When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[jasoncran]

the definition of sin was never changed.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

I Timothy 1:8
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

If the law is good then it is in operation at the time of Timothy. Using the Law is good when used correctly. The problem is when there seems to be no agreement on what lawfully means.

If people should repent; the only thing that really identifies sin is the Law. The Law will not however provide everything needed to deal with that sin. Jesus is the answer for eternal life and not the Law.

That is probably a start.

eddif

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13

 

[JLB]

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3:19

By saying "added" the Holy Spirit was indicating the Law was part of something greater.

By saying "till", the Holy Spirit was indicating it was temporary.


If we look at what pleases God through what He spoke about Abraham we will learn that God desires us to walk with Him, and in His presence we will learn the way of a living daily obedience.

To walk in His presence, is to walk in the Spirit.

To walk with God, to obey His voice is what He desires.

Without hearing His Voice there is no faith, for faith comes by hearing God speak to us.

Without faith, it is impossible to please God.


... and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Genesis 26:4-5

Abraham obeyed God when he was charged with leaving his home and family for a land that God would show him.

Abraham did what God commanded him to do.

Abraham learned statutes and laws of God's kingdom as he walked with God in His presence.

as it is written -

walk before Me and be blameless...


JLB

 

[About the Son of God]

"I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete...

(Hebrews 8:12-13 NIV)

The last part of verse 12, which I've quoted above, is the exclusive privilege of the New Covenant, not the old covenant. The old covenant of temple, priest, and sacrifice could only deal with certain sin, and for a limited time.

Where does the idea of limited time come from? Do you mean a specific "end" date?
It seems to me, that the old covenant might possibly continue until the parousia, when the world -- rolled up like a garment -- is discarded. (A day is as a thousand years...vis... I am coming soon)

Paul does state the idea that the old law was "unprofitable" (Hebrews 7:18);
http://www.biblos.com/hebrews/7-18.htm
But I think it had always been unprofitable since he says "for"/"because":
Hebrews 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

So, the law's status is nothing new -- however this "annulling" mentioned in Hebrews 7:18 is something I'm trying to grasp:

The word translated "A putting away" at biblos.com suggests divorce to me, or voluntary breakage -- So I did a word study in Greek, from the bible LXX, NT. etc.
and it is very strongly associated:
Deuteronomy 21:14 και εσται εαν μη θελης αυτην εξαποστελεις αυτην ελευθεραν και πρασει ου πραθησεται αργυριου ουκ αθετησεις αυτην διοτι εταπεινωσας αυτην
It means to no longer Lord it over/have power over her; and also commonly to "betray" or break a contract.

If the word is preceded with *both* "no,not" "ou me" -- the word meaning reverses to "inviolable" -- as in a perpetual oath.
A common use of the word is in Mark 6:26 where Herod would not break his word to Herodias' daughter.

So, I can see this much: The law is not truly profitable, and there is no absolute reason to stay in the contract

But I don't see anything which indicates that the old law's need/value is gone for all peoples; eg: that it serves not purpose at all:

When Hebrews was written, the new covenant was already ratified -- and yet the author says:
Hebrews 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
And the NIV and other bibles translate it strongly, as the Greek is; "He would not be a priest".
(But --note: he is still a priest in heaven)

He says nothing of them being invalid priests.... hence, the law, based on priesthood, is still in effect in the early years after the resurrection.

Looking closer -- I notice that priesthood has two immolating aspects: "gifts and sacrifices"; The author excludes only the sacrifices from the comment about Jesus NOT being a priest on earth; but says nothing of gifts.
OTOH -- he mentions BOTH gifts and sacrifices as the purpose of a high priest: Hebrews 5:1.


When you said the law "could only deal with certain sin", do you have some scriptural examples of sins it could not deal with? or is this an inference of some kind?

Thus the ongoing requirement to relate to God through that covenant of temple, priest, and sacrifice. But for those who have all their sin guilt forever and perfectly forgiven, one time for all time, through the New Way--the New Covenant of faith in Jesus Christ and it's Temple, Priest, and Sacrifice--the necessity and requirement to deal with a sin guilt (that we no longer have) through the first temple, priesthood, and sacrifice disappears. The law governing that system is not abolished, as we understand abolished. The need for that system was abolished.

Then what is that law, now, in your view? eg: since not all people have entered the new covenant...

So, it's not that the laws governing how to construct and operate the literal temple have been abolished. It's just that we have a new and better system of Temple, Priest, and Sacrifice (this New Covenant) to relate to God through that makes the old system of temple, priest, and sacrifice simply not needed anymore. It isn't needed for a people forever and perfectly brought near to God through the new and better way of faith in Jesus Christ. That is how, and why the old way has become obsolete. And because it is obsolete, it has been laid aside in favor of the New.

It's important to see that when the author of Hebrews says 'old' he means the old covenant of temple, Levitical priesthood, and animal sacrifice and the laws that govern those things and the worship associated with them. The remaining law, 'do not covet', 'do not bear false witness', etc. remains and is upheld through the New Covenant of Temple, Priest, and Sacrifice, in the New Way of the Spirit.

