not because the torah is itself bondage).

Galatians 4:25
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Word for "answereth"? Seems to make no sense, but if we look it up in the Strong's Concordance, we'll see what it means:

G4960

συστοιχέω

sustoicheō

soos-toy-kheh'-o

From G4862 and G4748; to file together (as soldiers in ranks), that is, (figuratively) to correspond to: - answer to.

The Young's Literal Translation renders this as "doth correspond", or "corresponds". Hagar = Mount Sinai and we put this together with the present Jerusalem of that day (who were in bondage because of their "under law" existence and rejection of Messiah). Jerusalem, in the spirit of Hagar/Ishmael, is in bondage along with the slaves she produces (just as Hagar was a slave just as Ishmael).

Galatians 4:26
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

The point is hit home. We are not children of the earthly Jerusalem and are not in slavery with her children (who receive no promises; and no this is not a rejection of Jews as a whole, but that generation of Jews and those who rejected Messiah; all Jews have not rejected Messiah).

We are born as Abraham's son Isaac through Sarah (who would correspond to the heavenly Jerusalem).

Galatians 4:27
For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

Quoting Isaiah 54:1, speaking of Ephraim Israel, the divorced wife (Jeremiah 3:8) as opposed to Judah.

Galatians 4:28
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Galatians 4:29
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Judah vexing Ephraim (both vex each other today as well as then) but eventually, this will cease (Isaiah 11:13). Ishmael scoffed and mocked Isaac (Genesis 21:9), as Paul in this midrash says here.

Galatians 4:30
Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Genesis 21:10. Get rid of the bondwoman and her son. Be born through the Spirit, not through the flesh. Paul is not indicating to cast out the torah (he calls it “scripture†here). This is only an allegory. He's speaking of that plane of existence. Cast out the spirit of fleshly operation (the torah itself is actually spiritual according to Paul's own words in Romans 7:14).

Galatians 4:31
So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Amein!

 

[PDoug]

Wavy,

Just to be clear, are you advocating the direct, conscious pursuit of the law, along with having faith, as being the true way to God?

 

[Georges]

Nicely done wavy......reread it a couple of times....nicely done.

 

[cj]

(Please keep an open mind. And remember, praise be to Yahweh and his Son, Yahoshua, our Messiah. May we be guided to all truth)

Thing is, mouthing "praise" while speaking falsity is considered the height of wickedness by God.

Believer's need only open their mind to God, not the vain ramblings of men.

It seems so clear from Galatians 4:21-31 that Paul is saying that the Law (properly Torah) is bondage and that we should cast it out along with those who promote Torah or keep it themselves.

It more than seems,... it is.

However, I should first note that Paul was Torah observant and promoted it himself in an orderly fashion (Acts 16:3; Acts 16:21; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4; Acts 18:21; Acts 21:18-27; Acts 22:3; Acts 23:3-5; Acts 28:17; Romans 2:12-13; Romans 2:25-27; Romans 3:1-2; Romans 3:31; Romans 4:3; Romans 4:12; Romans 6:1-2; Romans 7:12; Romans 7:14; Romans 7:22; Romans 8:4; Romans 8:7 and many more)

This is an utter lie and is typical of the wicked levels men would go to in order to uplift themselves in their vanity.

As is most obvious from the very first scripture you present as an example, Acts 16:3, Paul absolutely makes his anti-Judaism stance known;....

"Paul wanted this one to go forth with him; and he took him... and circumcised him... because of the Jews... who were in those places,... for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them... the decrees to keep which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

And so the churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in number daily."

There are three things in the verses above that utterly rejects the silliness Wavy is putting forward.

The first... because of the Jews

This makes it clear that Paul was not doing it for righteousness sake but for the sake of the Jews that there would be no cause for division as they went about their ministry in the various cities.

Please keep everything in context to what Paul said in,

1 Corinthians 9:20-21, "And to the Jews I became... as... a Jew in order that I might gain Jews; to those under law,... as... under law (though I myself am not under law), that I might gain those under law. To those without law,... as... without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law."

Paul tells us clearly that he was willing to do whatever was necessary (within righteousness before God) to gain the unsaved.

To say "I became... AS..." means he faked it.

And don't take my word for it, take Paul's own words.... "that I might gain those" ... See, Paul did not consider Jews as being saved and thus identified with him in anyway.

Paul called Jews under the law... "those."... but when he spoke of the church he used "we".

