Galatians 3 - Christ being made a curse

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate brought up this passage on another thread explaining how Christ took on our curse

i want to take the "limiting" factor @Anthony Pritchard suggested - that the biblical text is limiting - and examine the biblical text itself.

Here is the passage:

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.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:8–14)

 

[JonC]

Who is the "us" who were "under the curse of the Law"?

Why did Jesus become a curse for those who were under the curse of the Law?

 

[JonC]

My answer:

Christ redeemed the Jews who were under the Law from the curse of the Lawin order that in Christ the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles.

 

[DaveXR650]

Who is the "us" who were "under the curse of the Law"?

Galatians 3:10 using the NIV says "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse". To me that means Jews and also gentiles who are being told by Judaizers that they must still keep the law as Christ followers. That would be the groups in Galatians 3 being addressed in context. Other gentiles may have become Christians without knowing much of Judaism or the Jewish system, as those in Ephesians 2. They are told that they once walked according to the course of this world, and under the influence of the powers of the air and did quite well at being by nature children of wrath without the law. But they are in the same boat. Technically you might say they were not "under the curse of the Law" because they didn't have anything to do with the Law. Ephesians 2:12 says these folks were "separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Christ redeemed the Jews who were under the Law from the curse of the Lawin order that in Christ the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles.

Maybe it's just because of all the previous posts I have seen from you but I always sense that you are somehow desperately trying to somehow get out from under the fact that for all of us, Jew or gentile proselyte or gentile pagan, Christ's cross and his blood shedding death is the only source of our redemption, period, and whether it's described as removing a handwriting of ordinances against us, becoming a curse for us, nailing sin to the cross, bearing sin in his own body on the tree, sin being removed, or washed away, or whatever; it always comes back to a direct substitution of Christ for us, Jew or Gentile, who as it says in Ephesians, were children of wrath with no hope, with the only difference with the Jews being that they were officially breakers of the Law - with no hope.

 

[JonC]

Galatians 3:10 using the NIV says "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse". To me that means Jews and also gentiles who are being told by Judaizers that they must still keep the law as Christ followers. That would be the groups in Galatians 3 being addressed in context. Other gentiles may have become Christians without knowing much of Judaism or the Jewish system, as those in Ephesians 2. They are told that they once walked according to the course of this world, and under the influence of the powers of the air and did quite well at being by nature children of wrath without the law. But they are in the same boat. Technically you might say they were not "under the curse of the Law" because they didn't have anything to do with the Law. Ephesians 2:12 says these folks were "separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Maybe it's just because of all the previous posts I have seen from you but I always sense that you are somehow desperately trying to somehow get out from under the fact that for all of us, Jew or gentile proselyte or gentile pagan, Christ's cross and his blood shedding death is the only source of our redemption, period, and whether it's described as removing a handwriting of ordinances against us, becoming a curse for us, nailing sin to the cross, bearing sin in his own body on the tree, sin being removed, or washed away, or whatever; it always comes back to a direct substitution of Christ for us, Jew or Gentile, who as it says in Ephesians, were children of wrath with no hope, with the only difference with the Jews being that they were officially breakers of the Law - with no hope.

Yes, you are reading into my posts.

I am talking about the "us" that were under the curse of the Law in Galatians 3:8–14 and what Christ being made a curse under that Law accomplished.

The only "Law breakers" were those under the Law, but even though that is true all have sinned and death spread to all humanity. Sin exists apart from the Law. But the Old Covenant that applied only to those under that Covenant has ended and the New Covenant which includes Gentiles has come.

I do not understand where you get "removing" or "washing away" from Galatians 3:8–14. This is what I mean by lifting verses from their context and mixing verses to make an idea, philosophy or theory appear "biblical".

The passage is about the Old and New Covenants, about Jesus redeeming those who were under the curse of the Law by Himself becoming a curse under the Law in order that in Christ the blessings of Abraham might come to the Gentiles.


Jesus redeemed mankind, purchased "the human family" from the bondage of sin and death, from oppression. BUT this passage is speaking of Jesus redeeming those who were under the curse of the Law by Himself becoming a curse under the Law in order that in Christ the blessings of Abraham might come to the Gentiles.

The Law was a bondage for those under the Law, but sin existed even among those who were apart from the Law. Abraham was not under the Law yet he sinned and he died.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I agree that we cannot say Gentiles were ever under the Law. Here is the passage you offered:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.


We were separated from Christ, foreign to the covenants of the Promise.

You are right (even though you kinda sound like NT Wright here) that we were excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the Promise.

It is good that the Old Covenant ended with the New Covenant. We can rightly say we were never under the Law. But we csn learn from the Law because God does not change. The righteousness manifested through the Law is the same righteousness manifested in Christ, in the New Covenant. It just has a deeper meaning (the Law was but a shadow).

 

[DaveXR650]

do not understand where you get "removing" or "washing away" from Galatians 3:8–14. This is what I mean by lifting verses from their context and mixing verses to make an idea, philosophy or theory appear "biblical".