That makes quite a bit of sense to me.

In my (present) view, The law was brought in on account of specific sins -- (although, there was a law before Mt. Sainai) -- when Paul speaks of "the law", he excludes the laws of the fathers (TORAH); otherwise, we would automatically find that Abraham's act of faith -- would *be* the law; and artificially odd statements like:
Romans 4:14, Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Would not need to be said....
There is a very strong push (I think) to isolate the sacrificial temple law of Moses from all forms of law which precede it (in Paul's discussions); but he also mixes words like "the law" with statements that really mean "the prophets"; who he places on par with the law itself; so it's difficult to disentangle his exact meaning.

 

[eddif]

Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law for us.
Col 2:13b-14 NKJV And you, being dead in your tresspasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was agaìnst us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Amen wonderful scripture!

Where does the idea of limited time come from? Do you mean a specific "end" date?
It seems to me, that the old covenant might possibly continue until the parousia, when the world -- rolled up like a garment -- is discarded. (A day is as a thousand years...vis... I am coming soon)

Paul does state the idea that the old law was "unprofitable" (Hebrews 7:18);
http://www.biblos.com/hebrews/7-18.htm
But I think it had always been unprofitable since he says "for"/"because":
Hebrews 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

So, the law's status is nothing new -- however this "annulling" mentioned in Hebrews 7:18 is something I'm trying to grasp:

The word translated "A putting away" at biblos.com suggests divorce to me, or voluntary breakage -- So I did a word study in Greek, from the bible LXX, NT. etc.
and it is very strongly associated:
Deuteronomy 21:14 και εσται εαν μη θελης αυτην εξαποστελεις αυτην ελευθεραν και πρασει ου πραθησεται αργυριου ουκ αθετησεις αυτην διοτι εταπεινωσας αυτην
It means to no longer Lord it over/have power over her; and also commonly to "betray" or break a contract.

If the word is preceded with *both* "no,not" "ou me" -- the word meaning reverses to "inviolable" -- as in a perpetual oath.
A common use of the word is in Mark 6:26 where Herod would not break his word to Herodias' daughter.

So, I can see this much: The law is not truly profitable, and there is no absolute reason to stay in the contract

But I don't see anything which indicates that the old law's need/value is gone for all peoples; eg: that it serves not purpose at all:

When Hebrews was written, the new covenant was already ratified -- and yet the author says:
Hebrews 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
And the NIV and other bibles translate it strongly, as the Greek is; "He would not be a priest".
(But --note: he is still a priest in heaven)

He says nothing of them being invalid priests.... hence, the law, based on priesthood, is still in effect in the early years after the resurrection.

Looking closer -- I notice that priesthood has two immolating aspects: "gifts and sacrifices"; The author excludes only the sacrifices from the comment about Jesus NOT being a priest on earth; but says nothing of gifts.
OTOH -- he mentions BOTH gifts and sacrifices as the purpose of a high priest: Hebrews 5:1.


When you said the law "could only deal with certain sin", do you have some scriptural examples of sins it could not deal with? or is this an inference of some kind?

Then what is that law, now, in your view? eg: since not all people have entered the new covenant...

That makes quite a bit of sense to me.

In my (present) view, The law was brought in on account of specific sins -- (although, there was a law before Mt. Sainai) -- when Paul speaks of "the law", he excludes the laws of the fathers (TORAH); otherwise, we would automatically find that Abraham's act of faith -- would *be* the law; and artificially odd statements like:
Romans 4:14, Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Would not need to be said....
There is a very strong push (I think) to isolate the sacrificial temple law of Moses from all forms of law which precede it (in Paul's discussions); but he also mixes words like "the law" with statements that really mean "the prophets"; who he places on par with the law itself; so it's difficult to disentangle his exact meaning.

I am so glad Jesus was and is in charge.

When things happen is sure interesting: when a prophecy is given, when things start in the past, continue, are finally fulfilled (change), and go on into the future is interesting. The OT is full of prophecy about the coming of Gentile faith. It just kind of blows me away to read (Blessed be Egypt my peoplIe--end of Isaiah 19). I would not think Egypt would get special mention, but they do. Right in the OT is grace coming to a gentile nation.

Galatians 3:13
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree

Then turn right back around and turn someone over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. If the law were totally active punishment would fall without church discipline. But no. The punishment is able to come but there is space for repentance before a final punishment comes, and even then there is the (so that he might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus). Not a curse but the use of the staff to correct.
I Corinthians 5:5
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

The use of the Law---lawfully. The Law identifies sin, but grace helps carry out restoration.

Not dead and destroyed under the law, but a use of NT order of approach and punishment to accomplish change without the curse. Of course as a gentile and a Mississippi gentile at that, cut me some slack. The Jewish house is chosen by God, and the relationship God has with the gentiles is just to make the chosen Jewish House jealous. As a gentile I realize my place. I always look to the chosen people as becoming that regrafted original, wonderful people that took the Gospel to the Gentiles. Jewish NT writers present the gospel (not gentiles).

Isaiah 49:22
22 Thus saith the Lord God,
Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles,
And set up my standard to the people:
And they shall bring thy sons in their arms,
And thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.

Isaiah 49:26
26 And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh;
And they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine:
And all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Saviour
And thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.


Now if I just fully understood all this. One day the dark glass will be removed.

eddif

 

[About the Son of God]

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3:19

By saying "added" the Holy Spirit was indicating the Law was part of something greater.

By saying "till", the Holy Spirit was indicating it was temporary.

Hi JLB, thanks! I liked very much what you wrote.

I was trying to study the "temporary" status a bit more, so I looked into the Greek; and you might want to note for the future -- that the word for "until" isn't really translated right; "until" is followed by a weak "not" in the majority of manuscripts, and I note that Strong's translations can be whimsically biased...even when inappropriate. The word "until" is actually a form of "while" (ἄχρις)...

You can easily see the inconsistent translation of the word by looking at Hebrews 3:13 (same word combination).

http://biblos.com/hebrews/3-13.htm
http://iblos.com/galatians/3-19.htm

Attempting a more literal translation, I'd write:
Hebrew's 3:13 -- But encourage one-another according-to each day, while not ...

But there's another inconsistency I'd like to note in Galatians 3:19 that caught me by surprise: the word Charin χαριν is the idea of gift or grace ; and this word is being very very very sloppily translated Strong's numbers: See Galatians 2:21 for proof: http://biblos.com/galatians/2-21.htm ( it really is the word for grace ).

Returning to Galatians 3:19 -- (being strictly/hyper literal), I would translate it:

~Why then the law of-the transgressions gift? it was added while not came the seed to whom the promise was made through angels in hand of-mediator.~

And reordering words to make it more readable as English...

Galatians 3:19 Why then a gift of the law of transgressions? The grace was added while awaiting the seed to whom the promise was made through angels in a mediator's hand.

After doing all this (TADA!!!), notice what arises: Galatians 3:19 repeats a chiasmus of Romans 5:20.

But I'm not sure Galatians 3:19 shows anything other than the law is a stop gap for the arrival of the promised child (seed). Perhaps there is something stronger, if we keep digging....

I liked your reflection.... It goes naturally with Hebrews 3:13 's psalm's meaning.... eg:
Psalm 95:7 -- we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand [even] today, if [we] listen to his voice, hardening not [our] hearts in provocation according-to the day of temptation in the wilderness.

 

[JLB]

Hi JLB, thanks! I liked very much what you wrote.

I was trying to study the "temporary" status a bit more, so I looked into the Greek; and you might want to note for the future -- that the word for "until" isn't really translated right; "until" is followed by a weak "not" in the majority of manuscripts, and I note that Strong's translations can be whimsically biased...even when inappropriate. The word "until" is actually a form of "while" (ἄχρις)...

You can easily see the inconsistent translation of the word by looking at Hebrews 3:13 (same word combination).

http://biblos.com/hebrews/3-13.htm
http://iblos.com/galatians/3-19.htm

Attempting a more literal translation, I'd write:
Hebrew's 3:13 -- But encourage one-another according-to each day, while not ...

But there's another inconsistency I'd like to note in Galatians 3:19 that caught me by surprise: the word Charin χαριν is the idea of gift or grace ; and this word is being very very very sloppily translated Strong's numbers: See Galatians 2:21 for proof: http://biblos.com/galatians/2-21.htm ( it really is the word for grace ).

Returning to Galatians 3:19 -- (being strictly/hyper literal), I would translate it:

~Why then the law of-the transgressions gift? it was added while not came the seed to whom the promise was made through angels in hand of-mediator.~

And reordering words to make it more readable as English...

Galatians 3:19 Why then a gift of the law of transgressions? The grace was added while awaiting the seed to whom the promise was made through angels in a mediator's hand.

After doing all this (TADA!!!), notice what arises: Galatians 3:19 repeats a chiasmus of Romans 5:20.

But I'm not sure Galatians 3:19 shows anything other than the law is a stop gap for the arrival of the promised child (seed). Perhaps there is something stronger, if we keep digging....

I liked your reflection.... It goes naturally with Hebrews 3:13 's psalm's meaning.... eg:
Psalm 95:7 -- we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand [even] today, if [we] listen to his voice, hardening not [our] hearts in provocation according-to the day of temptation in the wilderness.

About the Son of God, thanks for your study and insight into the scriptures.

Again, if we look at what pleases God from the pattern that was left to us from Abraham, whom God chose to make covenant with, we can learn a great deal.

It is faith that pleases God. Faith comes by hearing God's voice, and obeying.
Without obeying what we hear from God, faith is dead.

Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." Galatians 3:12

Notice Paul said these words, almost in the same breath as -

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

What was the purpose of Paul's letter to the Galatians?