And in,

1 Corinthians 8:8-13, "Yet... to us... there is one God, the Father, out from whom are call things,... and we... are unto Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,... and we... are through Him. But this knowledge is not in all men;... but some,... being accustomed to the idol until now, eat the food as an idol sacrifice, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food will not... commend us... to God; neither... if we... do not eat... are we... lacking, nor... if we... eat... do we... abound.

But beware lest somehow... this right of yours... become a stumbling block to the weak ones. For if anyone... sees you... who have knowledge reclining at table in an idol temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat the things sacrificed to the idols? For the one who is weak is being destroyed... by your... knowledge, the brother because of whom Christ died. And sinning in this way against the brothers and wounding their weak conscience,... you sin... against Christ. Therefore if food stumbles my brother,... I shall... by no means eat meat forever,... that I... may not stumble my brother."

The principle of eating is that the essence of whatever you eat becomes one with your living and being. Thus when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they became one with the essence of this tree.

What Paul was saying above is that knowing that we are of God, in a sense, we cannot be corrupted by anything. Not even participation in things offered to idols can corrupt us.

And what is the religious ordinances of the Jews? By the time the Lord came the majority of the Jews simply practiced what God calls idol worship.

Sure they claimed to worship the one true God, and even seemed to follow His own declaration of how to worship Him,... but like Cain they did so according to their own mind. And this is akin to idol worship.

So in the verses above Paul was telling us that we can even take part in things such as the Jews do if it is motivated by a desire to win them to the truth.

But he also warns that in doing so we can stumble weaker ones that do not have much understanding and maturity regarding the matter, leading them to form wrong conclusions regarding participation in these things.

Or in other words they might come to believe that participation in them is a part of their Christian walk.

Something history has shown us has actually happened.


Honestly saints, Wavy ends his post with and "Amen", but don't be foolish,... Amen mean agreement, and what Wavy is putting forward has nothing in it to be in oneness with and thus say "Amen" to.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

So let's take a look a look at what Paul has to say about those troubling the Galatians with "works of law".

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear the Torah?

Here is an interesting passage. Why would they need to listen to the Torah is saying to do if Paul throughout this whole epistle is supposedly telling them to stay away from it because it is "bondage"?

Very easy to answer,..... Paul knew that it was easier to go to where men were in order to reach them than to try and bring them to where he was.

There is no need to "read" more into it as the scripture is very clear when taken in the light of all of Paul's speaking.

"Under law" does not contain the definite article "the", however, and refers to any form of legislation in general (in context, however, any legislation given by the "works of law" group). Being "under law" as opposed to be "under grace" has an interesting scriptural definition. See this study, What It Means To Be 'Under The Law'.

However, "hear the law" does contain the definite article, and in most-all contexts, this refers to Torah (that is, the 5 books of Moses, the Writings, and the Prophets, or just one or any of these three), so we know Paul is calling us back to what's written in the scripture (which includes Genesis-Deuteronomy; 2 Timothy 3:16).

Again, this is absolute foolishness, Paul is doing no such thing.

Paul is clear that he is addressing.... only.... certain believers who have come to desire to return to their old way,

Paul is clear,.. "Tell me, ye that desire to be under law..."

There is no ... Paul is calling us back..."

What a load of crock that exposes you Wavy as having no understanding of how to read scriptures.

It is really hard to believe that you would be so boldface as to come to these boards and try to openly twist what the scripture so clearly says.

Has your false doctrine so blinded you that something as simple as this is beyond your seeing?


To all the saints,..... be ever careful when reading this misaimed speaking, reject it with the utter distain it deserves.


And mods, forgive me if I seem strong in my speaking, but look at what Wavy is attempting to do....

The scripture clearly says "... ye that desire...", but Wavy very cleverly turns this "ye" into an "us" (meaning all believers). Thus absolutely misrepresenting what Paul was saying.

This is not "discussing" scripture, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead.


In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

Wavy,

Just to be clear, are you advocating the direct, conscious pursuit of the law, along with having faith, as being the true way to God?

I am not stupid, PDoug. And I haven't forgotten your other posts. The scripture you plan to inevitably quote if I answer "yes" I have already told you I believe you have taken out of context (Romans 9:30 and some of Galatians).

Anyway, in truth, my answer is "no". Or rather, not in the way you seem be asking it. Meditating on his Word and obeying it is what we should pursue after faith.

