Interplanner
Well-known member
OK, and why would the topic come up? Who in the picture (1st century Judaism and nearby Gentiles) would want to replace the Promise with the Law and why?
What does Paul say the Promise is, and the Seed?
ECT Never the Twain
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
OK, and why would the topic come up? Who in the picture (1st century Judaism and nearby Gentiles) would want to replace the Promise with the Law and why?
What does Paul say the Promise is, and the Seed?
Fair enough.
Have you read Stam's commentary on Galatians?
Read it long ago.
I forget what his take on that passage was, if any, or whether I agreed with it or not.
Probably not - lol
Google the words c r stam galatians pdf
It should come up.
Also, here is a very brief article by one of our favorites (yours and mine).
http://graceambassadors.com/mystery/what-is-a-dispensation
Anyway, my point on the MAD forum was this very point - how that study principles enable one to study a thing out on one's own.
Which is always fun because that is when Believers are really able to learn, and to answer their own questions on their own, and to contribute and or challenge one another to even greater understanding, and so on with greater depth.
Proverbs 27:17.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Right Divider
Body part
It was probably at least a couple thousand years ago. :yawn:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
He won't answer, unless it's a vague generality from a commentary.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The only commentary I have read in the past three years is Dr. Breen's treatise on "sin" and "slow down, what is your hurry".
Interplanner
Well-known member
WHo said I was personally? But Paul did call it the 'weak and miserable elements of the world' and many people around the world think they can obligate God to themselves, and they divide people up on their performance of such things.
The question we were actually dealing with before you changed everything to match your memory and attention span was 'why would the topic of replacing the promise with the law come up in Galatians 3?'
"...before you changed everything to match your memory and attention span..."
Now that calls for...
:rotfl:
IP, regarding your question to Musti - "The question we were actually dealing with...was 'why would the topic of replacing the promise with the law come up in Galatians 3?'.
Fact is, IP, that there is no replacing the Law with the Promise in Gal. 3.
That is just you, in your misinformed confusion...once more.
Did the act of Grace in the following - way back when - look like it replaced The Law that day, or that the Law replaced the Promise?
Exodus 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. 32:16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.
His Grace that day was actually THEIR (Prophesied Grace) Covenant ASPECT of this..
Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
That was exactly what Moses reminded the LORD of that day - THEIR PROPHESIED aspect of that.
duh-uh
Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8
Fact is, IP, that there is no replacing the Law with the Promise in Gal. 3.
That is just you, in your misinformed confusion...once more.
Did the act of Grace in the following - way back when - look like it replaced The Law that day, or that the Law replaced the Promise?
Exodus 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. 32:16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.
His Grace that day was actually THEIR (Prophesied Grace) Covenant ASPECT of this..
Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
That was exactly what Moses reminded the LORD of that day - THEIR PROPHESIED aspect of that.
duh-uh
Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8
Galatians 3:23 KJV -
Paul writes of the distant future when he says in Ephesians 1:10, “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.”
However, the dispensation of the fulness of times will not appear before the instituted kingdom on earth that God promised to the nation Israel in Jeremiah 31 and in Hebrews 8. Hebrews 2:8describes this future hope of the kingdom to the Hebrews in Paul’s day:
Paul writes with an understanding that all has come to pass in the eternal plan and mind. All that is necessary is for the resultant victory to come to pass in time.
Proof of this time/eternity relationship can be found in John's evangelism chapter 17.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I doubt you have grasped Eph 1, but back to the real topic:
who in the 1st cenutry picture would have wanted to replace the Promise with the Law? And why?
Interplanner
Well-known member
There is no kingdom on earth for Israel expected by the NT. You do realize you can unify "Judah and Israel" without that, don't you? By peace through Christ?
You wouldn't do a kingdom as such for Israel unless you were going to redo it with Judaism operating, which Hebrews says will not happen. If it is NOT about Judaism operating, and is a 'kingdom on earth for Israel' then it is Christian and open to all Christians. He was merely painting a sketch of what the NHNE would be like, for a Jewish audience, but for all mankind eventually. Isaiah and Amos make that entirely clear.
I cannot believe the degree to which D'ism divides people. I don't think it is aware of the 'one/unity in Christ' no matter what background in such resounding passages as Rom 3, 10, Gal 3, Col 2. Every time I hear a D'ist speak it is separation, compartments, them but not these others, only this group, ad nauseum, whether present time, or future.
If you people understood what the term Yisra'el translated Israel means you'd realise how futile your arguments are.
It's like arguing over an animal without knowing the species.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
All made up.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The irony...
Interplanner
Well-known member
"To struggle with God." So what? It makes no difference as to what Paul is saying in statements about the Promised Seed, or why Judaism replaced the Promise with the Law, or how everything promised to Israel was fulfilled in the resurrection.
There simply is no need for, and no indication of, another round of Judaism to come and need to operate. Not the way the NT rings with fulfillment of all things that were a shadow or mere copy, and calls the whole thing 'the weak and miserable elements of the world.'
Acts 26: the very thing the worshippers in the temple try night and day to see fulfilled is already in Christ. This is quite remarkable statement since 'the conservative part of Judaism at the temple disdained what the apocalyptic zealots and sicarii would do violently, but believed there would be a son of David event that would restore the worship system and land to what it was' --Cornfeld, archeologist, commenting on the continuous zealot revolt in 1st century Judea.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Made up. Humanism.
Yisra'el does not mean to struggle with Elohim.
Interplanner
Well-known member
- Status