It was written to them to put a stop to those that were compelling the people to "mix" the law of Moses with the Gospel.

Galatians Chapter 1, Paul barely gets his introduction out of his mouth before he gets right to it!

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

He continues with his letter about his credentials in Judaism -

14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

Paul in desperately trying to get his people unhooked from the idea that the Law of Moses, in any shape, form or fashion, is to be "mixed" with the Gospel.

Even to the point of forbidding circumcision, which was from Abraham and not Moses.

Paul then goes on to tell of his confrontation with Peter -

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as 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 faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.


... knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ.


So now in this third chapter, when Paul says -


What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

It is no wonder to me that Paul stated this and to the others who translated -

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made... KJV

Why the Law then ? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. NAS

What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; ASV

Why, then, the law? on account of the transgressions it was added, till the seed might come to which the promise hath been made, YLT

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. NIV


To me, the Law was God's grace to the children of Israel, because they had been in slavery for 490 years and didn't know anything but the way of the Egyptians.

God wanted His people to know Him and walk with Him as Abraham did, but the children of Israel need a clear set of instructions as to what God considered "right and wrong" until they could experience first hand what He wanted.

The Law of Moses gave us many shadows and types as to the extent the sacrifice of Jesus cleanses us and gives all the things that God wants to restore to us.

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. Hebrews 7:12

We have been made priests and partakers of His kingdom, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, called out of darkness into His marvelous Light.


JLB

 

[About the Son of God]

About the Son of God, thanks for your study and insight into the scriptures.

There is always so much to learn.... I like your insights as well. They make me go look....

Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." Galatians 3:12
...snip...
What was the purpose of Paul's letter to the Galatians?

It was written to them to put a stop to those that were compelling the people to "mix" the law of Moses with the Gospel.

That depends on what you mean by "mix".... I think. But yes... that's clearly Paul's overt purpose, without discussing "why" he does it.

I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

Interesting, Paul appears to be bragging; for he is not an eyewitness to Christs' life -- but spends a mere 15 days with Peter; The inference being that his study of the Law and prophets had so prepared him that he needed minimal instruction (clepped the class).

Paul in desperately trying to get his people unhooked from the idea that the Law of Moses, in any shape, form or fashion, is to be "mixed" with the Gospel.

Paul had many problems in his churches with usurpers of authority coming from the circumcision party; I'll agree there -- for he couldn't leave the ill instructed at the hands of clever lawyers who had already trained for many years; but then, neither could Paul teach them every caveat about arguing with high powered lawyers before the lawyers could do their damage.... So, he had to abridge the lessons into very short epistles... with compromises of what subject matter, and how deeply he would treat it.

Paul is also very Jewish in the way he delivers *apparent(but facile)* contradictions expecting the reader to find a precise meaning in the juxtaposition of contrary (not opposites) meanings by accepting only the meaning which harmonizes both.

Even to the point of forbidding circumcision, which was from Abraham and not Moses.

Paul then goes on to tell of his confrontation with Peter -

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as 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 faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Tell me then, if this is doctrine -- and Paul knew it from the first, with less than 16 days of instruction....
Which is worse and why:
1) Carving an icon of the Jewish law into someones flesh, or respecting a Jew's weak conscience about eating with pagans?
2) And from what does Paul fabricate the black and white statement: "why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"

There is evidence of hypocrisy, but what evidence is there that Peter compelled anyone to do anything (himself)? It seems to me that Paul is being the bully, using public embarrassment to get Peter to submit to Paul's view of the way things ought to be.

But...

Acts 16:3 Him [Timothy] would Paul have to go forth with; and [Paul] took and circumcised him...

Paul's statements, I think, are characteristically extreme -- eg: in order to make a point in a Jewish way; Paul is someone that the Holy Spirit had to have forced, at times, to prophecy and be a leader even if Paul (nor any of the apostles) understood their own doctrine perfectly yet; John 16:12-13,

I think it necessary to honestly present what I find, whether I understand it fully or not -- and for the same reason look for where God corrected Paul and made Paul's defects and strengths a very part of the inspired scripture.

There is a Jewish saying based on their awe and experience of the wisdom of God;
"God writes straight with crooked lines."

It is no wonder to me that Paul stated this and to the others who translated -

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made... KJV

And I don't really wonder either -- in my thinking the translators had/believed a meaning ahead of time and for some reason, chose not to do a full concordance search of all instances of the word "achris" and "achri"; they simply fudged the translation ; making the word mean one thing in one place, and nearly it's opposite in another.

Any time Greek grammar becomes obscure (eg:The conjugation of achris happens to be abnormal), or the examples of a particular word's usage rare -- I notice that translators tend to copy each other, regardless of whether there is clear evidence the definition is correct.

Also, if you search out all the examples of "until" you will find that even in English -- some instances of "until" are clearly the wrong connotation when taken to mean "but it changed afterward"; eg: Matthew 28:15, and *especially* Acts 23:1, Romans 5:13, and many more...