And if this is not what you planned to do, I'm very sorry. No offense. :-D

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Psalm 1:2 But his delight is in the Torah of יהוה; and in his Torah doth he meditate day and night.
Psalm 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

Psalm 119:105 Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Proverbs 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the Torah is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the Torah, even his prayer shall be abomination.

 

[wavy]

I have had you on ignore for a while, cj. But I had to know what could possibly move you to double post in this thread.

Thing is, mouthing "praise" while speaking falsity is considered the height of wickedness by God.

Believer's need only open their mind to God, not the vain ramblings of men.

So much for open mind. Before you've read anything you have already judged me. :

It seems so clear from Galatians 4:21-31 that Paul is saying that the Law (properly Torah) is bondage and that we should cast it out along with those who promote Torah or keep it themselves.

It more than seems,... it is.

So we have the authority to get rid of Yahweh's Word? Paul certainly didn't indicate this in Acts 21 or in Romans 3:31.

However, I should first note that Paul was Torah observant and promoted it himself in an orderly fashion (Acts 16:3; Acts 16:21; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4; Acts 18:21; Acts 21:18-27; Acts 22:3; Acts 23:3-5; Acts 28:17; Romans 2:12-13; Romans 2:25-27; Romans 3:1-2; Romans 3:31; Romans 4:3; Romans 4:12; Romans 6:1-2; Romans 7:12; Romans 7:14; Romans 7:22; Romans 8:4; Romans 8:7 and many more)

This is an utter lie and is typical of the wicked levels men would go to in order to uplift themselves in their vanity.

Then please answer these contradictions

As is most obvious from the very first scripture you present as an example, Acts 16:3, Paul absolutely makes his anti-Judaism stance known;....

"Paul wanted this one to go forth with him; and he took him... and circumcised him... because of the Jews... who were in those places,... for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them... the decrees to keep which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

And so the churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in number daily."

There are three things in the verses above that utterly rejects the silliness Wavy is putting forward.

The first... because of the Jews

This makes it clear that Paul was not doing it for righteousness sake but for the sake of the Jews that there would be no cause for division as they went about their ministry in the various cities

Look up the word "because" in this scripture. Also, your reason for explaining "because of the Jews" does not make sense. Why didn't he, for instance, circumcise the Galatians "because of the Jews"??? And when did I ever say it was for "righteousness' sake"?

Please keep everything in context to what Paul said in,

1 Corinthians 9:20-21, "And to the Jews I became... as... a Jew in order that I might gain Jews; to those under law,... as... under law (though I myself am not under law), that I might gain those under law. To those without law,... as... without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law."

Paul tells us clearly that he was willing to do whatever was necessary (within righteousness before God) to gain the unsaved.

To say "I became... AS..." means he faked it.

So he is exposed as a hypocrite? Also, tell me what the difference is between being a Jew and being "under law"? And again, please read these contradictions

And don't take my word for it, take Paul's own words.... "that I might gain those" ... See, Paul did not consider Jews as being saved and thus identified with him in anyway.

The house of Judah as a whole, no. Paul does consider himself a "Jew" however (Romans 11:1; Acts 21:39; Galatians 2:15; Philippians 3:5).

Paul called Jews under the law... "those."... but when he spoke of the church he used "we".

He also called the fathers of Israel in the wilderness "our fathers" in 1 Corinthians 10:1

You've created a false dichotomy to promote the "kirch".

And what is the religious ordinances of the Jews? By the time the Lord came the majority of the Jews simply practiced what God calls idol worship.

Sure they claimed to worship the one true God, and even seemed to follow His own declaration of how to worship Him,... but like Cain they did so according to their own mind. And this is akin to idol worship.

So in the verses above Paul was telling us that we can even take part in things such as the Jews do if it is motivated by a desire to win them to the truth.

But he also warns that in doing so we can stumble weaker ones that do not have much understanding and maturity regarding the matter, leading them to form wrong conclusions regarding participation in these things.

Or in other words they might come to believe that participation in them is a part of their Christian walk.

Something history has shown us has actually happened.

Oh my gosh...

This is why I had you on ignore. You think truly, that when Paul is referring to meats sacrificed to idols he is referring to so-called "Jewish ordinances"?

Do you hate Jews so much that you are willing to twist all scripture against Torah and against Jews themselves? Please understand that the only people that ate of the altar in Jerusalem were the priests...

