In this study, Ariel Berkowitz examines the context of Paul's letter, to determine the veracity of these claims. Is the ghost of Marcion still at large in the Church today? What is your understanding of Galatians 3: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, th Have you heard it said that Paul taught against keeping some of God's commandments like circumcision?
Or have you been told that Paul was a false apostle because he did away with some of God's commandments? Exegeting Galatians Historically, the book of Galatians has been widely misunderstood, due largely to the technical discussions of biblical topics ranging from circumcision, to the Torah, to freedom in Christ. A contextual study of Galatians will Sign up for our Newsletter! Check out this video. It has some information that is very relevant to your argument.
It is simply an identifying opening for what is to follow. Also the Torah itself recognized that before the giving of the Messiah and the revelation of the Torah, Gentiles were sinners Gal. However, it should be noted that he also went out his way to emphasize the equality of Jews and Gentiles before HaShem. Being declared righteous by HaShem is the goal of all men who seek HaShem. Righteousness can be defined in two ways: Forensic righteousness is appropriated by an individual for himself the moment he unreservedly puts his trust in HaShem, which at this point in history, entails also trusting in Yeshua the Messiah upon learning of him and understanding what he has done.
What is important to keep in mind here is the difference between these two kinds of righteousness. Each time the Greek word "dikaioo" "righteousness" or a cognate is encountered, it must be decided which of these two meanings of the word is meant. In the present verse and the next, all four instances of "dikaioo" refer to forensic righteousness. But in verse 21, the related word "dikaiosune" refers to behavioral righteousness. Torah, most Christians usually understand "works of law" to mean "actions done in obedience to the Torah.
One of the best-kept secrets about the New Testament is that when Sha'ul writes "nomos" he frequently does not mean "divine law" but "a man-made system of law. Two other uses of "ergon" "works" are closely associated with the word "nomos" "law" in Rom. There are 17 other instances when it is neutral. In order to interpret Sha'ul correctly one needs to understand that the phrase "ergon nomos" does not mean deeds done in virtue of following the Torah the way HaShem intended, but deeds done in consequence of perverting the Torah into a set of rules which, it is presumed, can be obeyed mechanically, automatically, legalistically, without having faith, without having trust in HaShem, without having love for HaShem or man, and without being empowered by the Ruach HaKodesh Holy Spirit.
The ceremony included circumcision for the males. The poison of Ethnocentric Jewish Exclusivism permeated the first century Jewish society. Firstly, allow me to define the important Greek words we will encounter during this section:. Obviously God has not cleansed katharizo those animals that he created to be intrinsically unclean akathartos! If I, Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy, the author of this commentary, could convey this single, important point to your average Christian pastor, then we would not be having this conversation at all!
The vision is just that—a vision! The Levitical definition of permitted and forbidden animals, as outlined in chapter 11, cannot change! God remains the same both yesterday, today, and forever! Why would he need to change the rules governing the definition of food with the arrival of his Son? It makes nonsense to suppose such a reading of Acts chapter 10! We should not suppose that this is a mystery hidden from the Jewish people only now to be revealed after his Son has gone to the execution stake on the same level as the mystery of the gospel that the Gentiles are now to be welcomed into Isra'el as full-fledged covenant members if they place their trust in Yeshua.
If HaShem is not cleansing katharizo unclean akathartos animals then what is he cleansing?
How are we to understand the vision? I personally believe that Kefa's interpretation of his own vision is the best and most important interpretation offered. Although the sheet contained all manner of animals, I believe what HaShem is trying to get Kefa to understand is that the animals represent all manner of peoples, not the literal animals themselves. This interpretation is in accord with the unchangeable nature of HaShem. To be sure, is this not how Kefa interprets the vision himself in verses 28, 34 and 35? But God has shown me not to call any person common or unclean. But I thought that the Torah forbade Jews from having contact with Gentiles.
And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. He said to them, "You understand how wrong it is for a Jewish man to associate or visit with anyone of another race. But God has shown me that I should no longer call anyone impure or unclean.
Galatians for the Practical Messianic by J K McKee (Paperback, ) | eBay
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. And he said to them, You yourselves have knowledge that it is against the law for a man who is a Jew to be in the company of one who is of another nation; but God has made it clear to me that no man may be named common or unclean: And he said to them, Ye know how it is unlawful for a Jew to be joined or come to one of a strange race, and to me God has shewn to call no man common or unclean.