Scripture's accuracy isn't so much a matter of what the majority thinks, as to what the words actually say and which meanings demonstrably are excluded. In reference to the O.P., I think that many Christians are study exact wording -- to justify a pre-biased view (whether incorrect or not.); so that we need to gather both the wording, and the contrasting statements we can find.

I don't intend to come to a final conclusion in a bible study thread; Perhaps enough information will eventually arise that a good debate could be formed elsewhere;
In bible study, I mostly like to verify what people (even scholars and dictionaries) say.
I have never seen a mistranslated word be sufficient to change a doctrine, but I have seen preponderances of evidence balked at by people over a single word.

To me, the Law was God's grace to the children of Israel, because they had been in slavery for 490 years and didn't know anything but the way of the Egyptians.

Thank you for sharing that; I can respect that opinion very much; although I'm sure there were excpetions in some of them -- for they seem to recall the stories of Abraham, and to bury Joseph out of Egypt, etc.

Now that you mention it: A weak thought occurs to me; 490=7x7x10 = magnified oath (sheba=7=oath), and (10=divine); so, this seems like it may be an emphasis on a divine sworn prophecy (it could also just be a number); but wasn't Egypt predicted / planned by God in the first place? and wasn't it prefigured by Abraham, and Isaac, learning to trust God through his miracles?

God wanted His people to know Him and walk with Him as Abraham did, but the children of Israel need a clear set of instructions as to what God considered "right and wrong" until they could experience first hand what He wanted.

The Law of Moses gave us many shadows and types as to the extent the sacrifice of Jesus cleanses us and gives all the things that God wants to restore to us.

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. Hebrews 7:12

Sure, and that's also why I'm studying whether or not Levites could still be priests here on earth; too. ( but Not OUR priests, as Christians... nor our Law. )
Change does not always mean replacement.... though it certainly could....

We have been made priests and partakers of His kingdom, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, called out of darkness into His marvelous Light.

I see that you are quoting scripture as well. OK -- here the Greek doesn't change what you said even one Iota; I'm stuck...!

So: How do you see the "gifts" I previously mentioned connected to priesthood?
are they something we ourselves do as priests?

 

[JLB]

There is always so much to learn.... I like your insights as well. They make me go look....

That depends on what you mean by "mix".... I think. But yes... that's clearly Paul's overt purpose, without discussing "why" he does it.

Interesting, Paul appears to be bragging; for he is not an eyewitness to Christs' life -- but spends a mere 15 days with Peter; The inference being that his study of the Law and prophets had so prepared him that he needed minimal instruction (clepped the class).

Paul had many problems in his churches with usurpers of authority coming from the circumcision party; I'll agree there -- for he couldn't leave the ill instructed at the hands of clever lawyers who had already trained for many years; but then, neither could Paul teach them every caveat about arguing with high powered lawyers before the lawyers could do their damage.... So, he had to abridge the lessons into very short epistles... with compromises of what subject matter, and how deeply he would treat it.

Paul is also very Jewish in the way he delivers *apparent(but facile)* contradictions expecting the reader to find a precise meaning in the juxtaposition of contrary (not opposites) meanings by accepting only the meaning which harmonizes both.



Tell me then, if this is doctrine -- and Paul knew it from the first, with less than 16 days of instruction....
Which is worse and why:
1) Carving an icon of the Jewish law into someones flesh, or respecting a Jew's weak conscience about eating with pagans?
2) And from what does Paul fabricate the black and white statement: "why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"

There is evidence of hypocrisy, but what evidence is there that Peter compelled anyone to do anything (himself)? It seems to me that Paul is being the bully, using public embarrassment to get Peter to submit to Paul's view of the way things ought to be.

But...

Acts 16:3 Him [Timothy] would Paul have to go forth with; and [Paul] took and circumcised him...

Paul's statements, as I have said, are characteristically extreme -- in order to make a point in a Jewish way; But, in terms of Bible study -- I don't believe in editing or fudging a translation to make a precise Greek statement meet with my theological understanding; I look at the language independent of my preferences or expectations. Paul is too fickle to ignore that the Holy Spirit had to work with a stubborn pen, and might have made Paul prophecy against his own intentions.

And I don't really wonder either -- it's fairly clear in my thinking that the translators had/believed a meaning ahead of time and were ignoring a concordance search of all instances of the word "achris" and "archri"; they simply fudged the translation ; making the word mean one thing in one place, and nearly it's opposite in another.

Any time Greek grammar becomes obscure (eg:The conjugation of achris happens to be abnormal), or the examples of a particular word's usage rare -- Translators tend to copy each other, regardless of whether there is clear evidence the definition is correct or not.

Scriptures accuracy isn't so much a matter of what the majority thinks, as to what the words actually say. In reference to the O.P., clearly many christians are going to study the exact wording -- to justify a pre-biased views whether correct or not.

I don't intend to come to a conclusion in a bible study thread, perhaps enough information will arise that a good debate could be formed from it; but right now I'm just gathering all the subtleties and exploring their potential...