Paul, writing to a Corinthian congregation, cannot be saying anything to them about eating food pertaining to "idol worship" of the Jews...

After I examine your next post, cj, you're going back on ignore. :-D

 

[wavy]

Very easy to answer,..... Paul knew that it was easier to go to where men were in order to reach them than to try and bring them to where he was.

Romans 3:31 & 2 Timothy 3:16

There is no need to "read" more into it as the scripture is very clear when taken in the light of all of Paul's speaking.

Well, that's just the problem now, isn't it? What just is Paul really speaking? :-D

Again, this is absolute foolishness, Paul is doing no such thing.

Paul is clear that he is addressing.... only.... certain believers who have come to desire to return to their old way,

Paul is clear,.. "Tell me, ye that desire to be under law..."

There is no ... Paul is calling us back..."

What a load of crock that exposes you Wavy as having no understanding of how to read scriptures.

All of Paul's letters contain many quotes from the Torah. Guess Paul was just being a hypocrite again...

It is really hard to believe that you would be so boldface as to come to these boards and try to openly twist what the scripture so clearly says.

Clearly? I was under the impression that his letter's weren't so clear:

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

The unlearned, the unstable and the "wicked" (athesmos, meaning "lawless") twist his letters and cannot understand them.

How do I know those who twist them are not those who do not deny Yahweh's Torah?

Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the Torah, and makest thy boast of God,
Romans 2:18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Torah;
Romans 2:19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
Romans 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Torah.

He continues that if one has this superior knowledge and still breaks Torah, he'll be judged by those who know less and his circumcision will be made void.

Seems the "unstable" aren't those who "restest" in Torah. Seems the "unlearned" aren't those who promote Torah. And it seems the "wicked" are not those who keep Torah, but those who break it (Romans 2:13).

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the Torah: but if thou be a breaker of the Torah, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Since you are so antinomian, I'd watch myself so I wouldn't end up labled among the unlearned Peter speaks of here. Seems Paul's letters aren't so "clear" after all.

The scripture clearly says "... ye that desire...", but Wavy very cleverly turns this "ye" into an "us" (meaning all believers). Thus absolutely misrepresenting what Paul was saying.

I don't think you read what I said. Changing anything to "us" had nothing to do with my point. It's clear your judgment is misplaced. You didn't even read what I said.

This is not "discussing" scripture, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Right. I'm just an 18 year old that's deliberately trying to "mislead" all of you (most of you, if not all of you are older than me!)

 

[cj]

I have had you on ignore for a while, cj.

Means nothing, its simply the same as a big bird hiding its head in the ground.

But I had to know what could possibly move you to double post in this thread.

I didn't, I respond to two different points, and not wanting one long post I used two instead.

o much for open mind. Before you've read anything you have already judged me.

Didn't judge you, I simply declared a fact. Go judge yourself against it.

It seems so clear from Galatians 4:21-31 that Paul is saying that the Law (properly Torah) is bondage and that we should cast it out along with those who promote Torah or keep it themselves.

It more than seems,... it is.

So we have the authority to get rid of Yahweh's Word? Paul certainly didn't indicate this in Acts 21 or in Romans 3:31.

Paul wasn't speaking about God, of which is His word, Paul was speaking of the human element in relation to God.

You can try and spin things Wavy, but it ain't going work with me.

Then please answer these contradictions

See my respone in the last post.

Look up the word "because" in this scripture.

Don't need to.

Also, your reason for explaining "because of the Jews" does not make sense. Why didn't he, for instance, circumcise the Galatians "because of the Jews"??? And when did I ever say it was for "righteousness' sake"?

You should try reading the entire series of passages sometime, maybe you'll get it.

Why did Paul bring up that the boy father was Greek?

The "Galatians" you are referring to are not just Galatians, they are believer's who are from that region.

As is clear in the scriptures, not all are called to all things. Some God has chosen for specific things thus not all believer's needed to be able to present themselves acceptable to the Jews.

Do you understand what an uncircumcised dog was to a Jew? Do you think it mattered much to Jews, even those who were born-again, that this dog was a believer in Christ? Didn't Peter even struggle with his background?

And Paul, even he made a mistake when he went to far regarding attempting to take a Nazarite vow.

Wavy, believers are still human and thus make human mistakes. This is why we should not try and find God in the humanity of the scriptures but in the divinity only.

