Galatians 3:13

[Faithofchristian]

The Mosaic law was one that did not demand faith, it demanded unyielding works and sinning had a wage, death. Even Ezekiel clearly stated that.

The New Covenant, the Law of Faith - had an important legal change. Works were now demanded to prove one's faith, no longer did one act of mistake, sin - condemn the sinner to death since the faith in the cleansing effects of the ransom handled that.

So, the Law (Moses) demanded works to live, if even one of the laws were broken, death was guaranteed.
The Law of Faith, New Covenant, demands works of faith, good works, when proving that a person has faith, faith in the ransom of Christ, one sin, even many - do not cause death. The practice of willful serious sin deliberately knowing that it is a sin that leads to death when practiced makes a person into a son of the devil. This now damns for all eternity.

The law of Faith did not come by the New Testament, The law of Faith was established by Abraham back in the book of Genesis, thru the law of Circumcision, That God had Abraham to Circumcision himself to show his faith in God.

That now we do not have to show our faith by circumcision, but by our faith in God.

For we are not justified by the law of circumcision, but justified by our faith in God.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Well, as I said, it was a Christian viewpoint I explained.

Once you begin with disagreeing with Paul or others, there is really nothing to discuss from my side. since Paul was educated at the feet of a famous Rabbi, and was given special knowledge in revelation by Christ, I cannot begin to question his logic and interpretation of scripture.

What is - is, what isn't - is not.

Paul was educated by his father, who was a Pharisee of Israel, as was Paul a Pharisee.and knew the old testament scriptures quite well.

 

[Grandliseur]

If I may say, there were no laws abolished,
The law of animal sacrifices and the sacrificial lamb offering was fulfilled by Christ Jesus at the cross.

Once Christ Jesus came, we no longer have to give animal sacrifices for our sins, We go right to God the Father thru Christ Jesus our Lord.

There is no where written that any of the laws were abolished. Only fulfilled by Christ Jesus. Once the law was fulfilled they came to an end.

I don't know how you explain the verses I give you below then:

Eph 2:15: having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;

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

Colossians 2:14: having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

Gal 3:13: Christ did redeem us from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse, for it hath been written, `Cursed is every one who is hanging on a tree,'

Rom 3:31:Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law.
Gal 6:2: Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
James 1:25: But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing​

How you explain your wording against the Biblical one is your problem. You are welcome to let me enjoy your explanations.

 

[Grandliseur]

Paul was educated by his father, who was a Pharisee of Israel, as was Paul a Pharisee.and knew the old testament scriptures quite well.

Acts 22:3 I, am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but nurtured in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel,—trained after the strictness of our ancestral law; being jealous for God just as, all ye, are this day;​

Barnes, in his commetary says: "At the feet of Gamaliel. As a scholar, or disciple of Gamaliel. The phrase, to sit at the feet of one, is expressive of the condition of a disciple or learner. . ."

Nowhere does this mention that this was his father.
Quoting Wiki:

Rabban Gamaliel I, was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the early 1st century AD. He was the son of Simeon ben Hillel, and grandson of the great Jewish teacher Hillel the Elder. Gamaliel is thought to have died in 52 AC (AM 3813).[2] He fathered a son, whom he called Simeon, after his father,[3] and a daughter, who married a priest named Simon ben Nathanael.[4]​

If you have evidence for this being Paul's father, please let me see this.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't know how you explain the verses I give you below then:

Eph 2:15: having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;

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

Colossians 2:14: having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

Gal 3:13: Christ did redeem us from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse, for it hath been written, `Cursed is every one who is hanging on a tree,'

Rom 3:31:Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law.
Gal 6:2: Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
James 1:25: But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing​

How you explain your wording against the Biblical one is your problem. You are welcome to let me enjoy your explanations.

The law contained in ordinances, is the animal sacrifices and the law of circumcision. That came to an end at the cross of Christ Jesus.

 

[Grandliseur]

The law contained in ordinances, is the animal sacrifices and the law of circumcision. That came to an end at the cross of Christ Jesus.

That is your interpretation of that statement. As the other scriptures clearly indicate, a change of law had to happen due to a change of priesthood. This is not just 'animal sacrifices and circumcision.'