Thank you for sharing that; I can respect that opinion -- although, they did seem to recall the traditions of Abraham, and to bury Joseph out of Egypt, etc.

Sure, and that's why I'm concerned to point out that Levi's are still priests here on earth; too. ( Not OUR priests, as Christians... nor our Law. )

I see that you are quoting scripture as well. OK -- and the Greek doesn't change what you said here one Iota; How do you see the "gifts" I mentioned, then, are they something we ourselves do as priests?

I'm sure Paul didn't really care about the way Greek translation methods would pan out when he said -

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. 11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:6-12


What did he mean by "a different Gospel" or "pervert the Gospel"?

these verses give us a peek at the answer -

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

He is referring to those that came down from Judea, and to his trip to Jerusalem, which we will pick up in Acts 15 -

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts 15:1-5

So, a "different Gospel" or "perverting the Gospel" would be to "add the Law of Moses" to the Gospel.

No fancy Greek words needed. No Lexicon gymnastics required.

Just plain straightforward truth!

If you teach people that you need to be circumcised to be saved, you are accursed!

If you teach people that they need to keep the Law of Moses to be saved, you are accursed.

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8-9


JLB

 

[About the Son of God]

JLB,

I'm not here to debate. Nor am I advocating a return to the Mosaic law.
It is a biblical fact that Paul himself circumcised a man; and in each of the passages you cite he only condemn circumcision "according to the custom of Moses" and not "according to the sign of Abraham."; we are each entitled to our own opinion in this matter.

The lexicon "gymnastics" comment is clearly a pejorative. I tried to explain the same problem arises in English where "until" is used... and every author (including Paul) must care how he writes things, in the language he writes them.

I'm sorry if I somehow struck a nerve in your theology; that wasn't my intent.

 

[About the Son of God]

I'll just underline a few points, from your quote to complete my thoughts.

I
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),

1) Paul submitted his gospel to others for review; because as I said, he was not an eyewitness.
2) None of these quotes applies to Jews who have not become Christian.

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts 15:1-5

So, a "different Gospel" or "perverting the Gospel" would be to "add the Law of Moses" to the Gospel.

Um... yes, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I never, ever, made the claim that Gentiles who had become Chirstian, needed to be circumcised.

I asked about priesthood which you brought up; and to be clear -- I mean the normal priesthood, not high-priesthood. The line of Aaron, as far as I know, has been eradicated biologically in any event and can't be a present day issue.

The two issues I see are:
1) There are still Jews of the line of Levi; for example, people with the last name "Cohen".
2) We are, by your quote, called priests.

These are separate issues.... with different priesthoods; but they are also the same promise to both of us.

I'll not continue and farther in an argumentative way.

 

[JLB]

I'll just underline a few points, from your quote to complete my thoughts.



1) Paul submitted his gospel to others for review; because as I said, he was not an eyewitness.
2) None of these quotes applies to Jews who have not become Christian.



Um... yes, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I never, ever, made the claim that Gentiles who had become Chirstian, needed to be circumcised.

I asked about priesthood which you brought up; and to be clear -- I mean the normal priesthood, not high-priesthood. The line of Aaron, as far as I know, has been eradicated biologically in any event and can't be a present day issue.

The two issues I see are:
1) There are still Jews of the line of Levi; for example, people with the last name "Cohen".
2) We are, by your quote, called priests.

These are separate issues.... with different priesthoods; but they are also the same promise to both of us.

I'll not continue and farther in an argumentative way.

No argument to it.

Paul makes His position clear and needs no validation from man. His revelation came from the Lord.

His position is crystal clear, with no room for argument -

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. Galatians 1:8-10

If you believe that the Law of Moses, with animal sacrifices and the Levitical Priesthood are still valid, then that's between you and God.

If you believe that those down through the years that have translated the different versions of the bible all got Galatians 3:19 wrong, and the Law is still valid, then that is between you and God.

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3:19

Hopefully, you will agree that the translators got these following verses close when they wrote -

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11:6

and likewise -

Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." Galatians 3:12

JLB

 

[Sparkey]

Here is a link to the sticky that should help clarify the rules and styles expected for the Non-Debate Bible Study Forum:

Recommendations and Guidelines for an effective Bible Study

It is our responsibility to be familiar with these things and as Members we are urged to read the stickies! I need to too. Not just this one either, but you already know...

 

[reba]

Hi guys, this is the Bible study forum and not open to debate....Seems this thread is out of control....After staff discussion the decision to move the thread seems the only possibility.



Apologies to the OP. Some folks will not abide by rules or requests . Please try a bit harder to not push threads in the Bible Study Forum to debate.

 

[Sparkey]

Thanks reba!

I see the thread has been moved from Bible Study (where the OP had opened it) to the Apologetics and Theology forum (and that you're a step ahead of me here ;) ). Let me say that this is not a green light for "Ad Hominem" style responses or replies that are directed "at the man" and not "at the subject". Such replies are prohibited in all parts of our forum. Take the moment that it takes to read and understand the purpose of the various forums. I'll PM the assigned Moderators for the forum about the thread move.

That doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to read the stickies! They are at the top of each forum.

Here's the -----> LINK

This section deals with the study and practice of Theology and Apologetics. When posting or answering post in this section, users are asked to state clearly what the theological subject is, and why it is true or not true. Questions can be asked regarding the theology or the apologetic defense for the theology.

 

[About the Son of God]

No argument to it.

Our forum has changed; so civil debate is now possible.

1st)
I don't appreciate the browbeating condescending repeating remarks that don't actually address what I have said, or which ignore parts of what I have said in order to make a straw man argument out of the rest.
I prefer to answer questions over accusatory sounding statements...

2nd)
My points aren't ultimately affected by whether the argument is in Greek or English; or which translation anyone uses -- the conclusion is the same:
"Until" is not a sufficient word by itself to guarantee the facts change afterward;

Acts 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

(I shall not quote this again);
The English "until" does not guarantee change, and is not a sound way to make a proof text.

Paul makes His position clear and needs no validation from man. His revelation came from the Lord.

That's half true, but irrelevant. Paul wrote his position ( in Greek, BTW ) which we have, and his position was demonstrated in part by an ACT of circumcising Timothy: The act itself is "of the Law", and the act itself doesn't make Timothy an unbeliever, or non-Christian, and it CERTAINLY shows that Paul did NOT forbid circumcision in any absolute DAMNING way. He would not have done it, if it damned himself.

Acts speak louder than words.

Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
...
Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

The O.P comes in two parts, and I think trolling/or derailing is happening; The second part of the O.P. really can't be discussed until the first part is established or denied; and I've never even mentioned the second part.

The subject title says it all. I have had different answers to this question from people I know. What does this forum think?

When did the Law pass or is it still operating? And if it still is in effect, shouldn't we be obeying all the "jots and tittles" of it?

I don't think it is a simple question to answer...

If you believe that the Law of Moses, with animal sacrifices and the Levitical Priesthood are still valid, then that's between you and God.

My present belief is not yet open to discussion: I've never offered it, and it's OFF TOPIC.
But if we don't even study the question of the law's passing -- then there's no point being in the thread at all.
totopic
I have asked, based on certain scriptures we have been STUDYING, what you think our "royal priesthood" means; and I see a possible connection to the present status of Levitical priesthood in a *restricted* way. Perhaps it's something I should ask someone else?

If you believe that those down through the years that have translated the different versions of the bible all got Galatians 3:19 wrong, and the Law is still valid, then that is between you and God.

1) Then why are you even in this thread being abrasive to me if everything I AM talking about is between me an' God?
2) From the English translations alone; for the purpose of Galatians 3:19 -- Do you hold the position that "Until" BY ITSELF is a guarantee of change after a point in time? Acts 23:1

If you do -- then I condemn the technique as bad exegesis and we had best just end the conversation at a point where a cease fire is reached.
If you don't -- then you will have to admit, I never actually accused the translation of an error (wrong), but only offered a more literal translation that is MORE FAITHFUL to the original Greek.

That's not just between me and God -- that's just plain old hard core bible study.

Hopefully, you will agree that the translators got these following verses close when they wrote -

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11:6

and likewise -

Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." Galatians 3:12

JLB

I seriously don't see your point, topic-wise; is it sarcastic or rhetorical?

1st example of why they don't apply)
Abraham had faith, Abraham did animal sacrifices which Moses incorporated into the Law;

Genesis 15:9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
Genesis 15:10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
Genesis 15:11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.
Genesis 15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
Genesis 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; (and ... If I'm not mistaken, you told me it was 490? right? )

2nd example of why they don't apply)
Moses, too, did animal sacrifices and was "Faithful"
Numbers 12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

Therefore; Faith can exist with or without the Law.

3rd reason, I'm not going there)
( I'm not a judge of the Jew's individual's faith )

Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches [Israelites]. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Romans 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
...
Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree:how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
...
Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they [Israelites] are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
( "grace", "Charis" "χαρισ-ματα".);

eg: Jews were also given the law, which I am trying to study whether God repented of it.

 

[John 8:32]

Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law for us.
Col 2:13b-14 NKJV And you, being dead in your tresspasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was agaìnst us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Since the law is taken out of the way, you will have no complaints if someone breaks into your home tonight, steals all your possessions and murders your loved ones will you? If the law IS done away, then there is no problem with that...

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

[John 8:32]

First you have misquoted scripture , NO Paul did not order the death of anyone, you need to get saved first then maybe you will have a better understanding of what the Bible and we are saying.
There are many good people on this sight who could help you with that, may I suggest you discuss this privately with netchaplin. Of coarse I am getting my info from your's, you say you are not a Christian.

Ever had your flesh destroyed?

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

[JLB]

Our forum has changed; so civil debate is now possible.

