ECT Which Gospel?

[Danoh]

There is really no need to wonder if there is one gospel or more than one. The Apostle Paul already answered this question

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7 ESV)

The word “different” is heteros which means “different in kind or nature.”

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/1-6.htm

In verse 6, the teaching of the Judaizers was called a heteros “gospel” because it was utterly unlike, and antithetical to the gospel of grace that they were departing from. So that the Galatians would not think there were multiple (legitimate) gospels Paul adds in verse 7

“not that there is ANOTHER one.”

The word he uses this time is allos which means “another of a like or similar kind.”

A comparison of the words heteros and allos can be found in Strong’s Concordance



Paul said that no other gospel was the same as or similar to the one he preached. However, if the dual gospel hypothesis were correct there WOULD have been another gospel similar to his – the so called “Jewish Gospel” This particular gospel if it had existed would have been taught by Jesus Himself in person to the Twelve Apostles even as Jesus supposedly revealed Paul's gospel to him through supernatural revelation.

“Peter’s gospel” though different was apparently powerful to save men just as Paul’s. Had a saving “Jewish Gospel” existed it would not have been called heterodox (different and therefore false). It would have been another (allos) gospel of the same or similar nature to Paul’s. In Galatians 1:7, however, Paul flatly denies that there is any other gospel AT ALL.

Is this just a grammatical illusion? Would someone who lived at that time, who grew up speaking and reading the Greek of the early centuries, have understood these verses this way? At this point we might wish we could use Dr. Who’s Tardis to go back in time and discuss it with someone who lived then.

Fortunately we can hear from people of that era. Several men - one from the Third Century and the other from the Second commented on these very verses in their writings. The first was a man of God, John Chysostom who is regarded by many as the greatest Bible expositor of the Third and Fourth Centuries. The second was Marcion the arch-heretic of the Second Century. Despite his heterodox views, Marcion had access to the very earliest editions of the NT and, because he spoke Koine Greek he could understand the meaning of the words in Galatians without aid of lexicons or translations.

When Marcion read Galatians 1:6-7 it was obvious to him that Paul was saying there was no other gospel AT ALL. Therefore, he reasoned that Paul’s revelatory Gospel of Grace superseded the teaching of all the other Apostles and even what Jesus Himself had taught during His earthly ministry. Marcion was so convinced of his insight that he produced his own edition of the NT minus everything but the Gospel of Luke and the writings of Paul (without the pastoral epistles)

Here is what Chrysostom wrote in response to Marcion:



Chysostom agreed that the phrase “which is not another gospel” meant there was no other gospel at all. However, unlike Marcion, Chrysostom in line with the Church Fathers of the preceding three centuries believed in the essential unity of the NT message as it was expressed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and in the writings of the other Apostles (including Paul). To the Early Church all of it was equally scripture, profitable for doctrine, reproof, instruction in righteousness. The Marcionite’s belief that Paul had a different gospel and that only his writings were mandatory and applicable to believers was universally rejected as aberrant.

There was a gospel before the Cross.

It too was based on faith. Paul identifies it in Romans 2 and 3, and again in Romans 9 and Romans 10, and also in Galatians 3 - that righteousness which was of the Law by faith he relates Israel was under until Christ.

In John 5, for example, the Lord condemns those of Israel for not believing Moses that He was the One Moses had written of.

John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Obviously, this faith in Him was not that He died for sin, for He was sometime off before the Cross.

It is clear in Matthew 23, in light of Romans 2, that Israel's religious leaders distorted this righteousness which was of the Law by faith into the error that simply keeping the Law would meet God's standard.

As a result, they were so used to keeping the Law not by faith, rather; simply as a means of proving their righteousness before men, that when He "of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," John 1:45, finally showed up, their response to Him was that...

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

Throughout the Lord's ministry to that nation, he chastises them for doing this and that before men; that men might glory in them.

By the time of Galatians, you have that distortion - of the law for righteousness by faith absent of faith - now coming against that "righteousness of God without the Law" - the issue of being "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" Rom. 3.

What this all boils down to is...

1] One actual gospel had been Messianic Judaism, see John 1.

2] But that Israel's leaders had distorted into "works of the law, as pleasing men, not God, " John 8; Rom. 2.

And then you have another...

3] Actual gospel also - "now the righteousness of God without the Law... by faith" Rom. 3.

# 3 was distorted by the Judaizers into # 2, which is why it was another [where their were two legitimate ones] which was not another at all.

1 and 3 were both legitimate.

You'll note I did not base this on the Greek, or on this or that word, mood, sense, and all that, rather; on Scripture's own overall narrative.

Why?