Anyway, you are welcome to your conclusions. I have the scriptures I gave you for forming my conclusions on.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Acts 22:3 I, am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but nurtured in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel,—trained after the strictness of our ancestral law; being jealous for God just as, all ye, are this day;​

Barnes, in his commetary says: "At the feet of Gamaliel. As a scholar, or disciple of Gamaliel. The phrase, to sit at the feet of one, is expressive of the condition of a disciple or learner. . ."

Nowhere does this mention that this was his father.
Quoting Wiki:

Rabban Gamaliel I, was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the early 1st century AD. He was the son of Simeon ben Hillel, and grandson of the great Jewish teacher Hillel the Elder. Gamaliel is thought to have died in 52 AC (AM 3813).[2] He fathered a son, whom he called Simeon, after his father,[3] and a daughter, who married a priest named Simon ben Nathanael.[4]​

If you have evidence for this being Paul's father, please let me see this.

Had you read Acts 23:6--"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren,
I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question"

Therefore Paul states himself as a Pharisee and his father as a Pharisee.

 

[Phantasman]

I find at Leviticus 18:4-5 that the Israelites were to 'live' by God's Law ( or be cursed ).
The Jews were to live by that Constitution of the Mosaic Law.
So, ' to live ' would sound good that the Law was there for their life. It would be a life-giving hope for them.
Instead, the Law showed everyone that we are all imperfect, or are sinners, thus life could Not come by the Law.
More was necessary, and Paul recognized more than the Law was necessary at Galatians 3:21-24.
Paul recognized a need for a redeemer to come and redeem us as per Galatians 3:19; Genesis 3:15.
So, Christ was the necessary one who released them and us from that 'curse' as mentioned at Deuteronomy 21:22-23.
So, the ' curse ' brought on by breaking God's Law, then it was Jesus who removed that curse or barrier to life ( eternal life ) for the Jews and for the rest of us.
So the ' tree ' Scriptures of Galatians 3:13, and Acts of the Apostles 5:30; Acts of the Apostles 10:39 is referencing Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

It wasn't "Gods" law. It was Moses law. Ezra started the law of god, and many followed, losing site.

Luke:
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

The law of Moses was of flesh, and identified sin. But sin is not of the flesh, but of the mind.

Romans:
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

The law of God comes by love through the Spirit. Without the Spirit, one cannot fulfill the law (of Moses) as Jesus did. This is the baptism, first of redemption (water) then of fire (Spirit). The Spirit of truth, Gods Holy Spirit. The Jews didn't have it and relied on Moses law. But still died. Their faith saved them at Jesus resurrection. This is all explained in the Gospel and by Paul.

Moses gave the law, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. We are saved by grace through faith of the truth now. Not by the law. Show me one verse in the Gospel (or Paul) that says that the law saves or saved anyone.

Romans:
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the (Mosaic) law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Spirit is capitalized (Spirit of truth, Holy Spirit)

 

[Faithofchristian]

That is your interpretation of that statement. As the other scriptures clearly indicate, a change of law had to happen due to a change of priesthood. This is not just 'animal sacrifices and circumcision.'

Anyway, you are welcome to your conclusions. I have the scriptures I gave you for forming my conclusions on.

The change of the law came about, when Christ Jesus came and fulfilled the law, of the sacrificial lamb offering, which brought about the change in the priest hood.

Therefore if there be a change in the law, then there is a change in the Priesthood

 

[Faithofchristian]

It wasn't "Gods" law. It was Moses law. Ezra started the law of god, and many followed, losing site.

Luke:
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

The law of Moses was of flesh, and identified sin. But sin is not of the flesh, but of the mind.

Romans:
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

The law of God comes by love through the Spirit. Without the Spirit, one cannot fulfill the law (of Moses) as Jesus did. This is the baptism, first of redemption (water) then of fire (Spirit). The Spirit of truth, Gods Holy Spirit. The Jews didn't have it and relied on Moses law. But still died. Their faith saved them at Jesus resurrection. This is all explained in the Gospel and by Paul.

Moses gave the law, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. We are saved by grace through faith of the truth now. Not by the law. Show me one verse in the Gospel (or Paul) that says that the law saves or saved anyone.

Romans:
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the (Mosaic) law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Spirit is capitalized (Spirit of truth, Holy Spirit)

Do you know what the law of sin is that Paul is speaking about in Romans ?

There are two laws that Paul speaking about, do you know which law is which.

