ECT Basic Principles of Gal 3:17

[Interplanner]

Basic Principles of the Paragraph Containing Gal 3.

1, the every day example. Back in 14 he made a purposive statement that he believed needed to be explained. it was:

Christ did this in order that the blessing God promised to Abraham might be given to the Gentiles, so that we might recieve the promise of the Spirit --which is how the mission gets done.

"This" was the death on the cross.

Now the every day example comes about the Promise. When two men agree and sign off on the agreement, the terms have to be met. The "two men" are God and Christ. How does Christ get the gift of the Spirit to give to men to further spread the mission of the Gospel? Through his agreement with God. The so-called Abrahamic covenant was actually between God and Christ the Seed. The agreement was not with Many but with One person.

2, The Seed. With Israel as an ethne out of the picture in the agreement, Paul was showing that the Promise was (indirectly) for all mankind, for all nations, because it was not for one nation. It was a matter of clearing up who the "two men" were.

3, V 17 then opens with 'touto de lego' because he knows it is going to be remarkable that Israel was not the other party of the covenant often called the covenant with Abraham. But it is fundamental. This is why the Gospel blesses all people no matter what ethne they are . He knows he needs to re-express, or re-phrase this fundamental assertion, so here it comes:

The Law cannot break that agreement and void God's promise to Christ

Who cares? JUDAISM cares! That's what Paul grew up in, grew out of, and now battles. Judaism now says that the covenant was with Many and that many was Israel. So Law in these next verses (18, 19) means people fulfilling the terms of Moses law as though they were the other party in the agreement--WHICH THEY ARE NOT! Christ was the other party. (He has no concern here to point out that Christ fulfilled the Law as in Rom 10:4).

18b is showing that it couldn't have been Abraham's obedience to law, which matters a lot to his countrymen in Judaism. It had to be through a promised person, Christ. That needed to be shown about Abraham and current Judaism.

If anything was to improve the clarity of 18, I would say it was "because God had promised it to Christthat he gave it to Abraham. That is the sense. Likewise in 17a. God made a covenant (with Christ) and promised to keep it. The topic here is not the gift of righteousness for Abraham here, but the gift of the Spirit, as it was in v14 and originally in 3:2-4.

4, the absence of the Many. The Many disappear from reference at v16 but that is the official declaration of the apostle. The problem of D'ism for years has been whether they will accept this. Apparently for Judaism as well, because the plain language of 17 seemed mistaken to them. The only way it clears up is if the parties are God and Christ, and if the thing promised is the Spirit so that the mission of the Gospel proceeds and succeeds. But even after mentioning the Law, Paul repeats that the covenant was not with the Many but with the Seed, v19.

5, the parallel in Acts 13. The closest comparable passage about this is Paul in Acts 13 quoting Isaiah about the promises to David. They are given to Christ. That's how they get fulfilled. There is no expectation of their fulfillment in a sense which would be like the ancient past of Israel. They also exist for the mission of the Gospel.

 

[Interplanner]

They wish they could ignore it.

 

[Danoh]

They wish they could ignore it.

Keep dreaming :chuckle:

Galatians 3:17 is NOT asserting that Israel was wrong as to THEIR sense of THEIR mission.

Israel's problem was THEIR failure to believe that Jesus was the Christ THEIR carrying out THEIR mission would be enabled by.

Fact is; had they accepted Him after Pentecost, there would still have been THEIR wrath to come; for it is part of THEIR trying unto THEIR refiner's fire and purging towards THEIR THEN being able to carry out THEIR mission.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[patrick jane]

Basic Principles of the Paragraph Containing Gal 3.

1, the every day example. Back in 14 he made a purposive statement that he believed needed to be explained. it was:

Christ did this in order that the blessing God promised to Abraham might be given to the Gentiles, so that we might recieve the promise of the Spirit --which is how the mission gets done.

"This" was the death on the cross.

Now the every day example comes about the Promise. When two men agree and sign off on the agreement, the terms have to be met. The "two men" are God and Christ. How does Christ get the gift of the Spirit to give to men to further spread the mission of the Gospel? Through his agreement with God. The so-called Abrahamic covenant was actually between God and Christ the Seed. The agreement was not with Many but with One person.

2, The Seed. With Israel as an ethne out of the picture in the agreement, Paul was showing that the Promise was (indirectly) for all mankind, for all nations, because it was not for one nation. It was a matter of clearing up who the "two men" were.

