Galatians 3 - Christ being made a curse

[JonC]

I think Paul is just saying that this is a promise and so has nothing to do with law or conditions.

So when Paul says "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles" you take it as "We Jews and Gentiles are Jews by nature"?

I am trying to understand how you view the concept "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles" to mean Christ redeemed everybody from the curse of the Law (including those who were not under the Law).


It seems odd to me because those not under the Law were never subject to the curse of the Law. Also, the redeeming from the curse was to include all in Christ.

I do not understand how you are structuring this passage to arrive at your conclusion.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I am going to walk through Galatians (how I understand the text).

I think this will be the best way for me to grasp where we differ regarding the epistle so I can consider it against mine and the biblical text. I am always open to correcting my position but have to text it against God's words.

I apologize in advance for the time spent as I realize many want to jump to specific verses and go from there, but that is not how I study (yes, I am slow).


Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), and all the brethren who are with me,

To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen. (Gal 1:1-5)


My understanding -

1.Paul is addressing the churches in Galatia.

2. Paul derives authority as an Apostle (sent from Jesus Christ.

3. Christ gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God.

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. (1:6-10)

My understanding

1. Paul addresses the problem within his audience of people leaving the gospel for a false gospel, a distorted gospel.

2. Those who offer a gospel different of what has been given are accursed.

3. Paul is not seeking the approval of man but of God.

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they were glorifying God because of me. (1:11–24)

This is my understanding-

1. The Gospel that Paul preached is not from man but from God.

2. Paul gives his testimony, how he went from persecuting churches to acceptance of the gospel.

 

[JonC]

Galatians 2

Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do. ( 2:1–10)

My understanding:

1. The Gospel is preached to Gentiles.

2. Some sought to being Gentiles under the bondage of the Law.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

“We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!

For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (2:11–21)

My understanding:

1. Paul recounts his rebuke of Peter.

2. Man is not justified by the Law but by faith in Jesus.

3. If righteousness cones through the Law then Christ died needlessly.

 

[DaveXR650]

So when Paul says "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles" you take it as "We Jews and Gentiles are Jews by nature"?

No, the whole chapter 3 is showing that in reality the Jews were saved by faith also. So why let them subvert the gospel by claiming that the gentiles must do the practices of the law - when the law never saved them either. Verse 14 is just saying that Jesus was promised as part of what God promised Abraham as a blessing to all nations. As is clarified in verse 16.

I am trying to understand how you view the concept "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles" to mean Christ redeemed everybody from the curse of the Law (including those who were not under the Law).

Are you looking at "in order that" as a causation? It's not in other versions. It flows better in the old KJV where verses 12-14 flow together as one concept. Remember, verse 11 set the stage by saying "But that no man is justified in the sight of God by the law, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith".

Verse 26 sums it up. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ". Again, verse 28 says there is neither Jew nor Greek, but we are all one in Christ Jesus.

It seems odd to me because those not under the Law were never subject to the curse of the Law. Also, the redeeming from the curse was to include all in Christ.

I do not see anything in chapter 3 that would preclude gentiles seeing Jesus as being made a curse for them too. I agree that gentiles sinned without the law while Jews sinned under the law. Those of us who are gentiles but have been raised under the teaching of the Old and New Testaments certainly lived under the concept of these laws being the basis for right and wrong. I would suggest staying within the context of what Paul is doing in the letter. He is dealing with people on the verge of going back from the gospel and reverting to Judaism and attempting to practice Jewish law as a path to salvation. Chapter 3 is saying that the promise to Abraham included Christ and this was actually before the law anyway. So why go back to the law. He is pointing out that salvation was always by faith - even for the Jews under the law. The law was never able to save. Why try to put it on gentiles now when it couldn't even save the Jews.

 

[JonC]

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

All of this is important because it is builds into the next chapter.


You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. (3:1–7)

My understanding:

1. Paul admonished those who looked to works over faith.

2. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

3. Those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham.

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” (3:8)

Here is my understanding:

1. The Scripture proclaimed the gospel beforehand to Abraham.

2. This gospel preached to Abraham was "All the nations will be blessed in you".

3. Scripture declared this forseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.

 

[JonC]

No, the whole chapter 3 is showing that in reality the Jews were saved by faith also. So why let them subvert the gospel by claiming that the gentiles must do the practices of the law - when the law never saved them either.

This is what I have stated as well. The Gentiles were never under the Law. It was not a transgressions for Gentiles to eat pork or shrimp, or to weave different fabrics together.

I agree that some were trying to put Gentile Christians under the Law which had been abolished.


My point was that Jesus became a curse under the Law to redeem those who had become a curse under the Law in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles (who were never under the Law).


Redemption, based on the kinsman redeemer in the Old Testament, necessitates the redeemer be family.