Because that is what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 asserts the Scripture is able to bring to the table as to any and all issues; all on its own, and then some!

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
that righteousness which was of the Law by faith
Was that ever mentioned? Of the Law and by faith? At the same time? In the OT?


Obviously, this faith in Him was not that He died for sin, for He was sometime off before the Cross.
Sorry, not obvious.

 

[Shasta]

There was a gospel before the Cross.

It too was based on faith. Paul identifies it in Romans 2 and 3, and again in Romans 9 and Romans 10, and also in Galatians 3 - that righteousness which was of the Law by faith he relates Israel was under until Christ.

In John 5, for example, the Lord condemns those of Israel for not believing Moses that He was the One Moses had written of.

John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Obviously, this faith in Him was not that He died for sin, for He was sometime off before the Cross.

It is clear in Matthew 23, in light of Romans 2, that Israel's religious leaders distorted this righteousness which was of the Law by faith into the error that simply keeping the Law would meet God's standard.

As a result, they were so used to keeping the Law not by faith, rather; simply as a means of proving their righteousness before men, that when He "of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," John 1:45, finally showed up, their response to Him was that...

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

Throughout the Lord's ministry to that nation, he chastises them for doing this and that before men; that men might glory in them.

By the time of Galatians, you have that distortion - of the law for righteousness by faith absent of faith - now coming against that "righteousness of God without the Law" - the issue of being "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" Rom. 3.

What this all boils down to is...

1] One actual gospel had been Messianic Judaism, see John 1.

2] But that Israel's leaders had distorted into "works of the law, as pleasing men, not God, " John 8; Rom. 2.

And then you have another...

3] Actual gospel also - "now the righteousness of God without the Law... by faith" Rom. 3.

# 3 was distorted by the Judaizers into # 2, which is why it was another [where their were two legitimate ones] which was not another at all.

1 and 3 were both legitimate.

You'll note I did not base this on the Greek, or on this or that word, mood, sense, and all that, rather; on Scripture's own overall narrative.

Why?

Because that is what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 asserts the Scripture is able to bring to the table as to any and all issues; all on its own, and then some!

At the time Galatians was written both Paul and Peter were preaching. According to the dual gospel hypothesis their gospels were similar in that they both came from Jesus (in person to the disciples and by a vision to Paul) and in the fact what both could bring salvation. However, Paul, in the verse I cited (Galatians 1:7-8) said there was NO OTHER GOSPEL BUT HIS. This means there was only ONE gospel.

Instead of addressing my argument in the context I presented you have done as many others do and tried to take the debate somewhere else. This is what I have often observed. Proponents of the dual gospel hypothesis like to point to the coherence of their doctrinal system before they have adequately established their points in specific scriptures.

I really do not know why you are so disdainful about working to understand the Bible as it was originally written. I am not disdainful about how you read your Bible. I just happen to think you have reached the wrong conclusion about some things. You seem to think the meaning of the Bible becomes more obscure by studying the original languages instead of clearer. This does not make sense to me.

I think my point was made pretty clearly in this post. If you object to my conclusions, instead of re-directing the discussion into another scriptures, reply to my arguments in the context I have presented.

 

[Interplanner]

In this case, with the 'social' details of the issues with Peter, it is not even needed to check out original languages so much. you just have to stick with the plot! Peter had both the sheet vision and the tongues event (twice) to keep him on track and still drifted.

In Acts it was Grecian Jews and then in Gal 2 brothers from James who are messing with the Gospel of forgiveness that also fulfills the promises to the fathers and creates the huge number of descendants. They add law (ie, their message is not one of outright denial of the events of Christ). They add on. In Acts by 15, it is clear that the Gospel can't have anything added to it, but there might be a hanging question about how much of the law is needed to honor Christ. Not to be saved, but a question of appropriate honoring of Christ. Not much, but some important essentials.

 

[Lon]

I think, if I were Mid Acts, I'd tend to remind people there is only one gospel for us today. The talking point of two gospels is to ensure that all people understand the gospel as it is. From my perspective, I do not believe in a works based salvation apart from Christ but rather one that is enable because one is in Christ. That said, the gospel is that Christ died, was buried, and rose again to redeem and save man from his/her sins/sin nature. We, our sins, were buried with Christ in death. We are raised to life with Him, in Him, kept wholly in Him and by Him.

The question/debate is whether Jews had to keep some laws for grace, or for other promises. For me, they had agreements with God, not just for salvation, but for physical promises. Because of that, I don't think they were keeping the law for salvation reasons and so see the gospel message as needed and the same for them, especially now. That said, I've no problem if someone disagrees or even if I'm proven wrong on this particular since the gospel message for both gentiles and Jews is the same today. Salvation is found in no one else. There is no other name, given to men, whereby men can be saved (by grace Ephesians 2:8-10).