3, V 17 then opens with 'touto de lego' because he knows it is going to be remarkable that Israel was not the other party of the covenant often called the covenant with Abraham. But it is fundamental. This is why the Gospel blesses all people no matter what ethne they are . He knows he needs to re-express, or re-phrase this fundamental assertion, so here it comes:

The Law cannot break that agreement and void God's promise to Christ

Who cares? JUDAISM cares! That's what Paul grew up in, grew out of, and now battles. Judaism now says that the covenant was with Many and that many was Israel. So Law in these next verses (18, 19) means people fulfilling the terms of Moses law as though they were the other party in the agreement--WHICH THEY ARE NOT! Christ was the other party. (He has no concern here to point out that Christ fulfilled the Law as in Rom 10:4).

18b is showing that it couldn't have been Abraham's obedience to law, which matters a lot to his countrymen in Judaism. It had to be through a promised person, Christ. That needed to be shown about Abraham and current Judaism.

If anything was to improve the clarity of 18, I would say it was "because God had promised it to Christthat he gave it to Abraham. That is the sense. Likewise in 17a. God made a covenant (with Christ) and promised to keep it. The topic here is not the gift of righteousness for Abraham here, but the gift of the Spirit, as it was in v14 and originally in 3:2-4.

4, the absence of the Many. The Many disappear from reference at v16 but that is the official declaration of the apostle. The problem of D'ism for years has been whether they will accept this. Apparently for Judaism as well, because the plain language of 17 seemed mistaken to them. The only way it clears up is if the parties are God and Christ, and if the thing promised is the Spirit so that the mission of the Gospel proceeds and succeeds. But even after mentioning the Law, Paul repeats that the covenant was not with the Many but with the Seed, v19.

5, the parallel in Acts 13. The closest comparable passage about this is Paul in Acts 13 quoting Isaiah about the promises to David. They are given to Christ. That's how they get fulfilled. There is no expectation of their fulfillment in a sense which would be like the ancient past of Israel. They also exist for the mission of the Gospel.

:kookoo:

 

[Danoh]

You see this here...

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

They were off in that it's due season was yet future.

Isaiah 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

They were off because they were thrown off when their mission took a temporary back seat to Paul's Apostleship of and among the Gentiles; given God's DIFFERENT purpose in Paul.

It's not that we can't answer you; it's that it is a waste to - as you are dead set in your "one size fits all."

 

[Interplanner]

:kookoo:

What specifically?

Your system is the one which never deals in specifics.

 

[Interplanner]

You see this here...

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

They were off in that it's due season was yet future.

Isaiah 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

They were off because they were thrown off when their mission took a temporary back seat to Paul's Apostleship of and among the Gentiles; given God's DIFFERENT purpose in Paul.

It's not that we can't answer you; it's that it is a waste to - as you are dead set in your "one size fits all."

Just as I thought: that is the best you can do about Gal 3:17. Not even talk about it. You do realize who the "two men" are right?

 

[Interplanner]

Keep dreaming :chuckle:

Galatians 3:17 is NOT asserting that Israel was wrong as to THEIR sense of THEIR mission.

Israel's problem was THEIR failure to believe that Jesus was the Christ THEIR carrying out THEIR mission would be enabled by.

Fact is; had they accepted Him after Pentecost, there would still have been THEIR wrath to come; for it is part of THEIR trying unto THEIR refiner's fire and purging towards THEIR THEN being able to carry out THEIR mission.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I did in fact not see this post until after the other but macht nicht. Do you actually think you are dealing with Gal 3:17? I am just astounded at what you think communication and comprehension is about. Bible study is not about cherry picking and just dealing with fav passages. If you believe the Bible and the page of Eph 1 comes up, then you have to have an honest understanding of eph 1. If Heb 4, then Heb 4.

I have never been around such dishonest people who think they have actually dealt with Gal 3:17 by zooming to Mt 10 or 24. There is very plain language there in Gal 3 and very auspicious issues. To throw in 10-15 other unrelated issues is like teaching Japanese in Hebrew with German footnotes.

 

[Interplanner]

You see this here...

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

They were off in that it's due season was yet future.

Isaiah 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

They were off because they were thrown off when their mission took a temporary back seat to Paul's Apostleship of and among the Gentiles; given God's DIFFERENT purpose in Paul.

It's not that we can't answer you; it's that it is a waste to - as you are dead set in your "one size fits all."

btw, the way you use Is 2 is 'one size fits Israel' to me. It should be fitting all nations, and the Jerusalem above, but apparently you don't know about that, to make the 2P2P myth keep working.