Jesus was obedient, He fulfilled the Law. But at the same time the Law could not provide redemption even theough Christ (He was made a curse, just like all of the Jews were a curse under the Law, not because of disobedience but because He was hung on a tree). He shared in their curse, shared in what it was to be under the Law. He bore their curse, it was not something He earned through disobedience.


Likewise, Jesus shared in our humanity, our sin. He was made a curse for those who were a curse under the Law and He was made sin for all humanity who were sin through their disobedience.


But the context of Galatians is not Christ becoming a curse to free us from the Law, it was for us in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

To clarify my comments:

We were not redeemed from the curse of the Law as we were never a curse under the Law (we were never under the Law).

Jesus become a curse under the Law (hung on a tree), and He became under the Law just like any who were under Law (a curse).

He did this for us in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles. But He did not redeem those not under the Law (those who were not a curse under the Law) from the curse of the Law. He abolished the Law which we were never under. This is a very important idea within Paul's arguments (not only in Galatians).

This means there is no distinction between Jew snd Gentile. This means the deeper problem was not the Jews bring a curse under the Law but sin which held all (Jew and Gentile alike) in bondage.



[Jesus] gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, (Galatians 1:4).

 

[DaveXR650]

Jesus was obedient, He fulfilled the Law. But at the same time the Law could not provide redemption even theough Christ (He was made a curse, just like all of the Jews were a curse under the Law, not because of disobedience but because He was hung on a tree). He shared in their curse, shared in what it was to be under the Law. He bore their curse, it was not something He earned through disobedience.


Likewise, Jesus shared in our humanity, our sin. He was made a curse for those who were a curse under the Law and He was made sin for all humanity who were sin through their disobedience.


But the context of Galatians is not Christ becoming a curse to free us from the Law, it was for us in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles.

As always, you will get back to trying to make this into a solidarity issue because you refuse to believe Jesus did something to actually bear our sin. You go ahead with that if you wish as I'm not going to be able to convince you. I do suggest you think about the concept of being cursed because you were hanged on a tree. Being hanged on a tree in scripture indicated someone who is cursed. The emphasis is not that they were hanged on a tree and that was the reason they were cursed - but that they were judged cursed and thus hung on a tree as an illustration and proof that they were cursed.

Jesus did share our humanity and our sin. But he also took our sin and God's wrath upon himself. Wrath and judgement we deserved was placed on him instead of us. Galatians is trying to stop the Judaizers from destroying the gospel and ruining the Galatian church. Jews under the law were looking forward to Christ and gentiles coming later can look to Christ and his already finished work in time. That is the difference. Paul tells the Galatians that the law had a purpose as a schoolmaster but it certainly does not need to be practiced by gentiles for salvation - it wasn't even for that for the Jews in pre Christian times.

 

[JonC]

As always, you will get back to trying to make this into a solidarity issue because you refuse to believe Jesus did something to actually bear our sin.

No, as normal you are posting out of ignorance (not understanding the posts to which you respond). That was why I started with the first chapter.

What does the Bible say that may at least hint at solidarity insofar as Christ coming to Hos own, and the Word bevoming flesh?

1. Christ was made like the brethern.
2. Christ shared in our infirmity.
3. Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
4. Christ shared our humanity.
5. Christ was made like us in every way.
6. We share in Christ's sufferings
7. We share in Christ's comfort
8. Christ called Himself the Son of Man


In the text we have been discusding Paul describes those under the Law as being a curse under the Law for their disobedience. Then he says Christ became a curse under the Law - not for disobedience but because He was hung on a tree.

The concept of a redeemer demands a shared relationship. If Jesus did not become a curse under the Law He could not redeem those who were a curse under the Law.

Absent solidarity there is no biblical redemption.

I do not believe it is appropriate to exclude what God has said simply because one's theory has no use for His words.

 

[DaveXR650]

1. Christ was made like the brethern.
2. Christ shared in our infirmity.
3. Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
4. Christ shared our humanity.
5. Christ was made like us in every way.
6. We share in Christ's sufferings
7. We share in Christ's comfort
8. Christ called Himself the Son of Man

Of course these are true.

I do not believe it is appropriate to exclude what God has said simply because one's theory has no use for His words.

"One's theory" states very clearly that the above is true and has to be in order for Christ to function as a perfect high priest for us. My theory makes us fully dependent upon that on a constant basis. (I thought you claim to have read Owen). We also depend upon a union with Christ as the way in which we receive the benefits of Christ's work. But Christ's work does include him taking God's wrath and the punishment we deserve upon himself - and not just in solidarity with us. Everybody who subscribes to what you refer to as "One's theory" knows this and writes about it from Owen to Bonar. You are either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting my "theory". At any rate since I am that ignorant you will not benefit from further discussion with me so try to get someone else to respond to this thread if you can.