1st)
I don't appreciate the browbeating condescending repeating remarks that don't actually address what I have said, or which ignore parts of what I have said in order to make a straw man argument out of the rest.
I prefer to answer questions over accusatory sounding statements...

2nd)
My points aren't ultimately affected by whether the argument is in Greek or English; or which translation anyone uses -- the conclusion is the same:
"Until" is not a sufficient word by itself to guarantee the facts change afterward;

Acts 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

(I shall not quote this again);
The English "until" does not guarantee change, and is not a sound way to make a proof text.

That's half true, but irrelevant. Paul wrote his position ( in Greek, BTW ) which we have, and his position was demonstrated in part by an ACT of circumcising Timothy: The act itself is "of the Law", and the act itself doesn't make Timothy an unbeliever, or non-Christian, and it CERTAINLY shows that Paul did NOT forbid circumcision in any absolute DAMNING way. He would not have done it, if it damned himself.

Acts speak louder than words.

Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
...
Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

The O.P comes in two parts, and I think trolling/or derailing is happening; The second part of the O.P. really can't be discussed until the first part is established or denied; and I've never even mentioned the second part.

My present belief is not yet open to discussion: I've never offered it, and it's OFF TOPIC.
But if we don't even study the question of the law's passing -- then there's no point being in the thread at all.
totopic
I have asked, based on certain scriptures we have been STUDYING, what you think our "royal priesthood" means; and I see a possible connection to the present status of Levitical priesthood in a *restricted* way. Perhaps it's something I should ask someone else?

1) Then why are you even in this thread being abrasive to me if everything I AM talking about is between me an' God?
2) From the English translations alone; for the purpose of Galatians 3:19 -- Do you hold the position that "Until" BY ITSELF is a guarantee of change after a point in time? Acts 23:1

If you do -- then I condemn the technique as bad exegesis and we had best just end the conversation at a point where a cease fire is reached.
If you don't -- then you will have to admit, I never actually accused the translation of an error (wrong), but only offered a more literal translation that is MORE FAITHFUL to the original Greek.

That's not just between me and God -- that's just plain old hard core bible study.



I seriously don't see your point, topic-wise; is it sarcastic or rhetorical?

1st example of why they don't apply)
Abraham had faith, Abraham did animal sacrifices which Moses incorporated into the Law;

Genes 15:9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
Genes 15:10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
Genes 15:11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.
Genes 15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
Genes 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; (and ... If I'm not mistaken, you told me it was 490? right? )

2nd example of why they don't apply)
Moses, too, did animal sacrifices and was "Faithful"
Numbe 12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

Therefore; Faith can exist with or without the Law.

3rd reason, I'm not going there)
( I'm not a judge of the Jew's individual's faith )

Roman 11:18 Boast not against the branches [Israelites]. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Roman 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Roman 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
...
Roman 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree:how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
...
Roman 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they [Israelites] are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Roman 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
( "grace", "Charis" "χαρισ-ματα".);

eg:

Jews were also given the law, which I am trying to study whether God repented of it.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16

If you believe that those down through the years that have translated the different versions of the bible all got Galatians 3:19 wrong, and the Law is still valid, then that is between you and God.

1) Then why are you even in this thread being abrasive to me if everything I AM talking about is between me an' God?
2) From the English translations alone; for the purpose of Galatians 3:19 -- Do you hold the position that "Until" BY ITSELF is a guarantee of change after a point in time? Acts 23:1

If you do -- then I condemn the technique as bad exegesis and we had best just end the conversation at a point where a cease fire is reached.
If you don't -- then you will have to admit, I never actually accused the translation of an error (wrong), but only offered a more literal translation that is MORE FAITHFUL to the original Greek.

That's not just between me and God -- that's just plain old hard core bible study.

Do you hold the position that "Until" BY ITSELF is a guarantee of change after a point in time? Acts 23:1

The use of the word until [Strong's Number: 891] in Acts 23:1 is a different Greek word than the word until [Strong's Number: 3757] in Galatians 3:19.

So, comparing the word until in Acts 23:1, which says -

Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day."

with the word until in Galatians 3:19, which says -

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

is not only bad exegesis, its a completely different Greek word altogether!

The strength of change is seen in the word until [Strong's Number: 3757] Galatians 3:19, by it's coupling with the word "added" [Strong's Number: 4369] and especially the phrase "added because of transgressions" which flows nicely with the idea presented in Jeremiah 31, which says -

31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. Jeremiah 31:31-32

Then when you see phrases written like -


But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11:6

and likewise -

Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." Galatians 3:12

One tends to think that change has taken place.

Especially when you read the verse that says -

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. Hebrews 7:12

Again -

By saying "added" the Holy Spirit is indicating that the law was a part of something greater.

By saying "until", the Holy Spirit is indicating the law of Moses was temporary.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

Ever had your flesh destroyed?

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

You know what, go read the original post that I was commenting on. It appeared to me that this nonbeliever thought Paul was ordering someone to be put to death???

Maybe I read it wrong, however if you wish to make a statement about this scripture MAKE IT.