Please keep everything in context to what Paul said in,

1 Corinthians 9:20-21, "And to the Jews I became... as... a Jew in order that I might gain Jews; to those under law,... as... under law (though I myself am not under law), that I might gain those under law. To those without law,... as... without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law."

Paul tells us clearly that he was willing to do whatever was necessary (within righteousness before God) to gain the unsaved.

To say "I became... AS..." means he faked it.

So he is exposed as a hypocrite? Also, tell me what the difference is between being a Jew and being "under law"? And again, please read these...

Again, don't need to read them.

The house of Judah as a whole, no. Paul does consider himself a "Jew" however (Romans 11:1; Acts 21:39; Galatians 2:15; Philippians 3:5).

He also considered himself a Roman when it suited him,... which was he then?

Paul could be all things to all men because he counted his earthly person, his old man as already dead.

Paul as a Jew was dead.

Paul as a Roman was dead.

You just don't get it do you Wavy,... how can a dead man be anything?

He also called the fathers of Israel in the wilderness "our fathers" in 1 Corinthians 10:1

Wonderful, and they were, in the sense of human heritage. Just as all men are out of Adam. But don't be foolish and think that Paul claimed oneness with the Jew who ha not believed in Jesus.

You've created a false dichotomy to promote the "kirch".

Crock,... you simply have no answer so you throw up a smoke screen.

And what is the religious ordinances of the Jews? By the time the Lord came the majority of the Jews simply practiced what God calls idol worship.

Sure they claimed to worship the one true God, and even seemed to follow His own declaration of how to worship Him,... but like Cain they did so according to their own mind. And this is akin to idol worship.

So in the verses above Paul was telling us that we can even take part in things such as the Jews do if it is motivated by a desire to win them to the truth.

But he also warns that in doing so we can stumble weaker ones that do not have much understanding and maturity regarding the matter, leading them to form wrong conclusions regarding participation in these things.

Or in other words they might come to believe that participation in them is a part of their Christian walk.

Something history has shown us has actually happened.

Oh my gosh...

This is why I had you on ignore. You think truly, that when Paul is referring to meats sacrificed to idols he is referring to so-called "Jewish ordinances"?

Absolutely, in principle.

Following an instruction out of vanity is the same as offering yourself to yourself.

Do you hate Jews so much that you are willing to twist all scripture against Torah and against Jews themselves?

Not at all, I am a Jew.

But what you would so easily attempt to accuse me of is what you yourself are guilty of.

Look at how you choose your words..... where is God in them.

Nowhere. You so love your false doctrines of Torah this and Torah that, as you speak you eventually come to the point where you forget about God himself, as did the Jews,..... and,.... as will many believers. Or don't you understand the sevne letters to the churches in Revelation.

Please understand that the only people that ate of the altar in Jerusalem were the priests...

Your an ignorant person Wavy, one who trys to convince others that he knows about Jewish ways and yet you make such an assinine statement.

Tell me, how many offerings were there,... and, were all made at "the altar in Jerusalem?"

Paul, writing to a Corinthian congregation, cannot be saying anything to them about eating food pertaining to "idol worship" of the Jews...

Again, an assinine comment.

The "altar" Wavy...... is not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense.

Tell me, what altar was Jesus offered on? Can you see it?

The altar that Paul was speaking of is the spiritual altar of the fallen heart, the altar on which man offers his efforts to his fallen desires.

That is why in the physical nothing that is used in ungodly ceremonies is of any consequence. For it is all just passing away.

After I examine your next post, cj, you're going back on ignore.

To your own detriment unfortunately.


In love,
cj

 

[PDoug]

Wavy,

Just to be clear, are you advocating the direct, conscious pursuit of the law, along with having faith, as being the true way to God?

I am not stupid, PDoug. And I haven't forgotten your other posts. The scripture you plan to inevitably quote if I answer "yes" I have already told you I believe you have taken out of context (Romans 9:30 and some of Galatians).

Anyway, in truth, my answer is "no". Or rather, not in the way you seem be asking it. Meditating on his Word and obeying it is what we should pursue after faith.

And if this is not what you planned to do, I'm very sorry. No offense. :-D

You are just like the Catholics. You say that you don't believe in justification by works, yet you say, "meditating on his Word and obeying it is what we should pursue after faith". In other words someone must (directly) obey God's law (which is God's word) after having faith. As I said here before (quotation given below), this is in direct violation of Galatians 5:4.