He said to them, "You know better than most that a Jew is strictly forbidden to associate with a Gentile or visit him; but God has taught me to call no one unholy or unclean. And he said to them, Ye know that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come to one of another nation; but God hath shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
He said to them, "You yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to join himself or come to one of another nation, but God has shown me that I shouldn't call any man unholy or unclean. And he said unto them, 'Ye know how it is unlawful for a man, a Jew, to keep company with, or to come unto, one of another race, but to me God did shew to call no man common or unclean.
Even The Scriptures, a version popular among Messianics, leaves room for questioning the real intent of the translators:. But Elohim has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. The Greek word athemitos, found in only two places in the Apostolic Scriptures, [4] is a composite of two Greek words: To be sure, our writer Luke uses anomos at Acts 2: David Sterns CJB is a better translation of this pasuk:. He said to them, "You are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have close association with someone who belongs to another people, or to come and visit him, is something that just isn't done.
But God has shown me not to call any person common or unclean Emphasis, mine. In other words, Kefa was just regurgitating the standard mantra of his day. This did not excuse his error, which is why HaShem went through all the trouble to send him the vision in the first place. In the end, the message of the Acts 10 vision is crystal clear: Gentiles in Yeshua are not intrinsically unclean akathartos , as the 1st century Judaisms were professing.
Man, created clean katharos , fell to a state of unclean koinos , later to be declared cleansed katharizo by the blood of the Sacrificial Lamb of God if he accepted such an offer. To use the language of the vision: Jews are not lambs while Gentiles are pigs. Rather, Jews and Gentiles are both lambs! Both have become unclean koinos , by sin; both have been cleansed katharizo by Yeshua!
No one is intrinsically unclean akathartos! No one was created sinful! Born into sin, yes; created sinners, no! Grace, with Grace being the obvious and preferred victor. But is he referring to mere Commandment keeping? Is Torah-keeping something a believer in Yeshua should avoid? We are not in Romans at this moment. We are in Galatians, and context demands that any given word or phrase must be given its proper surrounding consideration in order for it to have its proper meaning and application.
For instance, in Galatians 4: We simply cannot assume that standard Christian commentaries on this phrase are accurate if we are to be noble Bereans in this matter, especially since most of those same commentaries unknowingly or unwittingly carry around a fair amount of anti-Jewish or anti-Torah bias. Turning again to our example from Romans 6: If you are truly led by the Spirit, then you will not be led to disobey the Lord and be cursed. Rather, if you are truly led by the Spirit, you will naturally obey our Heavenly Father and obey the commandments of Torah and be blessed—just as the Torah tells us.
You are in fact the righteousness of God in Messiah! Legalistically following after Torah does not change your status before God. Man cannot add to that which God perfects. Gentiles in Jesus were as complete as they needed to be and to seek to ostensibly become Jewish only insulted the genuine gospel of grace by which they were so marvelously called.
Once counted as righteous by the Righteous One Himself, all the new [Gentile] believer needed to do was begin to walk in that righteousness, a walk already described in the pages of the Written Torah, a walk formerly impossible due to the deadness of flesh and bondage to sin.
We are not under the law, we are truly under grace. We are not under condemnation. We have been wonderfully forgiven in Messiah! We truly are under freedom! Thus, positional righteousness always results in behavioral righteousness. Put plainly, Torah submissiveness is the natural result of being set free from sin and condemnation and set free unto Yeshua! Stern notes, with my inserted comments in accent,. Their burden has been to show that somehow he could abrogate the Torah and still respect it. In this fashion liberally oriented non-Messianic Jews in the modern era have been able to have their cake and eat it too, to claim Jesus for themselves as a wonderful Jewish teacher while making Paul the villain of the piece.
But Sha'ul had no such ambivalence. For him the Torah of Moshe was unequivocally "holy" and its commands "holy, just and good" Romans 7: And so were works done in true obedience to the Torah. Instead of being the villain who destroyed the backbone of Judaism and led Jews astray, he is the most authentic expositor of the Torah that the Jewish people have ever had, apart from the Messiah Yeshua himself.
It does not follow the notes, therefore there is no written material here to follow. Take a break from reading and enjoy the audio recording! It does not examine every single verse of the book of Galatians. Such verses, when removed from the larger context of either Paul or the situation facing the new believers in Galatia, will usually make Paul out to be the inventor of a new religion called Christianity, a religion viewed as superior to Judaism and the Torah that upholds it.