 

[Interplanner]

Keep dreaming :chuckle:

Galatians 3:17 is NOT asserting that Israel was wrong as to THEIR sense of THEIR mission.

Israel's problem was THEIR failure to believe that Jesus was the Christ THEIR carrying out THEIR mission would be enabled by.

Fact is; had they accepted Him after Pentecost, there would still have been THEIR wrath to come; for it is part of THEIR trying unto THEIR refiner's fire and purging towards THEIR THEN being able to carry out THEIR mission.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I think with the condemnation of Israel's missionaries in Mt 23 and the announcment of its desolation there, that you have to say that it is a very short step from Gal 3:17's declarations to condemning Israel's mission. Remember, Eph 3 clears this up: it is not that it is a mission to the nations, it is that the Gospel was to be how it took place.

How, in the sense of predestined events, could there be a 2nd program for Israel if the Gospel was that 'way it took place. The Gospel did have to happen. The question for Israel became: how will it respond to the mission of the Gospel. I don't believe God will ever say 'your condemned for killing Christ.' He will fault them for not being missionaries of the Gospel.

 

[Danoh]

I did say you'd be a waste of time; Inter :chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

I did say you'd be a waste of time; Inter :chuckle:

Why think when you can click cartoons? that's a very interesting idea of "time" Danoh. I now understand that for a MAD person to actually grapple with Gal 3:17 and the misconceptions revealed there (there was a reason why he had to say that that way) that their time has been misspent. I had a hunch of this.

You claimed you have summarized Gal 3:17 but apparently you are too embarrassed to repeat it? Or is there a general ban on Gal 3 in polite MAD society?

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
Fact is; had they accepted Him after Pentecost, there would still have been THEIR wrath to come; for it is part of THEIR trying unto THEIR refiner's fire and purging towards THEIR THEN being able to carry out THEIR mission.

Any chance of you working on the grammar of this and trying again? I think I agree with it.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh wrote:
Fact is; had they accepted Him after Pentecost, there would still have been THEIR wrath to come; for it is part of THEIR trying unto THEIR refiner's fire and purging towards THEIR THEN being able to carry out THEIR mission.

Any chance of you working on the grammar of this and trying again? I think I agree with it.

Just post how you see that and we'll go from there.

 

[Interplanner]

Just post how you see that and we'll go from there.

There seems to be some allowed second-guessing of history. But with Dan 9 in view, the leaders knew the unbelief or 'rebellion' would be at fatal levels.

I can't get through the pre-KJV word choice of 'their trying unto their refiner's fire'.

But if you mean that the devastation of 70 AD was supposed to make them once and for all the leading missionaries of the day, then I can see that! It would be interesting to have been able to 'sample' Jewish Christians from 70-100 and ask them: Do you now find yourselves better able to let go of the shadows of the old covenant so that you can reach the nations with the Gospel?

The "even if" of your proposition is the same thing I mentioned the other day about Dan 9. The answer to the prayer is that the prayer will be answered--sins will be forgiven justly--even though all these horrible things will happen to the country; there is no connection between forgiveness and Israel's prosperity. Announcing that 490 years in advance is surely enough time to say that it was known; it was no mystery. But I do think that if enough had believed, antagonism could have stopped. It is fascinating that Jesus lived among, evangelized and included some of the hardcore zealots from Galilee in his close followers. He gave it his best shot and tried to stop them.

 

[Danoh]

Why think when you can click cartoons? that's a very interesting idea of "time" Danoh. I now understand that for a MAD person to actually grapple with Gal 3:17 and the misconceptions revealed there (there was a reason why he had to say that that way) that their time has been misspent. I had a hunch of this.

You claimed you have summarized Gal 3:17 but apparently you are too embarrassed to repeat it? Or is there a general ban on Gal 3 in polite MAD society?

No, I just don't recall what I said and see no point in tracking it down for you to express your same old issues once more.

I recall I tied it to Romans 4 and how that in Gal. 3:17 Paul is not saying there what you assert he is.

You are actually arguing against the validity of accounts like the following when you assert that Judaism had it wrong.

Esther 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

Contrary to your conclusion that MADs just cherry pick passages towards their argument, the fact is that MAD is based on the whole of Scripture.

The various passages we cite do not even begin to comprise the whole they are comprised of throughout Scripture as a precept upon precept chain of witness.

Riddle me this - what is this "fear of the Jews" that passage is referring to?

I hate being baited and baiting others with open ended questions.

So here is my take on the answer to that question.

What that is is fear of the God of Israel as in...