Consider the following:

Galatians 5

4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

If the scripture above says we are not to pursue works of righteousness consciously, how else can we pursue righteousness (Romans 2:13) but naturally or unconsciously?

How many times will you superimpose you idea of consciously/unconsciously into the scripture?

This would only make sense if Paul was arguing whether or not we are controlled by the Spirit.

Also, this has to deal with justification through law (in the perverted form as presented by the "works of law" group), not obedience to true faith.

I'm done. I can't argue with this "mindlessness" anymore. Perhaps you are not in control of your eyes and fingers as you read and type these things.

Not to end in on an unfriendly not for the future. But it's just I can't debate this. This is a waste of time.

How can you say that Galatians 5:4 has to do with those who are faithless, when Paul warns those to whom he is speaking, that if they pursue works of righteousness they will fall away from grace - which (grace i.e.) can only gained by having faith (Ephesians 2:8-9)? Therefore it is the faithful Paul warns that if they pursue works (consciously) in order to achieve righteousness, they will lose their salvation. It must follow therefore that the only way for someone to legitimately do good works, is to do so unconsciously, or consciously in a natural fashion, while having faith. I see no way around it.

Note also I am talking from experience that is borne out by scriptures.

 

[wavy]

You are just like the Catholics. You say that you don't believe in justification by works, yet you say, "meditating on his Word and obeying it is what we should pursue after faith". In other words someone must (directly) obey God's law (which is God's word) after having faith. As I said here before (quotation given below), this is in direct violation of Galatians 5:4.

Seems you don't understand what justification by works is then. At the beginning stages, that is, coming to Messiah, there is no good work you have to do to be justified (absolved of guilt and declared righteous).

However, this faith can become dead if you are lazy. These types of believers are worse than unbelievers. This is what James is about.

Justification by works is saying you don't need Messiah because you are good enough and can make up for all your sin yourself by performing "good" things. That's what justification by works is. That, however, is not what James was saying.

And Paul was not saying we can sit there and "believe". After giving an example of Abraham's faith, he talked about what he did afterwards, and James says that after he did what he was told, the scripture was "fulfilled" that said Abraham believed and it was counted for righteousness (James 2:23).

According to you, when we sin it is not our fault. We don't consciously know. So since we are robotically controlled, it is reall the Spirit making us sin. Then you appealed to the "flesh" making us sin based off of a misrepresentation of Romans 7:17 and Romans 7:20.

So basically, we have control over nothing. If we sin, it's that robotic flesh making us do it. If we do good, it's the Spirit making us do it. Foolishness! We're just along for the ride.

I think you're so confused about being justified by works vs. faith, that you have resorted to (imho, it's nonsense) things like being "controlled" like a robot by the Father. You also falsely accused me below, which I'll point out in a second.

How can you say that Galatians 5:4 has to do with those who are faithless, when Paul warns those to whom he is speaking, that if they pursue works of righteousness they will fall away from grace - which (grace i.e.) can only gained by having faith (Ephesians 2:8-9)?

I never said anything about this scripture applying to those who are faithless. Either you misunderstood something I said or this is a direct lie.

Therefore it is the faithful Paul warns that if they pursue works (consciously) in order to achieve righteousness, they will lose their salvation.

No, he is speaking of being "justified". There's a difference between this and doing good works for Yahweh. And again, since I believe you do not understand this basic principle, you must appeal to things like being "controlled". And to top it, you say you have "experience" and that it is witnessed by the scriptures. Well, we can all argue that now, can't we?

Anyway, like I said. No offense, but I do not have the time.

 

[wavy]

Paul wasn't speaking about God, of which is His word, Paul was speaking of the human element in relation to God.

So is Torah a human element or did Yahweh command it? Is is not full of Spirit (Romans 7:14)???

Why did Paul bring up that the boy father was Greek?

Why don't you answer that for me.

As is clear in the scriptures, not all are called to all things. Some God has chosen for specific things thus not all believer's needed to be able to present themselves acceptable to the Jews.

No scripture to back any of this up...

Do you think it mattered much to Jews, even those who were born-again, that this dog was a believer in Christ?

Does it say they thought he was a "dog"?

And Paul, even he made a mistake when he went to far regarding attempting to take a Nazarite vow.

Maybe he made a mistake in the letters you think are so "clear" too.

Wavy, believers are still human and thus make human mistakes.

I repeat: Maybe he (Paul) made a mistake in the letters you think are so "clear" too.