However, since we have indeed shared the proper historical and theological background to the Apostle and his circumstances, we are now ready to read these verses—indeed the whole letter—afresh with new understanding. I will spend only enough time on each verse so as to unlock the meaning for the student. If a verse contains multiple issues and warrants more attention then I will allow more information to be subpoenaed. My own comments, and when necessary, paraphrasing, will follow immediately after each passage.
Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. Pertinent for our study is the historical fact that the 1st century Judaisms were not teaching salvation by following Torah as the later emerging Church might assume. In this view Gentles must convert before they were considered full-fledged members. It is critical to a proper understanding of Sha'ul that we recognize the syntax of the Greek of this verse. The careful observation is made to show a shift within the paradigms of Judaism and not outside of them.
Paul did not leave Judaism for a new religion called Christianity. What he did do was switch party lines, from a non-believing Jewish Pharisee, to a believing in Yeshua Pharisee, all within the confines of 1st century Judaism.
Tim Hegg states it well,. It does not imply that Paul formerly lived within Judaism but that as of the time he wrote the Galatians, he was no longer living within Judaism. And why would he not wish to exercise his right to Torah as a full-fledged member of the community? Perhaps he was a seasoned believer with proper motives. Remember, being with Sha'ul, he surely was aware of the prevailing rabbinic halakhah that Gentiles were not considered covenant members until after conversion.
Thus, his motives for accepting or refusing circumcision at that time were a reflection of his taking a stand with Paul to send the right signal to the newly formed Gentile faction within Apostolic Judaism. See additional thoughts involving Peter on 2: I think it is safe to assume that once the heat was off, circumcision would not present any problem for him personally. That Sha'ul had Timothy, also considered a Greek by 1st century Jewish standards, circumcised in Acts chapter 16 is proof that Sha'ul himself did not consider this mitzvah unimportant for followers of Yeshua.
What is more, that Sha'ul did not view circumcision as equal to conversion can be deduced by his comments in Galatians chapter 5 coming up later. In sum, this Greek word shows up a total of nine times in the Apostolic Scriptures. Interesting by association is how Paul uses this word in Acts How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Compromise has been taking place on a public level so Sha'ul makes his rebuke public as well. In other words, in the mind of Sha'ul, to live within the boundaries of the halakhah of a normative Judaism who defined herself as exclusively Jewish was unacceptable for a Messianic Jew the likes of Peter. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Rather, he is simply restating the popular views of the Influencers he is arguing against. For Paul to insert this quote into his argument the syntax of the Greek phrasing is crucial here only makes sense if we understand the rhetoric by which Paul is desperately trying to shake Peter loose from his current, deficient halakhic actions.
Continuing with his sharp rebuke, Sha'ul categorically embraces the notion that true, biblical Judaism holds to the correct view that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. We could translate the whole phrase thusly: The first half of the audio recorded a refresher discussion that is out of sequence with the larger teaching. At first blush this verse seems to spell the end of any Torah relevance for the apostle. But a careful reading will reveal its true meaning. Prior to his salvation experience Sha'ul was blinded to his true condition: However, now that the Spirit has taken up residence within him, via the sacrificial death of Yeshua, he can look back to how the Torah played a part in bringing him to this newfound revelation about himself.
The Torah, working in concert with the Spirit of God, revealed sin for what it was: Thus, through the Torah—that is, through its proper function of revealing and condemning sin, the individual is brought to the goal of the Torah, namely the revelation of the Messiah himself. But Paul says that he died to Torah. What does he mean by such a statement? Are we to assume that in Yeshua Paul is now somehow dead to obedience to the Torah?
May it never be! Simply put, he now realizes that his new life in the Spirit is a life to be lived without the fear of being condemned as a sinner by the very Torah he previously thought he was upholding! Paul is teaching the Galatians that his choice of Yeshua is to be understood as a death of self and the former life that Torah condemned in favor of a new life of serving God through the Spirit, a choice brought on by the revelation of Messiah found within the very pages of the Torah itself!
To be sure, if being declared righteous understood to be primarily forensic, but including behavioral as well could be achieved via the flesh that is, being born Jewish or converting to Judaism then truly what need would there be for a Messiah to come and provide it later for anyone? Paul would have the reader to understand that such righteousness is altogether outside of human achievement and therefore must be procured by surrendering to the power of the Anointed One of God.
I began with the following notes which are actually out of sequence with the larger teaching: What is Covenantal Nomism?
- Galatians | Messianic Publications!
- Shomer Mitzvot - Exegeting Galatians.