Paul also speaks about the law of sin and death. What law is that ?

 

[Phantasman]

If I may say, there were no laws abolished,
The law of animal sacrifices and the sacrificial lamb offering was fulfilled by Christ Jesus at the cross.

Once Christ Jesus came, we no longer have to give animal sacrifices for our sins, We go right to God the Father thru Christ Jesus our Lord.

There is no where written that any of the laws were abolished. Only fulfilled by Christ Jesus. Once the law was fulfilled they came to an end.

How does scripture explain this?

Luke:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Exodus:
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Instead, the Law showed everyone that we are all imperfect, or are sinners, thus life could Not come by the Law.

Does the law itself state that is it's purpose, or is this a New Testament inference? I'm trying to figure out with this thread if the New Testament indeed faithfully represents the Hebrew scriptures in matters like this. The law itself doesn't say it's purpose is to reveal everyone as a sinner incapable of keeping it- that I can recall anyhow...

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"
Galatians 3:10

What happened to all that stuff about the law being a delight?

Psalm 119:47 How I delight in your commands! How I love them!

If the law is a curse, David doesn't seem to have been aware. The commands of the law positively thrilled him.

 

[Phantasman]

Do you know what the law of sin is that Paul is speaking about in Romans ?

There are two laws that Paul speaking about, do you know which law is which.

Paul also speaks about the law of sin and death. What law is that ?

Any law that is not the law of Spirit. John 8. The spirit is what makes alive. The flesh profits nothing. Sin and death is flesh, not spirit.

 

[Faithofchristian]

How does scripture explain this?

Luke:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Exodus:
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

What Luke is referring to, If you love your father and mother and brother and sister more than Christ Jesus can not be his disciple.

Your first love is to God.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

My perspective is that the OT must be read in light of the NT, as this reveals more of the big picture God intends for us to see.

That may be your perspective, but the Hebrew scriptures seem to no where imply it.

If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God. Deut. 21:23

Right. These verses plainly say they are about a penalty for specific sins, but do not plainly say anything like Paul inferred- including that the messiah could hang on a tree to lift the 'curse of the law'.

Paul realized and was teaching that all were under the curse of death because all were sinful and failed to keep the law. Yet, Christ kept the law and bore the sins of all on the cross (tree) so that all may have eternal life instead of death.

I don't see how the Torah anywhere implies Christ could do this. In fact, Ezekiel 18 seems to deny such an idea outright.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

The Law of Faith which replaced it - had many of the foundation laws transferred into it.

Now the Torah wasn't all abolished as a curse, but divided- and the 'still applicable' parts were folded in? You're losing me here...

The Mosaic law was one that did not demand faith, it demanded unyielding works and sinning had a wage, death. Even Ezekiel clearly stated that.

The Mosaic law did not require 'faith'? Faith such as: you shall love the Lord your God...?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Does the law itself state that is it's purpose, or is this a New Testament inference? I'm trying to figure out with this thread if the New Testament indeed faithfully represents the Hebrew scriptures in matters like this. The law itself doesn't say it's purpose is to reveal everyone as a sinner incapable of keeping it- that I can recall anyhow...



What happened to all that stuff about the law being a delight?

Psalm 119:47 How I delight in your commands! How I love them!

If the law is a curse, David doesn't seem to have been aware. The commands of the law positively thrilled him.

Have you any idea as to which is which that is being spoken about.

Which law is a curse, what law is that ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Any law that is not the law of Spirit. John 8. The spirit is what makes alive. The flesh profits nothing. Sin and death is flesh, not spirit.

What law is sin and death. What law is that

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Have you any idea as to which is which that is being spoken about.

Which law is a curse, what law is that ?

Presumably the Mosaic Law, as Christians in this thread keep telling me I am correct to infer. Look, don't try to gaslight me, just respond to my questions.

I've read the Bible and possess comprehension skills- believe that or not...

 

[Grandliseur]

Therefore Paul states himself as a Pharisee and his father as a Pharisee.

Thank you for this. I like that. However, you as well as I know that though he says his father is a Pharisee, he doesn't say who he is.

My wife and I used to teach. I must say, personally, I would prefer not to teach my own sons.
I recognize the possibility. It is a bit strange that the references mention nothing about this being the case, and some of these references have scholars behind them.

I might put in a little more digging into this. If you find something let me know.