In Christ,

Lon

 

[glorydaz]

However, Paul, in the verse I cited (Galatians 1:7-8) said there was NO OTHER GOSPEL BUT HIS. This means there was only ONE gospel.

Maybe you should point out where Paul said "There was no other Gospel but his"..... I've looked and looked and I don't see that.

Gal. 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Gal. 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.​

He did say there was one baptism. Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,


By your reasoning that must mean there was only ONE baptism. :think:

 

[Interplanner]

GloryD,
you can't be serious. Do you know what 'another' means/assumes?

 

[glorydaz]

GloryD,
you can't be serious. Do you know what 'another' means/assumes?

Yes, and I know assuming is not the way to read scripture.

And, I know that when Paul says "other gospel" there must be another gospel...or even more out there. Why would he say there were "other" gospels if there weren't? Any other than the one we have preached..... It's quite clear to me.

Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.​

 

[Shasta]

Maybe you should point out where Paul said "There was no other Gospel but his"..... I've looked and looked and I don't see that.

Gal. 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Gal. 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.​

He did say there was one baptism. Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,


By your reasoning that must mean there was only ONE baptism. :think:

Part of my point centered on the meaning of two Greek adjectives: heteros which meant "another of a different kind" and allos which meant another of a "similar kind" The heteros teaching Paul alludes to in Galatians was the "gospel" of the Judaizers but he adds that there were none others either similar to his.

If the dual gospel hypothesis were true there WOULD have been another "similar" kind of Gospel and - the gospel of the Jews. Paul's teaching and that of the Twelve would have been of a similar kind in that they both came from Jesus, the disciples from the Resurrected Christ and Paul from the ascended Christ. Both could in their spheres bring salvation to those who believed. Here in a few verses Paul denies the existence of even another similar gospel.

Other versions bring this out.

NET Bible
not that there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to change the good news about the Messiah.

English Standard Version
not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

To bypass a war of translations I decided to go back and see how people who lived in the first three centuries A.D. understood these verses. I figured they ought to know at least the simple meaning of the text because they could read it in their native language which was Koine Greek.

For two extremes I picked the famous Bible teacher John Chrysostom and the arch heretic Marcion. As I showed in my post BOTH men, though utterly opposed in their views, understood Paul to mean that there was no other gospel (other than his). Chrysostom thought Paul added Galatians 1:7 so that the Galatians would not conclude from his remarks about "gospels" that there really were multiple (authentic) gospels.

When Marcion the heretic read these verses he took it at face value to mean the same thing - that Paul was saying his gospel was the only one. Like dual gospel proponents today Marcion believed "Paul's gospel" which had been given to him by special revelation was fundamentally different from that which was delivered to the Apostles by Jesus. Marcion took his reading seriously and produced his own Bible which included only the writings of Paul and Luke.

Chrysostom argued that although there were other teachings they were all part of the same corpus of truth. Like all the Church Fathers before him, back to the First Century he believed in the essential unity of the NT and that all the writings it contained were equally inspired and mandatory for believers. You will notice, I hope how far the dual gospel view is from the earliest teachings of Christianity.

I think the issue of Baptism is off topic but I will say that while the Bible does sometimes speak of more than one Baptism we need not suppose that they cannot be mentioned singularly. To determine which Baptism he is referring to in this verse we have to ask ourselves which one which brings us together to become one body.

 

[glorydaz]

Part of my point centered on the meaning of two Greek adjectives: heteros which meant "another of a different kind" and allos which meant another of a "similar kind" The heteros teaching Paul alludes to in Galatians was the "gospel" of the Judaizers but he adds that there were none others either similar to his.

If the dual gospel hypothesis were true there WOULD have been another "similar" kind of Gospel and - the gospel of the Jews. Paul's teaching and that of the Twelve would have been of a similar kind in that they both came from Jesus, the disciples from the Resurrected Christ and Paul from the ascended Christ. Both could in their spheres bring salvation to those who believed. Here in a few verses Paul denies the existence of even another similar gospel.

Other versions bring this out.

NET Bible
not that there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to change the good news about the Messiah.

English Standard Version
not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

To bypass a war of translations I decided to go back and see how people who lived in the first three centuries A.D. understood these verses. I figured they ought to know at least the simple meaning of the text because they could read it in their native language which was Koine Greek.

