This thread is to look a bit at Gal 3 instead of keeping the discussion on Nick's thread.
I posed this in Nick's thread on Abraham...
It seems by the gospel accounts that Jews had seen Abraham as a celebrity and the start of their heritage. John the Baptist is noted (in Matt 3:8-9) as saying that God could raise up children of Abraham from stones.
The powerful point made in Galatians 3 is that the followers of Christ enjoy the covenant of Abraham without any intervention (or obligation) of the Mosaic covenant. Hence, the Jewish laws formed no obligation (toward justification or our walk with God) upon the Christian. In a sense, we became enjoyers of the original covenant which did not have the complications which were added by the Law of Moses (or by subsequent additions to that law).
Faber then noted:
I don't know if I would exactly fit into either one of those theological frameworks. But I looked at this website: http://www.the-highway.com/covenant-...nsational.html and probably fit right in the middle between those views.
As may be obvious, it seems that Paul has shown that the law of Moses was not applicable to gentiles. This is similar to the concept that Chinese laws do not apply to me in California. Paul makes this point in Rom 3:19-20.
The laws were not made an obligation upon Christians, in part, because Jews eventually placed more importance on aspects of law rather than obedience to God. This problem would have developed among any people with whom God could have made the same type of covenant with -- i.e. the same terms of covenant as made with Israel. What we see in Isa 5:1-4 (from the insights of the New Testament) is that mankind (as tested within the Mosaic covenant) could not be restored unto proper behavior by external changes, i.e. the law of Moses and the corrective actions of the prophets. A change of nature was required, as done through the gift of the Holy Spirit through Christ.
I posed this in Nick's thread on Abraham...
It seems by the gospel accounts that Jews had seen Abraham as a celebrity and the start of their heritage. John the Baptist is noted (in Matt 3:8-9) as saying that God could raise up children of Abraham from stones.
The powerful point made in Galatians 3 is that the followers of Christ enjoy the covenant of Abraham without any intervention (or obligation) of the Mosaic covenant. Hence, the Jewish laws formed no obligation (toward justification or our walk with God) upon the Christian. In a sense, we became enjoyers of the original covenant which did not have the complications which were added by the Law of Moses (or by subsequent additions to that law).
Which revives the covenant theology-dispensationalism debate over God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants.
I don't know if I would exactly fit into either one of those theological frameworks. But I looked at this website: http://www.the-highway.com/covenant-...nsational.html and probably fit right in the middle between those views.
As may be obvious, it seems that Paul has shown that the law of Moses was not applicable to gentiles. This is similar to the concept that Chinese laws do not apply to me in California. Paul makes this point in Rom 3:19-20.
The laws were not made an obligation upon Christians, in part, because Jews eventually placed more importance on aspects of law rather than obedience to God. This problem would have developed among any people with whom God could have made the same type of covenant with -- i.e. the same terms of covenant as made with Israel. What we see in Isa 5:1-4 (from the insights of the New Testament) is that mankind (as tested within the Mosaic covenant) could not be restored unto proper behavior by external changes, i.e. the law of Moses and the corrective actions of the prophets. A change of nature was required, as done through the gift of the Holy Spirit through Christ.
Comment