This is why we should not try and find God in the humanity of the scriptures but in the divinity only.

More super-spiritual lapse promotion...

He also considered himself a Roman when it suited him,... which was he then?

Yeah, and that means he had Roman citizenship. Has nothing to do with race.

Wonderful, and they were, in the sense of human heritage.

So you admit that the Corinthians were biological Israelites?

Absolutely, in principle.

Following an instruction out of vanity is the same as offering yourself to yourself.

Just as I thought. No [logical] proof as to how the things Paul mentioned as sacrificed to idols were "Jewish ordinances". This is the silliest nonsense ever.

Not at all, I am a Jew.

I get the strangest feeling that you are lying.

Even if you are, your heart isn't like Paul's.

Romans 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

But what you would so easily attempt to accuse me of is what you yourself are guilty of.

What?

Look at how you choose your words..... where is God in them.

Yahweh's Word represents himself. All I am saying is that we should not reject the first five books/scrolls of it.

Please understand that the only people that ate of the altar in Jerusalem were the priests...

The "altar" Wavy...... is not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense.

Tell me, what altar was Jesus offered on? Can you see it?

I think you've lost your mind.

To your own detriment unfortunately.

Yeah, we all should just to listen to cj. Anyway, truly. I don't know why I even said anything...

Back on ignore.

 

[Servant_2000]

John 6:28-29

28 Then they asked Him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent."

The only work we are to do is believe.

 

[wavy]

John 6:28-29

28 Then they asked Him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent."

The only work we are to do is believe.

Yes, and this entails much more than just thinking about him, or knowing he died for sins. This also entails doing what he said and following after his example (he taught, and so we must believe what he tells us to obey).

Surely (forget Torah for the moment), you wouldn't say "I don't need to be baptized because I believe"....

 

[PDoug]

Seems you don't understand what justification by works is then. At the beginning stages, that is, coming to Messiah, there is no good work you have to do to be justified (absolved of guilt and declared righteous).

However, this faith can become dead if you are lazy. These types of believers are worse than unbelievers. This is what James is about.

In other words, if someone does not do good works along with having faith, that person will not be saved. As I've said repeatedly, this violates the following scripture:

Galatians 5

4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

The scripture above specifically warns you not to pursue works to achieve justification while having faith. (Let us just stick to this point for now.)

 

[cj]

So is Torah a human element or did Yahweh command it?

Are you really that simple?

First point.... Wavy, a relationship is between two parties.

Second point.... Scripture is the written revelation of the environment God has declare in which this relationship will take place (example.... God told Abraham what to do regarding His covenant with Abraham, but Abraham was still require to participate in it. God set the boundaries of the environment in which both He and humanity would participate).

"Purpose" is on of the attributes of God and thus one of the attributes we look for in our coming to know Him.

Is is not full of Spirit (Romans 7:14)???

Actually the better translation would be "spiritual", for this is the realm in which God moves.

Additionally, man, having a spirit, can move in the spirit realm.

So God's word "abides" in the spiritual realm, and man can move in it through his spirit.

Why don't you answer that for me.

Can't answer it huh,.... come on, at least give it a try.

As is clear in the scriptures, not all are called to all things. Some God has chosen for specific things thus not all believer's needed to be able to present themselves acceptable to the Jews.

No scripture to back any of this up..

Well,... maybe you're just not that knowledgeable about scripture as you would like to think you are.

Lets see,.... Romans 11:13, "But I am speaking to you, the Gentiles. Inasmuch therefore as I am an apostle of the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry,..."

Romans 12:6, "And having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;"

Corinthians 12:4, "But there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit;"

Matthew 25:15, "To one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability. And he went abroad."

Pretty much seems like you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Do you think it mattered much to Jews, even those who were born-again, that this dog was a believer in Christ?

Does it say they thought he was a "dog"?

Sure does..... Matthew  15 : 26, "But He answered and said, It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."

Maybe he made a mistake in the letters you think are so "clear" too.

And so we see more of your ignorance......

The epistles of Paul, in fact the entire content of the bible, is nothing more than a collection of words, ink on paper, meaningless to a degree without the Spirit.

2 Corinthians 3:6, "Who has also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, ministers not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Because you are able to read and write Wavy does not mean that you are able to be "clear" about the scriptures. In fact we can know from what is written in the bible that many men wrote things that they thought they had full understanding of even as they wrote these things and yet they did not.

Maybe instead of you making such a foolish response you should just have asked why I thought he made a mistake.

Let me help you...... We can know he made a mistake because of God's actions that stopped the process from taking place. Paul made the decision to go through the entire Nazarite vow process, but God instigated a riot that effectively stopped Paul from continuing, and even more, put Paul in prison where he ended up writing most of his epistles (which was the priority work God had for Paul). It would seem that Paul's zeal to save people distracted him from what God really want him to do (write epistles that would serve millions and millions) and so God limited Paul ability, He limited what Paul could do with his zeal.

I repeat: Maybe he (Paul) made a mistake in the letters you think are so "clear" too.

And again I say,... And so we see more of your ignorance......

Try and understand the full reality of the scripture that declares God can bring good out of that meant for evil.

Then maybe you might see how foolish your above statements are.

More super-spiritual lapse promotion...

Silly fellow,.... do you read the scriptures to find out about men or God?

Yeah, and that means he had Roman citizenship. Has nothing to do with race.

More ignorance,..... see Wavy, Jew is a race, Hebrew is.

Remember Hebrew,.... the word Paul used to describe Himself according to his race?

Philippians 3:5, "Circumcised the eighth day; of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;"

Please note how he deals with his realtionship to the law,... or in other words how he deals with his relationship to his Jewishness,.... according to learning.

Wavy, you don't even know what Jewish means.

So you admit that the Corinthians were biological Israelites?

Aaahhh,... no.

Try this for size, Romans  11 : 17,

"But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them and became a fellow partaker of the root of fatness of the olive tree,"

Wavy, Gentile believers are grafted into Christ who is the reality of the Israel of God. Thus Christ's human history becomes the beliving Gentile's human history (heritage). But this is no biological, it is spiritual.

Just as I thought. No [logical] proof as to how the things Paul mentioned as sacrificed to idols were "Jewish ordinances". This is the silliest nonsense ever.

Only to the darkened mind.

Its really sad how out of one side of your mouth you can tell us about God being Spirit, yet out of the other side of your mouth you try to get us to think in human terms.

I get the strangest feeling that you are lying.

In the sense of two things,.... my human heritage (which really should be considered Hebrew and not Jew), and my born-again status of being grafted into Christ.

So I tell you what Wavy..... go take your accusation of lying and stuff it in your pipe and smoke it.

Even if you are, your heart isn't like Paul's.

You're absolutely right,.... but guess what, its becoming something even better, its becoming like Christ's heart.

Yahweh's Word represents himself.

More to the point,... His word (scripture) represents Himself in His relationship with His creation.

But we are yet to even scratch the surface of what this means.

All I am saying is that we should not reject the first five books/scrolls of it.

And yet you do.

I think you've lost your mind.

I know you are unable to find an answer.

Yeah, we all should just to listen to cj. Anyway, truly. I don't know why I even said anything...

Back on ignore.

You running and you running and you running away,... but you can't run away from yourself."


In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

In other words, if someone does not do good works along with having faith, that person will not be saved. As I've said repeatedly, this violates the following scripture:

Galatians 5

4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

The scripture above specifically warns you not to pursue works to achieve justification while having faith. (Let us just stick to this point for now.)

Or in other words, you still don't get what I was saying and don't understand Galatians 5:4. There is a thread for talking about the robo-believer. Let's stick to Galatians 4:21-31 (the point, as you said).

 

[PDoug]

In other words, if someone does not do good works along with having faith, that person will not be saved. As I've said repeatedly, this violates the following scripture:

Galatians 5

4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

The scripture above specifically warns you not to pursue works to achieve justification while having faith. (Let us just stick to this point for now.)

Or in other words, you still don't get what I was saying and don't understand Galatians 5:4. There is a thread for talking about the robo-believer. Let's stick to Galatians 4:21-31 (the point, as you said).

Isn't the point of your thread, that a person should pursue works of righteousness while having faith?

 

[wavy]

No. The point of this thread was in the bold in the first post on the first page.

This was to prove Paul was not calling the Torah "bondage".

 

[PDoug]

No. The point of this thread was in the bold in the first post on the first page.

This was to prove Paul was not calling the Torah "bondage".

From what I gathered, you were trying to do as you said, to underscore the point that Paul was actually advocating the (direct) pursuit of the law while having faith. If you would rather not answer my question, that is fine with me.