- Saartjie se wedstryd (#23) (Afrikaans Edition)!
- The Life of Saint Enimie. A 13th c text by Bertran de Marseille. Original Translation by Karena Akhavein. A readers companion for the adventure novel Translatio;
Sander's puts it clearly: However, Stephen Westerholm adds caution to such a quickly drawn conclusion: No, what this technical phrase is referring to is a set of halakhic rules that an individual must ally himself with in order to be received into a specific and exclusive community.. Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
No other chapter of the Bible has caused more theological misunderstandings than Chapter Three of Galatians! We would do well to tread cautiously as we seek to unlock its meanings….
Messianic Apologetics
Again, Sha'ul returns to his irony with a rhetorical question about the origins of the giving of the Ruach HaKodesh among the Galatian believers. Sha'ul surely knows first hand from whence the Spirit flows from God to an individual. To the apostle, such a notion was ludicrously untenable! Again, knowing that the Greek word for law nomos can refer to the Oral Tradition of proselyte conversion helps us to understand Paul to be challenging its validity among genuine covenant members.
Our opening question might be better phrased as so: Did you receive the Spirit by becoming proselytes, or by believing what you heard? Indeed, we must allow the context of the letter to determine what is driving his consternation. Read without the clarity of context, we will misunderstand Paul to be denigrating the Torah in favor of being led by the Spirit. This verse is a restating of the previous round of rhetorical questioning.
Obviously by now we know that Paul is not in favor of ethnic-driven righteousness, a position maintained by his detractors. The evidence that the Galatians are already in possession of genuine and lasting covenant status is the fact that the Ruach HaKodesh is indeed working among them! Why was Peter surprised? Because the long-standing belief among the Judaisms of the 1st century sincerely assumed that God only chose Jews as covenant partners!
The question is meant to raise the issue in the minds of the Galatians as to what exactly attracts the attention of God himself: The answer is given below using Avraham as the paradigm. Throughout his letters, the Apostle Paul Sha'ul seems to take great interest in Avraham, referring to him no less than 29 times! Thus, we can infer that Sha'ul brings Avraham into the argument to show that forensic righteousness is conferred to those who are not circumcised as well as to those who are—read Gentile and Jew respectively.
Or is God the God of the Jews only? Isn't he also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, he is indeed the God of the Gentiles Romans 3: Now is this blessing for the circumcised only? Or is it also for the uncircumcised? For we say that Avraham's trust was credited to his account as righteousness; but what state was he in when it was so credited - circumcision or uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision! In fact, he received circumcision as a sign, as a seal of the righteousness he had been credited with on the ground of the trust he had while he was still uncircumcised.
This happened so that he could be the father of every uncircumcised person who trusts and thus has righteousness credited to him, and at the same time be the father of every circumcised person who not only has had a b'rit-milah, but also follows in the footsteps of the trust which Avraham avinu had when he was still uncircumcised Romans 4: Is there something within the story that would cause any reader to make the same assumption?
What was going on in the mind of the Holy One? Perhaps we can draw some conclusions by looking at the passage from a telescopic overview. The flow of the Genesis narrative has been an interactive look at Avraham and his contending with God ever since God called him away from his native land in chapter There, in what amounts to a unilateral agreement, we find that HaShem promises to increase his offspring beyond numbering.
But leading up to this point, and trailing afterwards, is a grammatical clue as to what—or whom—Avraham actually placed his trust in! The live class was a Galatians related, teacher-assisted review exercise for the sake of the students. However, for the sake of the written notes, below follows the continuation of the larger commentary: Continuing with our investigation, HaShem appears to Avram in Instead of God appearing or speaking to Avram, the first clause of the first verse records:. I will let the Chazal the Sages of Blessed Memory add their input to this Hebraic feature of the story:.
In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet Gen. In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" Ps. This much is made clear by the objective text and the subsequent notations that we observed in Hebrew via the footnotes. But let us take it one step further to complete the mystery. Early Jewish theologians defined the Memra, or Word of God, with six different characteristics.
These six claims were:. Indeed as scholars have summarized: He affirms that Yeshua fulfills all six attributes and all Jewish expectations of Memra. What have we learned thus far? This Hebrew divine title, rarely used in the Torah, appears here for the first time. It is used in a context of complaint, prayer, and request. Abram does not permit his vexation to compromise his attitude of respect and reverence before God. A most interesting feature of Genesis 15 is evident only in the Hebrew.
In the English of Genesis If you remember, the ancient scribes used a system of circumlocution to encourage the reader to not say the Holy Name out loud. What was written was the four letters of a yod , a hay , a vav , and a hay. The English translators took this tradition to another level. This informed the reader that the Hebrew behind the word was in fact the Holy Name. When we get to Genesis What is the significance of this word arrangement? This is the first time this word combination is used in Scripture. This word combination is used in other places in Scriptures, but not very often.
We need to investigate to see if there is some connection between these passages, and if it is a Messianic connection. What are we to make of this exchange of names and how does it relate to Yeshua and the Memra? May I suggest under the guidance of the Apostolic Scriptures that the Memra of YHVH appeared to Avram in such a way as to allow Avram to address him as a servant would address his visible, flesh and blood master in face-to-face reverence and respect? Did Avram see a man? Did he see the invisible YHVH? I can't be dogmatic either way since biblical theophanies are often shrouded in mystery, but my gut feeling is that Avram saw the pre-incarnate LORD Yeshua with his natural eyes and yet called him YHVH!
One thing is sure: Surely HaShem saw into the heart of the patriarch and recognized the appropriation of the choices that lay before him. What is more, only the LORD himself can supernaturally open the eyes of a man to allow him to make a choice between choosing his Messiah or rejecting him. Tim Hegg provides a summary thought to our study,. But the sign itself requires faith.
For God shows Abram the stars and declares: But would God's word—His promise of a son—be enough for Abram? After all, it had been some time perhaps as much as 20 years by the Sages reckoning since the initial promise had been given, and there was still no son. Sarai was still barren.
In fact, God's word was enough for Abram, as the next verse v. Surely Abram believed from the time that God first revealed Himself to him. His actions prove his faith: But Moses intends us to see that Abram's faith was cast upon God in a particular fashion-in connection with the promise of a son.
Galatians for the Practical Messianic by J K McKee (Paperback, 2012)
And thus we have the all important verse: In conclusion to this section, we see clearly that Avraham chose to lay hold of the Promise given in Genesis It is often rendered as 'here' or 'behold,' but this is an approximation of an expression that has no equivalent in the Indo-European languages. For this reason, it is often left untranslated. In general, it serves to intensify a statement and to provide emphasis. Here, the intensity denotes that it was a sudden or intense experience. Emendations by the Sopherim , Institute for Scripture Research , p. This verse when misunderstood from its larger context will invariably lead the reader to the incorrect conclusion that Paul is advocating complete and mitzvah-by-mitzvah commandment-by-commandment Torah submission for everyone wishing to attain right-standing with the Almighty.
That the 1st century Judaisms did not advocate a view which required complete Torah obedience before one could be counted as a covenant member is attested to in the later rabbinic compilations that survived the destruction of the Temple. No, such a notion finds its home among ignorant ideology and theology borne out of ignorance to the Laws of God and the Ways of God. Our verse is a contrast to the previously statement made in verse 6 where Avraham is said to have been considered righteous on the basis of his faith.
Firstly, he is speaking to those who believed that covenant status was extended by God due to ethnic status, whether native-born or convert for more on this nationalistic view see the quote by James D. Dunn in my comments to verse below. Secondly, he is teaching against any superstition notions that God extends covenant status to the individual who simply avails himself of Torah obedience outside of genuine faith in the giver of the Torah.
It must be either his ethnic status or his Torah observance. Paul would have argued against either view. He may be paraphrasing the general meaning of the verse for his readers. The meaning is nevertheless captured by Sha'ul: Only God is allowed to determine which commandments might if ever fall into disuse and which ones will not. The quote is from Leviticus The context of the passage in Leviticus warrants careful study:.
Do not follow their practices. I am the LORD. Here the writer, Moshe, describes the lifestyle of an existing covenant member as characterized by obeying the laws spelled out by the Torah. In other words, Paul expects his readers and opponents alike to come to the same conclusion as he: Such a processional order is also implied in the historical order to which the covenants in question were given: By comparison, the Influencers had the sequence reversed, suggesting that faith came as a result of following after the teachings of Torah, as indicated by their preoccupation with the ritual of circumcision.
The 1st century Judaisms also inferred and anticipated the coming of a Righteous One from numerous passages lifted from the Major and Minor Prophets. There are golden moments when the best interpretation of Scripture is Scripture. This verse seems to find a parallel in Chapter 4. Allow me to quote verses from that location:. The impact of Christ redeeming those who name his name for salvation from the curse of the law in 3: For now, let us focus on 3: Both phrases describe a position of ill favor and eventual punishment by God. Under the law in some passaged used by Paul speaks of existing under the condemnation that Torah pronounces against persistent sinners.
The plain sense of the verse is not confusing: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Torah. He did not redeem us from the Torah itself. Quite simply, Yeshua was put forth as the propitiation for our sins when he died on the cross. To be sure, if there was found no substitute for the party guilty of a capital offence, then he was to be hanged as a sign that God had deemed him cursed.
Nothing found
In the mystery of the Godhead, Yeshua, the sinless Lamb of God, became the object of such punishment on behalf of those who name his name for salvation. He who knew no sin became sin on our behalf. Dunn, which I will quote at length for my commentary here:. The thought clearly refers back to verse 10, as the formulation of the scriptural passage to aline it with the Scripture quoted in verse 10 confirms.
That is to say, the curse of the law is not simply the condemnation which falls on any transgression and on all who fall short of the laws requirements. Paul has it in mind that the specific short-fall of his typical Jewish contemporary, the curse which falls on all who restrict the grace and promise of God in nationalistic terms, who treat the law as a boundary to mark the people of God off from the Gentiles, who give a false priority to ritual markers.
The curse of the law here has to do primarily with that attitude which confines the covenant promise to Jews as Jews: This is confirmed by the second half of Paul's formulation in verses The curse which was removed by Christ death therefore was the curse which had previously prevented that blessing from reaching the Gentiles, the curse of the wrong understanding of the law.
It was a curse which fell primarily on the Jew 3. It was that curse which Jesus had brought deliverance from by his death. The law, introduced years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. The first part of this passage, the mention of the promise, becomes a key element of later Pauline literature.
For Paul, it is imperative that the existing covenant member understands the proper relationship of the Avrahamic Covenant to the Moshaic Covenant. For those who trust HaShem for the promises, the proper order for faith and obedience is set by the sequence in which the covenants were given. In other words, faith must precede obedience.
But the kind of faith accepted by HaShem is one that naturally flows into obedience. True obedience never comes before faith, nor is it an addition to faith. It is always the result of true biblical faith. To rephrase this in terms of the covenants: All we could hope for would be a measure of physical protection and a knowledge of spiritual things. But we could not receive justification or a personal relationship with the Holy One through obedience to the Torah; it all had to start with faith.
Avraham came before Moshe, but Moshe did not cancel out Avraham! The two complemented each other—as long as they came in the proper order. Put plainly, far from diminishing or annulling the Abrahamic Promise, the Torah actually comes along years later to support and compliment it! As we have learned, the order in which they appear both in Scripture as well as historically demonstrates the proper order in which their respective lessons should be actualized: Avrahamic precedes Moshaic; genuine and lasting faith in God will always precede genuine and lasting obedience to God.
Quite surely, the Influencers had the sequence backwards, placing the proverbial cart before the horse. In this order, faith results from works and human achievement. In this order, faith in God—the Promise—is rendered non-effectual and unnecessary. Paul would not have his talmidim students falling for such blatant errant theology. The inheritance must arrive to humanity by other than human means in order for HaShem to receive his proper acknowledgment. Likewise, the Messiah—the Ultimate Son of Promise—would be born of miraculous circumstances, proving his connection to the antecedent theology that God alone can secure the Promise for his children.
It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. By this point in my commentary, it should not be difficult to comprehend the massive differences between the prevailing Christian opinions and the prevailing Messianic Jewish perspectives, particularly in regards to the Law of God.
In a word, historic Christianity does not embrace the Torah of Moshe as an everyday lifestyle the way historic Messianic Judaism and the current Torah Movement of today does. This is what we call an in-house debate. Both groups of people profess belief in Yeshua as Messiah. Put another way, your average Bible reader—on either side of the debate—tends to formulate their strongly held opinions based on a single passage or two, rather than on whole chapters, etc.
With that in mind, I have decided to lift a key passage out of my Excursus and include it in the main body of topics for discussion here. For this exercise, I shall start with the prevailing Christian, then move to the views of a well-known Messianic Jewish author, before providing my own contrasted opinions at the end. Negative, Neutral, or Positive? Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Why, then, the law? Why then was the Law given? It was imposed later on for the sake of defining sin, until the seed should come to whom God had made the promise; and its details were laid down by a mediator with the help of angels.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.
So then, why the legal part of the Torah?