Exodus 1:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

And in...

Joshua 2:9 And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. 2:10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. 2:11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

My point is that in Scripture, Judaism is depicted as a legitmate point to access with God via circumcision and the Law, and was in fact known as such far and wide...

Esther 8:9 Then were the king's scribes called at that time in the third month, that is, the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth day thereof; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded unto the Jews, and to the lieutenants, and the deputies and rulers of the provinces which are from India unto Ethiopia, an hundred twenty and seven provinces, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language. 8:10 And he wrote in the king Ahasuerus' name, and sealed it with the king's ring, and sent letters by posts on horseback, and riders on mules, camels, and young dromedaries: 8:11 Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey, 8:12 Upon one day in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar. 8:13 The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, and that the Jews should be ready against that day to avenge themselves on their enemies. 8:14 So the posts that rode upon mules and camels went out, being hastened and pressed on by the king's commandment. And the decree was given at Shushan the palace. 8:15 And Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a garment of fine linen and purple: and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad. 8:16 The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour. 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

 

[Interplanner]

No, I just don't recall what I said and see no point in tracking it down for you to express your same old issues once more.

I recall I tied it to Romans 4 and how that in Gal. 3:17 Paul is not saying there what you assert he is.

You are actually arguing against the validity of accounts like the following when you assert that Judaism had it wrong.

Esther 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

Contrary to your conclusion that MADs just cherry pick passages towards their argument, the fact is that MAD is based on the whole of Scripture.

The various passages we cite do not even begin to comprise the whole they are comprised of throughout Scripture as a precept upon precept chain of witness.

Riddle me this - what is this "fear of the Jews" that passage is referring to?

I hate being baited and baiting others with open ended questions.

So here is my take on the answer to that question.

What that is is fear of the God of Israel as in...

Exodus 1:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

And in...

Joshua 2:9 And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. 2:10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. 2:11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

My point is that in Scripture, Judaism is depicted as a legitmate point to access with God via circumcision and the Law, and was in fact known as such far and wide...

Esther 8:9 Then were the king's scribes called at that time in the third month, that is, the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth day thereof; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded unto the Jews, and to the lieutenants, and the deputies and rulers of the provinces which are from India unto Ethiopia, an hundred twenty and seven provinces, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language. 8:10 And he wrote in the king Ahasuerus' name, and sealed it with the king's ring, and sent letters by posts on horseback, and riders on mules, camels, and young dromedaries: 8:11 Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey, 8:12 Upon one day in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar. 8:13 The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, and that the Jews should be ready against that day to avenge themselves on their enemies. 8:14 So the posts that rode upon mules and camels went out, being hastened and pressed on by the king's commandment. And the decree was given at Shushan the palace. 8:15 And Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a garment of fine linen and purple: and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad. 8:16 The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour. 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

Oh brother now Esther is the key to Gal 3:17. Why don't you just stay in Gal 3 for a week and get back to me?

Paul is talking to post-exile Judaism!!! Dan 9 Judaism!!!

Why on earth can you not just rephrase what Gal 3:17 is saying and WHY and be done with it. You have 1000 excuses, which makes me think you are MAD.

there are 5 observations made in the opening of this thread; just respond normally to one of them, OK? Like, yes, I see that the 'two men' are God and Christ, not God and Israel.

 

[Danoh]

In other words; subscribe to your cherry pick.

No thanks.

You one size fits all Matthew thru Revelation as having replaced the OT.

I do not.

I view Mathew thru Early Acts and Hebrews thru Revelation as a continuation towards the fulfilment of OT promises.

I view Romans thru Philemon as being an interruption - not a replacement - of Israel's promises.

I cannot expect you would view, let alone, understand, Gal. 3:17 in the same way I do.

It is that simple.

No matter how much you "oh brother" my assertions.

I say a person should stand their ground until persuaded otherwise.

Thus, far, neither has persuaded the other.

At this point, I am fine with that.

At this point, I do not see any use in either of us expecting one another to buy into the other's understanding of things just because the other believes he has made his case.

And this is not political correctness.

Rather; it is what it sometimes is...

Acts 15:37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 15:38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 15:40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

 

[Interplanner]

But what is the view?

 

[Interplanner]

Do you then call Paul an oversimplifier for writing Gal 4:4-5? That's a complete NT history--or is the history that matters. If you can't fit that summary why should I accept your summary? Why don't we take the NT's own summaries of such things? We, you, take I Cor 15:1-4 as 'summarizing the Gospel'. But you don't take this as summarizing the NT.