For two extremes I picked the famous Bible teacher John Chrysostom and the arch heretic Marcion. As I showed in my post BOTH men, though utterly opposed in their views, understood Paul to mean that there was no other gospel (other than his). Chrysostom thought Paul added Galatians 1:7 so that the Galatians would not conclude from his remarks about "gospels" that there really were multiple (authentic) gospels.

When Marcion the heretic read these verses he took it at face value to mean the same thing - that Paul was saying his gospel was the only one. Like dual gospel proponents today Marcion believed "Paul's gospel" which had been given to him by special revelation was fundamentally different from that which was delivered to the Apostles by Jesus. Marcion took his reading seriously and produced his own Bible which included only the writings of Paul and Luke.

Chrysostom argued that although there were other teachings they were all part of the same corpus of truth. Like all the Church Fathers before him, back to the First Century he believed in the essential unity of the NT and that all the writings it contained were equally inspired and mandatory for believers. You will notice, I hope how far the dual gospel view is from the earliest teachings of Christianity.

I think the issue of Baptism is off topic but I will say that while the Bible does sometimes speak of more than one Baptism we need not suppose that they cannot be mentioned singularly. To determine which Baptism he is referring to in this verse we have to ask ourselves which one which brings us together to become one body.

Yeah, that's all pretty impressive, but the fact remains the "gospel of the kingdom" is not the same as Paul's gospel. I don't know how you can explain that away with any number of fancy words. They are not the same. Period.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, and I know assuming is not the way to read scripture.

And, I know that when Paul says "other gospel" there must be another gospel...or even more out there. Why would he say there were "other" gospels if there weren't? Any other than the one we have preached..... It's quite clear to me.

Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.​

Because by saying "any" it doesn't matter how many others. He still means only one is valid, and all the true apostles knew it, including Peter, since there are a ton of social details about this conflict. There were other gospels from Judaism's impostor apostles, 2 Cor 11:4.

 

[Interplanner]

Yeah, that's all pretty impressive, but the fact remains the "gospel of the kingdom" is not the same as Paul's gospel. I don't know how you can explain that away with any number of fancy words. They are not the same. Period.

No GloryD,
Paul would not do that. Look for ex., at the overall of Acts 18 to 19. Teaching that Jesus was the Christ (sampled in Acts 13's sermon) was teaching the Gospel. It also proclaims the kingdom of God as active right now, 18:8. It is no wonder that both offend those in Judaism at the same time and stroke.

The kingdom means the reign. God has made (ie enthroned) Jesus Lord and Christ, Acts 2, for his work of suffering for our sins. When this is proclaimed it affects our whole world and whom we should serve. Likewise, the Gospel is said to be a message that the whole world will hopefully believe and obey in Rom 16. It is the same.

There is no other Gospel, and there is no reason why Paul can't call this the Gospel of the kingdom because he joins things together; he does not separate things, unless it is sin or evil.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh wrote:
that righteousness which was of the Law by faith
Was that ever mentioned? Of the Law and by faith? At the same time? In the OT?


Obviously, this faith in Him was not that He died for sin, for He was sometime off before the Cross.
Sorry, not obvious.

Regarding Point 1:

According to the many passages the following ones being a msall sample; Matthew thru John are Old Testament Ground.

Malachi 4:

4. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Galatians 4:

1. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Hebrews 9:

15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

In Romans 9, the Apostle Paul describes that righteousness which was of the Law, by faith at the time of the above Law Dispensation, or Economy:

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

Had they kept the Law because they believed Moses [in other words, "as pleasing God"] and not as mere dead works [simply "as pleasing men"] they would have also believed Moses that Jesus was the Christ Moses had written of.

Matt. thru John before the Cross was OT ground. Luke 1, illustrates this law of righteousness by faith under Moses:

5. THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Why? Merely because they kept the Law? No. Rather; because they kept it by faith.

Note Romans 2:

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

But the issue was not simply the outward semblance of keeping the Law, in other words, before men:

28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Rather, the issue was that of keeping the Law by faith:

29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Those of faith back when the Law Dispensation or Economy, was the system in place as to God's dealing with sinners, God would, in His forbearance, declare His Son's coming righteousness - the Cross - for the remission of these sins that were past.

He declared this truth through Paul in passages like this here from Romans 3:

24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Point 2 follows this faith principle - believe Moses - prior to the Cross:

In John 5, for example, the Lord condemns those of Israel for not believing Moses that He was the One Moses had written of.

John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Obviously, this faith in Him - in passages like this one here, in John 5 - was not that He died for sin, for He was sometime off before dying on the Cross.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
declare His Son's coming righteousness

Ohhhhh....it's coming. Ohhhhh. You're right, you know. the OT is full of announcements that his righteousness was coming. Way before Matthew--John. Get it? Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoiced; get it?

