J_Edwards said:
This would be incorrect. I have already shown that the Mosaic Law is in view from the context of Galatians 3 and 4.
I think you may have misunderstood my point. Of course ritual Judaism (the Law) is in view here, as it clearly deals with keeping of holy days and circumcision. But my intended point was that Paul's objections were the use of the Law as a means of work-based righteousness. He objected to the circumcision of Gentile believers because the only reason a Gentile (in those days) would be circumcised was to become a proselyte Jew, which would mean that the Jew had some advantage in standing before God through the Law, which we agree is a denial of the Gospel. Clearly, these Gentiles cannot
return to the Law per se, because they did not come from there. They came out of paganism. This is evident from the text...
But then indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now, after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? (Galatians 4:8-9)
Paul is saying that they are returning from whence they came. But they did not come out of ritual Judaism. They were not returning to a ritual Judaism that they had never practiced. They came out of paganism (“you served those which... are not gods.”) Paul is referring to the basic elements and rituals of religion as a means of righteousness. Legalism is legalism whether Jewish or pagan. It is legalism that Paul is objecting to in this letter. The Law is just the case of legalism that was in view; case in point so to speak. What these Galatians were doing was was as much a perversion of the Law as it was a perversion of the Gospel.
While your overall approach to this subject of why Paul continued to keep Torah is compelling (that he might win the Jews), you lose me when you bring Galatians into the discussion. Nothing in Galatians speaks to the original subject of this post: whether or to what degree the Law remained in effect for Jewish believers. The message of Galatians is that we are not saved by the works of the flesh, but by grace. Since the purpose of the Law was never to save, Paul's teaching in Galatians that it cannot save now does not indicate a change in the status of the Law. I agree wholeheartedly (I think) with the quotes from Kistenmaer and Calvin, in fact I think they make my point.
J_Edwards said:
I do not see how you can say, “the plain implication of the JC was that what was clearly decreed concerning the Gentiles was not necessarily true for the Jews” when Paul is making the point that “all [are] one in Christ Jesus.” Paul’s point is that whether Jew or Gentile they are justified the same way. The ceremonia law is of no value. His point is that a Jew is no better than a Gentile (in Romans he shows the “advantage” of the Jew, but this is not saying the Jew is “better” or needs the law) and the Gentile is not better than the Jew.
I agree that Paul teaches that the Law is of no value to the Jew in terms of justification. I agree that the Paul clearly teaches that the Jew has no advantage over the Gentile, and that we are both one in Christ! Amen! We agree! But again, this whole line of reasoning misses the point. All it tells us is that the Jew and Gentile are both saved the same way - by faith. But it does not prove that the Jewish people no longer have a relationship to Torah that does not exist for Gentiles. Doesn't Paul also teache that there is neither “male nor female” and neither "slave nor free”? Does Paul really mean that there is no difference between the calling and roles of men and women in the earth, both in the church and in society? Paul certainly believed and taught that there was a difference! Likewise, Paul still taught slaves to obey their masters. So we conclude that we are all one in Christ, we are all equal in Christ, but we are not all
the same. So then, could the Law still hold some purpose for Jewish believers that it does not hold for Gentiles? If ethnic Israel no longer exists or has any meaning in God's redemptive economy as Covenant theology maintains, and as you asserted in your original post (I think), then the answer is clearly “no.” But if ethnic Israel does still have a purpose in God's redemptive economy, then the answer may well be “yes.” (If I have misrepresented your position on Israel, then pls forgive.)
I would not qualify as a dispensationalist, as I think the idea of a “church age”, and the conclusions that are drawn from it, are un-biblical for the most part, but I do not see the replacement of ethnic Israel with spiritual Israel either. A few of the reasons...
Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah – not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. (Jeremiah 31:31-32)
During Jeremiah's day, the "House of Israel and the House of Judah" referred very specifically to two earthly kingdoms composed of the 12 tribes of the children of Israel, a national and ethnic people. Therefore, the promise of the New Covenant is made to a national and ethnic people; the Jews.
Doesn't Paul clearly states that the Jewish people are still central to God's redemptive work in the earth?
For if their being cast away is reconciling of the world, then what will their acceptance be but life from the dead. (Romans 11:15).
Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (Romans 11:28-29)
What others have concluded about God's ongoing plans and purposes for national Israel:
Edwards:
“Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11.”
Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol 1, Banner of Truth, reprint, 1976, 607
I'm probably going to regret that one! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/stupidme.gif" alt="" />
Spurgeon:
"The day shall yet come when the Jews, who were the first apostles to the Gentiles, the first missionaries to us who were afar off, shall be gathered in again. . . . Matchless benefits to the world are bound up with the restoration of Israel; their gathering in shall be as life from the dead." Cited in Murray, 256
Oops! Methinks I digress. But what we believe about Israel does have implications in how we answer the question being explored in these posts.
J_Edwards said:
When Catholics attempt to make this point, I maintain they are saying that the Pope speaking "Ex Cathedra" is more scriptural than Scripture itself. They normally digress and become very defensive.
Excellent! Umm, can I use that? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" />
J_Edwards said:
You are attempting to second guess Paul. Paul thought this step was necessary. If we study Paul’s missionary style, if he did not keep the ceremonial law in some places he would not have even had access to the synagogues and thus his pulpit to the Jew would have disappeared.
Perhaps my choice of words was unfortunate. I was not second-guessing Paul. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> I was second guessing your interpretation of Paul's motives.
J_Edwards said:
As far as the omitted clause in some manuscripts, Metzger states that the case is overwhelming for its inclusion. The Textus Receptus, contains a copyist error of omission.
I see that most of the modern translations include it. No disagreement here. Paul says that he is not “under the law.” But if we examine Paul's other uses of this expression “under the law”, it is generally pejorative; something that is not good; a legalistic interpretation of Torah. I would not necessarily follow that Paul does not consider himself as living within the framework of Torah as a faithful Jew.
J_Edwards said:Acts 21:20 is followed by Acts 20:21-23 f.
And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. "What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; …
Note that the word from the JC had not completely spread yet. They did not have telephones, e-mail, TV, or TBN <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> . They had IPR (Israel Postal Route) with mule one and mule two. The Word was progressing, but slowly. Thus, so Paul could be all things to all men (orderly, keeping the Law, Acts 21:24)
You need to help me out here, as I am not following your point. Yes, the donkey-net was slow, so....?
It would seem that Paul had an excellent opportunity to teach these folks to forsake the Law of Moses, if that was indeed the truth that they had not yet assimilated. I find many instances in scripture of Paul teaching against a legalistic application of the Law, but I find no instance of him teaching Jews that they should forsake it. If it had not place for them, then why didn't Paul teach Jewish believers to discard the Law as a hindrance to the Gospel.
While I may take issue with some of your points, I am not certain that you a wrong in your overall conclusion...but not sure you are right either. Sorry for meandering from the original point somewhat, but the larger questions are interesting and important. (They don't exactly teach this stuff in Sunday School, do they?)
Yours in Christ - Jim <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />
