The Law as a Tutor in Galatians 3

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by JonC δοῦλος, Mar 18, 2014.

  1. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Likes Received:
    366
    I’ve been studying Galatians, and of course ran into the issue of the Law as a tutor. I understand that the Law became a tutor (a servant who led the children to school) for the Jews in that the Law led them to Christ. The Law kept them in custody. But insofar as evangelism is concerned, Galatians does not offer the Law as an example of a methodology to reach the lost. Paul’s use of the Torah seems to run contrary to such claims. For example, just one chapter back (Galatians 2) we see Paul correcting Peter for rebuilding the Law, the Torah. If he does so, then he is condemned by that same wall that he is constructing as he is now numbered among those from whom he is separating. Acts which were transgressions under the Law were not necessarily sins for those outside of the Law.

    It is foolish to assert that those who don’t believe it necessary to put the lost under the Torah hold to “easy-believism,” (which has happened here on the BB). Sin was sin prior to the Law. Paul references Abraham in Galatians 3 (the same chapter that deals with the Law as a tutor), yet Abraham who’s belief was “reckoned to him as righteousness” did not have the Law as his tutor. Abraham’s sins were not transgressions of the Law. It seems to me that Paul views Christ as ushering in a new age. The Torah is not a necessary element in convicting the lost of sin - although I do get the point that the lost must realize their condition as a part of evangelism (I am not saying not to ignore sin - I am suggesting that it is not necessary to convince the lost they have transgressed the Law - the Torah, as Paul indicates the Law to be).

    How did we get to the point when we could feel not only comfortable but justified in taking “the Law as a tutor” in Galatians 3:24 out of the Pauline context to apply it to non-Jewish evangelism? We could say that the Law, in our usage, does not mean “the Torah.” BUT then we are altering Scripture, taking the passage out of context, and using it for our own agenda. The Law (i.e., the Law became our tutor) is the Torah...to miss that is to miss the entire argument of Paul in these chapters. I guess my question is whether or not the ends justify the means. Can we take Scripture so lightly - take one verse so far out of context to presume it to be a mandate - if by doing so we arrive at an effective and concise method of evangelism (and I’m not saying that it is effective, but it is concise)?
     
  2. Judith

    Judith
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    10
    I am not totally clear at what you are trying to say, but I get the idea that you are saying we should not use the commandments/law to bring the non jew to conviction or to point out their sins. I think yu have missed Pauls point is thta is true. Paul was dealing wiht a people who claimed salvation came through law keeping. He is not suggesting the law has no use when dealing wiht gentiles.
    If that is the case how do you point out they are sinners?
     
    #2 Judith, Mar 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2014
  3. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Likes Received:
    366
    Hey Judith,

    I apologize for not making myself totally clear. I'm not the best at wording these posts. I guess my question would be how Abraham would have realized his sinful status while not being under the Law (the same could be said of those who perished in the flood, the righteousness of Noah, etc.). Obviously…I hope…people realize that Paul’s use of “works of the Law” referred to the Torah. If not, at least we all realize that the context deals with the Torah (in Galatians) rather than sin in general. Paul is speaking of eating with uncircumcised Gentiles, after all. He is dealing with transgressions of the Law.

    To say that the lost must be convicted “under the Law” is the anthesis of what Paul immediately said prior to Galatians 3:24 (and of the passages preceding the verse). My objection is that this verse (Galatians 3:24) is often pulled entirely out of context - not that the lost must realize their sinfulness. No where does Paul, or any other NT writer, state that the lost needs to be convicted by “the Law.” This, of course, does not mean that sinners do not need to be convicted of sin.

    But yes, you are correct that I am saying that we should not “put the lost under the Law” in order that the “Law be a tutor.” While I am not opposed to using the Ten Commandments, the Ten Commandments do not constitute “the Law.” I disagree in that I do believe Paul is not suggesting that the Law has a use, or no use, when dealing with Gentiles (this is entirely absent, actually, from Paul’s discourse in the passage). I am suggesting that there are some who take this verse in Galatians out of context to support what may or may not be a biblical approach to evangelism.
     
    #3 JonC, Mar 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2014
  4. Judith

    Judith
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    10
    Thank you for the clarification. I would say the answer is in Romans 2:14,15
    For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

    Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

    Even before the law people had a conscience and if they violate it they are law breakers even without the law. Their conscience bearing them witness that they did wrong. They may not feel all that the law reveals is wrong, but they have enough to be law breakers and held accountable.

    So the question is why give the law? The law was gven so sin would increase or to say the knowledge of sin to increase.
    Romans 5:20
    Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

    The law did not make them any more accountable, but it made them see that they are more accountable. The person who feels they have few sins/faults thinks they will be alright. With the law most who are honest see that they have broken them all and are not worthy at all so they need another way to get right with God and that is Christ. So the law was a tutor to point us to Christ as no one has kept the law perfectly. So the law does need to be used with the gentiles as well as the Jew to bring us to conviction where we see how bad we are and the only way is Christ.
    The problem that had risen in Gal is that some were teaching the law must be kept to be saved while the truth is the commandments will be kept if saved. They were getting the cart beforfe the horse and in doing so falling from grace. Not losing their salvation if saved, but losing the understanding of how to be saved and the possibility of spawning a whole new works cult. That is why Paul speaks so strongly to them.
     
    #4 Judith, Mar 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2014
  5. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Likes Received:
    366
    I agree insofar as the importance of pointing out the guilt of the lost and our guilt. I actually agree with the intent of those who say “use the Law to convict” but primarily because they dismiss what the Law actually was. I disagree because of the extreme nature of taking the passage out of contest (Galatians) to support the position. Romans 2 provides ample evidence that conviction under “the Law” is unnecessary. Galatians 3 provides ample evidence that it is unbiblical. My disagreement is in taking Scripture out of context to support a methodology - not the necessity of demonstrating the sinfulness of man in evangelism (which Romans 2 presents as universally evident).

    One note - the Jews spoken of in Galatians never believed that they must keep the Law in order to be saved. I’d encourage you to explore 1st century Judaism. They believed that they were born into salvation - they were, by election, God’s covenantal people. Keeping the Torah (the Law) demonstrated the standing that was to be consummated at the end. Perhaps this is neither here nor there, as keeping the Torah did not mean being “sinless” (as there was a mechanism for atonement in the Law). But my point is that Gentiles were never “under the Law.”

    My objection is those who believe that evangelism should use the Law to convict the consciences of sinners. To hold this position is not only to express ignorance of the Law, but it is also to take Galatians 3:24 severely out of context. It is to ignore Romans 2. We, by necessity, point out the sinfulness of the lost and their need for a Savior. But it is another matter entirely to say that we “use the Law to convict.” (Another note...as Paul indicates in Galatians 2...the Law cannot be taken in part - only as a whole). It isn't the Law that those who advocate conviction "under the Law" suggest, although this is their claim with Galatians as their "proof text."
     
    #5 JonC, Mar 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2014
  6. Judith

    Judith
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    10
    Sorry I don't have an answer for you becauase I am even more cofussed at what you are getting at.
     
  7. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Likes Received:
    366
    I do apologize. I told you I’m not so good at posting. Glad I was proven right for a change. :smilewinkgrin:

    What I am getting at is that it is extremely unbiblical to say that we use the Law to convict the conscience of sinners based on Galatians 3:24 because this is not what Paul is speaking of. It would be to take the passage entirely out of context.

    What I mean by the Law is the Torah (exactly what Paul means by the Law in Galatians).

    I mean that the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, we must present the gospel to include our sinful natures and our need for a Savior, but we must NEVER try to put the lost under the Law (see Galatians 2).

    My objection is the misuse of Paul’s words in Galatians to suit one’s purpose. Not only does it ascribe a new meaning to Paul’s words, but it misses the meaning of the text. My question in the OP was how it came about that we have Christians who feel comfortable in diminishing Scripture to the point of such measures. Does the end justify the means? Should we say that Galatians 3 is a mandate to put the lost under the Torah if it works...even if this is not really what Paul is saying?
     
  8. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,377
    Likes Received:
    728
    Your ideas on the law are very very wrong throughout the thread
     
  9. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,377
    Likes Received:
    728
    start here;
    https://bible.org/book/export/html/21880




    If the Law can’t save us and if we can’t keep it, we are prone to say that the problem is with the Law. But Paul affirms, “The Law is good, if one uses it lawfully” (1:8). There is nothing wrong with the law. The problem is our sinful nature. It is only the delusion of our sinful pride that makes us think that we can commend ourselves to God by keeping His Law. When we look more carefully at the Law, we discover that ...
    B. The proper use of God’s Law is to bring conviction of sin.

    Paul says that the Law is not made for a righteous man (1:9). I understand “law” (1:9) to refer to the Law of Moses. Paul has just twice referred to it (1:7-8) and his list of sins (1:9-10) is parallel to the Ten Commandments. When Paul refers to “a righteous man,” I take him to mean one who has been justified by faith in Jesus Christ. Such persons are the only ones who are truly righteous, because they have God’s righteousness imputed them. A merely good man (by human standards) or a self-righteous man (some take it this way) is still under God’s condemnation and thus needs the Law to reveal his sinfulness.

    Thus Paul is referring to those who have been declared righteous by faith in Christ. Such persons are not under the Law, but are under grace (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 5:23). This does not mean that they are lawless; they are under the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2), also called the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). Nor does Paul mean that the Law has no benefit for believers. It reveals God’s righteous character and how we must live to please Him. But since “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4), we who are in Christ are not subject to the Law’s condemnation. The primary function of the Law is to bring conviction of sin to those who are still in rebellion against God.

    Thus Paul says that the Law is for the lawless. God’s Law speaks to the sinner to reveal his sin and convict him of sin. Paul gives a catalogue of sins that roughly parallels (in order) the Ten Commandments; first, offenses against God; then, crimes against fellow men. Note the parallels:

    1 Timothy 1:9-10


    Ten Commandment ..........Lawless and rebellious


    1. No other gods ...................Ungodly and sinners


    2. No idols ..............................Unholy and profane


    3. Not take Lord’s name in vain

    4. Keep Sabbath...........................profane

    5. Honor parents.....................Kill fathers & mother

    6. No murder..............................Murderers

    7. No adultery......................Immoral men, homosexuals

    8. No stealing.......................Kidnappers/slave stealers


    9. No false witness...........................Liars and perjurers

    10. No coveting........................Whatever else is contrary
     
    #9 Iconoclast, Mar 20, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2014
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    I agree. It does not create a mandate. To try to impose a mandate on this passage is to engage in eisegetical practice rather than exegetical.
     
  11. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Likes Received:
    366
    Hey Iconoclast,

    I am glad that you engaged my concern – you have been very insightful and patient with me in the past, and I am appreciative. But yes, you are absolutely right that Paul adamantly denies that the Law is the problem as he points to sin as the issue. My concern is not, however, with the Law but with the utilization of a particular verse (Galatians 3:24) as a mandate as I believe it does not exist within that text. Exploring Timothy would be a vital element to determining the nature of the Law to the audience of the epistle, but my question is Paul’s use of “the Law as a tutor” in Galatians and whether or not this passage is misused today.

    The Law does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God (v. 17), but was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made (v. 19). The Law was not intended to impart life (v. 21) but kept the Jews in custody, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed (v. 23). Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (vv. 24,25).

    The context of the passage (again, of Galatians 3) is dealing with the Torah (otherwise Paul’s opposition to Peter beginning in 2:11 is meaningless). The context indicates that Paul is speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant, the seed of Abraham, and the sons of Abraham (which are the sons of promise rather than flesh). But the two groups in the text are Gentile sinners (not non-Christian but non-Jew) and Jewish Christians (along with the agitators who encourage these Gentile Christians adapt to Judaism). How then, do we pull Galatians 3:24 so far out of context to use it as a statement that we are to convict the lost under the Torah? In my view we can’t and remain faithful to the text. The question then (for me) becomes whether or not we will be justified in altering the Law from Paul’s meaning to indicate the Ten Commandments (when he specifically used it differently – as the Torah which can’t be broken – to establish the objection he is defending in Galatians 3) if that unfaithfulness to scripture can be used to support an effective evangelistic method. My answer is that the end result never justifies taking such liberties with Scripture.

    What I am not saying is that it is unbiblical to use the Ten Commandments in evangelism. What I am not saying is that the Law was “bad.” I’m not even challenging that evangelistic method that uses the Ten Commandments to witness to others. But I am saying that the Law as a tutor in Galatians is not a supportive text for such usage of the Law, certainly not a mandate. My objection is that the picking of passages out of context and building upon them an application or a support for an application (regardless of the correctness of the goal) is unbiblical, unfaithful, and wrong. I am suggesting that we, myself included, need to be cognizant of passages within their own context rather than scanning verses to support our goals.
     
    #11 JonC, Mar 20, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2014
  12. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,548
    Likes Received:
    273
    I've heard it rendered as 'the law is a harsh schoolmaster to drive us to Christ'.

    Makes sense.
     
  13. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Likes Received:
    366
    That statement does make sense. Imagine realizing that you violate God’s moral standard by the condition of your heart even apart from the act (e.g. Matthew 5:21-48). When one comes to terms with the holiness of God, I can’t understand how that person could look upon his or her own righteousness as anything but rubbish. Of course, while that rendering may make sense and may or may not be true on its own accord, in terms of expressing a mandated use of the Torah in evangelism…it is a misrepresentation and misapplication of Galatians 3:24.
     
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,548
    Likes Received:
    273
    Flee as a bird to your mountain,
    Thou who art weary of sin;
    Go to the clear-flowing fountain,
    Where you may wash and be clean;
    Fly, for the avenger is near thee,
    Call, and the Savior will hear thee;
    He on His bosom will bear thee,
    O thou who art weary of sin,
    O thou who art weary of sin.

    He will protect thee forever,
    Wipe ev'ry falling tear;
    He will forsake thee O never,
    Sheltered so tenderly there!
    Haste then, the hours are flying,
    Spend not the moments in sighing,
    Cease from your sorrow and crying,
    The Savior will wipe ev'ry tear,
    The Savior will wipe ev'ry tear.
     
  15. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Likes Received:
    366
    Beautiful hymn, I hadn't heard it before (here we sing "free as a bird"...but that's something else entirely :smilewinkgrin:). The acapella on the link is also beautiful.
     
  16. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The concept that the Law can do anything to to "instruct" us ignores the context. Paul was chastising the Galatians because the Judaizers were trying to convince them to conform to ceremonial law -- circumcision -- in order to to be part of God’s people, which of course was ludicrous. It goes against the truth of salvation through Christ by faith alone. Paul was saying the Law can do nothing for us regarding salvation.
    Galatians 3, NASB
    19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made. ​
    The Law has nothing to offer regarding our eternity. That little word "until" is the Greek archi and it literally means "until," or in more archaic English, "unto." That is, the transgressions were enumerated in the Law until such time as the Seed (Christ) came and by His sacrifice brought redemption into the world and called the Holy Spirit down upon those who believe in Him. Archi sets a roadblock. Once the Seed comes, the Law is no longer needed. The Spirit convicts. That is why Galatians 2:14-16 reads as it does. Those born outside the Law nonetheless have conviction based on their consciences. Man's conscience is worthless as to righteousness, so conviction must come from above.

    When it comes to our justification, the law has nothing to contribute. In Christ the law’s death sentence against us was executed, and we now enjoy life through Him. It makes us aware of our sinfulness, our brokenness.
    Romas 3
    9 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
    20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. ​
    That, however, cannot resolve the problem. Paul indicates in v. 22 of Galatians 3 that whole world is a prisoner under sin, which harkens back to a Romans passage that the warden of that the prison was the law.
    Romans 11
    32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. ​
    Paul presents the idea that we were under the curse of the law until the coming of Christ. We sinned, were imprisoned awaiting the execution of the sentence, our only escape being faith in Christ. He came, born under the law, entered the prison of sin to redeem those who were under the law of Moses, or that of their own conscience, and made them children of God. The curse of the law makes salvation through Christ indispensable.

    The word "tutor" is interesting, it being the Greek paedogōgos which has no English equivalent. It was the title given a slave or hired freedman among the Roman elite who would provide security, discipline, instruction and who required submission of the children in the family who attended school. Only when the child reached adulthood did this relationship end. This illustrates our lack of freedom before Christ comes into our lives, and were controlled by powers we could not overcome. The emphasis in the Galatians passage is not on the Law pointing toward Christ. The emphasis is on the emotional desire to gain freedom from the taskmaster. Christ is that freedom.
     
    #16 thisnumbersdisconnected, Mar 20, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2014
  17. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,377
    Likes Received:
    728
    JonC

    Hello JonC
    .

    JonC.....I enjoy your posts and the interaction.We can learn from each other and seek to edify one another so we can better serve our Lord and Master .Your posts show that you are a serious believer and have respect for God and his word...so I really do enjoy discussing truth with you.
    i was short in my other reply because i was under time pressure to get this load back east, as the road was shut in Wyoming for bad weather...so it put me to the test:laugh:

    Dconn in his opening paragraph was correct in that Paul was addressing that particular problem....so when paul offers vs.24 in context...he is rebuking the Galatians for giving the false teachers the time of day...[so to speak}

    The reaction I gave was based on a few things....you have clarified your concern as you have interacted with Judith...she gave several helpful and correct responses.

    In discussing the law.....great concern and carefulness needs to be exercised or a person can go off quickly.....I have learned this the hard way ..over time..making many mistakes...and having to be mightly corrected:thumbs:

    Let me offer just a bit now- i will react to some of your statements and just raise a caution, or frame out some questions that might be helpful
    WELL NO......only because there was a gospel threatening heresy about this one aspect of the
    ceremonial law...that had to be focused upon...remember this same issue was important enough to cause the meeting in acts 15...
    15 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

    2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

    Now it follows that Galatians is not as much dealing with evangelism as it is...the heart of the gospel as opposed to another gospel that will not save.

    So i do not think you should expect to answer the question from 3:24 alone. To answer the question we need to look elsewhere....

    Again...we need to broaden the search...You can see Jesus using the law in evangelism all the time.

    All sin...is a transgression of the law.[the ten commandments} all men are under the 10 commandments....Judith alluded to this ..romans 2.

    Theologians make a distinction moral ceremonial and civil law when speaking of Israel during the theocracy...so this discussion is concerning the ceremonial law...which we are no longer under. That does not mean that the ten commandments are void...they are eternal.


    .

    i am sure it is JONC in many cases..however the principle is valid...not the specific application as paul used it in gal3....So you are correct on one hand, however....incorrect in reference to the ten commandments...that is why you lost Judith, and that is why you are perhaps a bit fuzzy on this whole study on the law/gospel...idea. Many are badly confused on this topic.
    I still have much to learn on these things also..it is just that I have had to work through my own errors on this ...so when i see people repeating what i know now...is going down the wrong path...i speak up:wavey:



    .

    Only the principle applies...not the specifics...We are saved by law keeping.
    Not us keeping the law...but rather Jesus active obedience in our place.
    He kept the law for us...now..as image bearers we keep it also because we are saved.

    What complicates this picture is....the decalogue which is eternal, was also included in the ceremonial laws of Israels theocracy...leading many to believe that it was done away with the ceremonial and judicial laws...but this is not so...


    :thumbs:
     
  18. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Likes Received:
    366
    I understand. Wyoming is a beautiful state - but it can become a “temporary home” for truck drivers trying to get out (my father was a truck driver, and when I was young I often went out with him).

    The issue, in my view, is that Paul is also addressing the agitators and their motive in bringing those in Christ under the Law. It is just as much a lesson for those wrestling with having to become circumcised as it is for those advocating circumcision (Paul will, of course, expand on circumcision to indicate that it is not the physical mark held by the Jews).

    Yes, Acts 15 is descriptive of those agitators from James (from Jerusalem). But the objection was not only circumcision - it begins with the objection to Peter’s action when those from James arrived. The objection is placing Gentile sinners (non-Jewish Christians) under the Law (the Torah). I believe that we are in agreement so far.

    Jesus did, of course, use the Law in evangelism as He was speaking specifically to a people under the Law - people who held to salvation through God’s covenant - through His election of Israel, but to the Torah as their justification (which I believe is essential to understanding the Jews being “kept in custody” under the Law).

    Paul does, indeed, indicate that all are guilty for all have sinned. But he also deals with two people groups - those who have, being under the Law, transgressed the Law and those who have sinned against God (the law written in their hearts). But in Galatians Paul is not speaking of the Ten Commandments as a moral standard (this is not what those from Jerusalem were advocating and this is not the Law which Paul indicates Peter was rebuilding by not eating with Gentile sinners).

    In sort, although perhaps not (sorry), I think that we probably agree regarding the Ten Commandments. My objection is that a principle cannot be derived from Galatians 3:24 (which has mistakenly been used as the proof text for a mandate of placing the lost under the Law). My concern in studying Galatians was not to disprove using the Ten Commandments in evangelism. My objection was that in reading the passage in such a manner, the reader will miss what Paul is speaking of in the text.

    Thisnumberdisconnected is right, BTW, about “tutor” being a Greek word with no English equivalent. It wasn’t so much that the Jews were being taught of their sin through the Law (although they obviously were being taught of their sin through the Law - but remember that the Law also offers provision for dealing with that sin) as much as they were being “kept in custody,” being “shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.”

    Rather than reading Galatians 3 in terms of evangelizing the lost by placing them under the Torah, perhaps it would be better to read it in context of what Paul is speaking of (in terms of God’s covenant with Abraham 430 years outside of the Law). Maybe it would be more illuminating to read what Paul was saying to his original audience (the establishment of one covenantal people - Jew and Gentile - as the promised people of Abraham). I just think it poor method to take the passage out of context (and I think we agree here). I’m not studying the Law, or the Ten Commandments (I’m working through Galatians).
     
  19. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,888
    Likes Received:
    37
    My understanding of Gal 3 is; Eternal life V 21 does not come by works of the law but by the promise of God which is an inheritance, V 18, and the seed who was to receive the promised eternal life is the Christ, the Son of God, the seed of Abraham V's 16 & 19.

    Abraham died in faith and had not receive the promises unto the writing of Hebrews 11. Jesus the Son of God came into the world as the heir of God Heb. 1:1,2 and he also died, yet is said to have inherited a more excellent name than the angels when it was said, thou art my Son, this day, have I begotten thee, which Acts 13:33 states as being when he was raised from the dead. Jesus inherited eternal life, incorruptibility when being raised from the dead. Romans 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Acts 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

    This is called, the coming of the faith V's 23 & 25, of which those under the law were shut up into, garrisoned into V 23.

    It was the coming of the faith by which the promise of the Spirit in Jesus the Christ could be given bringing the blessings of Abraham to the nations V 14.

    This Spirit puts all in Christ, Jew and Gentile, therefore they become the children of Abraham and joint heirs with Christ. V's 27 & 29.


    BTW does Paul in his letters evangelize or just state fact?
     
    #19 percho, Mar 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2014
  20. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,920
    Likes Received:
    366
    I agree with you. The intent of Paul, in this passage, is to explain the nature of the "sons of Abraham" as being based on faith rather than the Torah. We are righteous (sons of Abraham, of the promise of Abraham, God's people) in that we are in Christ (it is His righteousness, not our own).

    But to the point of the OP - Paul does evangelize in his epistles. However in Galatians 3:24 he is not saying to the lost "hey, submit to the Torah and it will teach you to be saved in Christ." He does not, here, present righteous as a moral justness, but as a status (being right in accordance with God's statute, His promise to Abraham, being "in Christ", being one people of God).

    What he is speaking of in Galatians 3 is not a message for the lost to seek, but rather for a people of God to understand. To his immediate audience he is saying that God's people are one people through faith and not the Torah. My simple objection is that Paul is not mandating (in any way, shape or form) the use of the Torah (in Galatians 3:24) to convict the lost of their sin. He isn't even talking about the Torah as a tool to evangelize the lost. I'd go a step farther and say that he is not even speaking of sin in general (in this passage) but of the Torah as a whole (see Galatians 2, for example). That said, it would be interesting to go through Galatians point by point and examine the role of the Torah, righteousness, the promise to Abraham, etc. That just wasn't on my bucket list when I posted the thread. I was just addressing a misuse of Galatians 3:24 (not even the method that sometimes misuses the passage).
     

Share This Page

Loading...