The fused phrase 'under the Law by faith' is an oxymoron. It is a failure. That's why there is one Gospel, and Paul said it was the same Abraham heard. Not just Paul said, but "The Scriptures foresaw...and announced the gospel..." Isn't that funny? The Bible talks about itself!

We'd better listen to those.

Judaism replaced and voided the Gospel with the Law, Gal 3:17. That is the RT problem that needs to be fixed.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh wrote:
declare His Son's coming righteousness

Ohhhhh....it's coming. Ohhhhh. You're right, you know. the OT is full of announcements that his righteousness was coming. Way before Matthew--John. Get it? Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoiced; get it?

The fused phrase 'under the Law by faith' is an oxymoron. It is a failure. That's why there is one Gospel, and Paul said it was the same Abraham heard. Not just Paul said, but "The Scriptures foresaw...and announced the gospel..." Isn't that funny? The Bible talks about itself!

We'd better listen to those.

Judaism replaced and voided the Gospel with the Law, Gal 3:17. That is the RT problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm not in the least bit surprised you cherry picked that into fitting your books based supposed "understanding" of faith "before Christ came."

 

[Interplanner]

"The Scriptures foresaw..." is Gal 3:8. It is not books.

 

[Danoh]

"The Scriptures foresaw..." is Gal 3:8. It is not books.

What your books say "about" it... is.

 

[Interplanner]

And so, what does Gal 3:8 tell you about how Scripture is self-organized before any dastardly theolog writes about it? Answer the question that matters, please, not the jab you live for that you get to make by posting.

 

[Shasta]

Regarding Point 1:

According to the many passages the following ones being a msall sample; Matthew thru John are Old Testament Ground.

Malachi 4:

4. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Galatians 4:

1. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Hebrews 9:

15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

In Romans 9, the Apostle Paul describes that righteousness which was of the Law, by faith at the time of the above Law Dispensation, or Economy:

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

Had they kept the Law because they believed Moses [in other words, "as pleasing God"] and not as mere dead works [simply "as pleasing men"] they would have also believed Moses that Jesus was the Christ Moses had written of.

Matt. thru John before the Cross was OT ground. Luke 1, illustrates this law of righteousness by faith under Moses:

5. THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Why? Merely because they kept the Law? No. Rather; because they kept it by faith.

Note Romans 2:

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

But the issue was not simply the outward semblance of keeping the Law, in other words, before men:

28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Rather, the issue was that of keeping the Law by faith:

29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Those of faith back when the Law Dispensation or Economy, was the system in place as to God's dealing with sinners, God would, in His forbearance, declare His Son's coming righteousness - the Cross - for the remission of these sins that were past.

He declared this truth through Paul in passages like this here from Romans 3:

24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Point 2 follows this faith principle - believe Moses - prior to the Cross:

In John 5, for example, the Lord condemns those of Israel for not believing Moses that He was the One Moses had written of.

John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Obviously, this faith in Him - in passages like this one here, in John 5 - was not that He died for sin, for He was sometime off before dying on the Cross.

No, the Bible says that the period of the Law and Prophets lasted only until the ministry of John the Baptist.

“The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.
(Luke 16:16)

John the Baptist was the last of the old line of prophets and his mission was to introduce the One who would bring new wine as well as new wineskins.

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:9)

This idea, that Jesus was to be the Passover Lamb was in the prophets but the reality of it was for those who would enjoy the benefits of the New Covenant. John's call for people to repent of their sins and "bring forth fruit worthy of repentance" was the same as the message of the OT prophets but the promise of forgiveness and cleansing of this sort could not have been experienced before Jesus. As the forerunner, however, John seemed to have more prophetic insight than the other prophets.

The fulfillment of the promise of atonement would occur until after the cross and resurrection. Still, Jesus proclaimed many NT gospel truths in advance of their fulfillment. John 3:16 has probably brought more people to salvation than any other single verse but when it was spoken the promise remained to be fulfilled, or, rather, the truth was like a promissory note, valid but held in reserve until the work of the cross had been completed.

Still that which was revealed about Jesus nature and purpose became essential parts of the body of truth that was called the Gospel. The revelation grew until the cross and continued to deepen and be clarified for years afterward. Early believers back to the first century always held the Gospels to be of equal authority to the teachings of Paul and the others because they saw the interconnectedness of all truths of the Gospel. The whole idea of multiple gospels must have been lost entirely - if it ever existed. The Apostles and Paul apparently were not even able to pass the truth of separate Jewish and Gentile gospels to the next generation.

 

[Interplanner]

It's just MADness.