I don't - from there. What I am saying is that the concepts of Christ doing something for all of us that we were unable to do for ourselves, directly, is being explained in one way in that passage, and the same thing in Ephesians 2 is being explained by just saying by the blood. What is being described is deliverance from a lost condition with no possibility of fixing this on our own. Blotting our a handwriting of ordinances, being brought near through the blood, becoming a curse for us, bearing our sin in his own body on the tree. You have been making a horrible mistake all along when you try to use a passage describing something against another passage describing the same thing in a different way. What you do is to constantly "read into my posts" when you assume that using more than one way to describe something or for that matter, to use New Testament interpretation of Old Testament passages, is lifting verses to make a philosophy appear biblical.

 

[JonC]

I don't - from there. What I am saying is that the concepts of Christ doing something for all of us that we were unable to do for ourselves,

Ah... I think I get what you are saying (the "washing" part threw me off).

What I understsnd from the passage is that Jesus fulfilled the Law (His obefience) but also became a curse under the Law (hung on the cross). This was to redeem those who were under the curse of the Law (Israel) by Himself becoming a curse under the Law wirh the purpose that in Christ the blessings of Abraham might come to the Gentiles.

Absolutely we benefit from the Law being Jesus abolishing the Law. I was discusding the passage from the standpoint of those redeemed from the Law but you are right that the purpose was the inclusion of Gentiles in the Promise.

Too often "He became a curse for us" has been misused. This is what I was trying to tell @Anthony Pritchard . We have to read a passage within the context of that passage rather than select verses to use however we feel suits the plain meaning of the isolated verse.

 

[DaveXR650]

What I understsnd from the passage is that Jesus fulfilled the Law (His obefience) but also became a curse under the Law (hung on the cross).

Yes, he fulfilled the Law all the way - including the conclusion that the law breaker will die. Yet he was innocent. This is why people get outraged when you try to make a point that God will not punish the innocent. That is the whole outrageousness and uniqueness of the cross of Christ. That God did punish the innocent (Jesus) and let off the guilty (us - Jew and gentile) is exactly what happened on the cross. This is the great stumbling block for the Jews, and apparently for others. That being that there is no resolution, no new covenant, no new repentance or change that we can do to fix our situation before a holy God.

The argument Paul is making in Galatians 3 is that these Judaizers weren't even getting their own system right. If Abraham himself had been there with Paul he would have been mad at what the Jews were telling the gentile converts too!

As a side note you mention Jesus fulfilling the Law. There is another controversy among Christians. I tend to believe that Jesus did fulfill the law (active and passive obedience) for us and on our behalf and our union with Christ is essential for our salvation and it is how we obtain the benefits of Christ's work on the cross. It may also be a neglected doctrine. Penal substitution is not a stand alone issue where your sins are independently gone upon your asking, no matter what. Christ's obedience in his life and his passive obedience on the cross, where he bore our sin and guilt and wrath due us, is what we get in Christ and only in Christ. And, as you keep saying, it is there (in Christ) where you are a new creation, created to now be able to really do good works. Sometimes, there has been a tendency to separate out the concepts of our salvation to where you can have people whose sins have been covered and removed, who are the same people they always were, only now with a get out of jail free card and then we spend the rest of our lives trying to convince them to actually live a Christian life.

Some Calvinists get around this by saying that regeneration (or being born again) occurs before faith. I don't agree with that but I will say there is no one who savingly believes who is not regenerated, in union with Christ, or born again, the exact time frame I don't claim to know. There is no one running around with their sins forgiven who is not in union with Christ. But union with Christ certainly includes him being the penal substitute for the wrath of God against sin, the propitiation for us, and the one who bore all our sin. It is simply a scriptural fact that this is included with being in union with Christ and indeed it is the central point. It is the awareness of our sin separating us from God that is the principle grace given to those who hear the gospel and it is the primary work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of all who get saved.

 

[JonC]

Yes, he fulfilled the Law all the way - including the conclusion that the law breaker will die. Yet he was innocent. This is why people get outraged when you try to make a point that God will not punish the innocent.

I never made the point that God will not punish the innocent. I quoted two passages stating that it is unjust to punish the innocent and evil to punish the innocent. I stated three passages that described the punishment of Jesus as "oppression" (the unjust exercise of power), "unjust judgment" and "revile" (abuse).

Those word God's words, not mine.

My conclusion is that the punishment of God is never "unjust", never "oppression", never "abuse", never "revile". Instead God is always Just and acts in accordance with His revealed nature.

I own that conclusion. It belongs to me. BUT what you have said people find outrageous were God's words. They belong to Him.


People get outraged because their theory does not hold up to the biblical text. They reason away the text - "oh... punishing the innocent and clearing the guilty is only unjust if we do it...how God became oppressive, abusive, and judged with unjust judgment is a mystery."


Here you are pretending we disagree about many things we do not. I do not know why as we have enough actual differences to talk about.

 

[DaveXR650]

I never made the point that God will not punish the innocent. I quoted two passages stating that it is unjust to punish the innocent and evil to punish the innocent. I stated three passages that described the punishment of Jesus as "oppression" (the unjust exercise of power), "unjust judgment" and "revile" (abuse).

Well you certainly did if you also believe God is just. You're so all over the place you can't even discuss an issue involving a single point without contradicting yourself.

My conclusion is that the punishment of God is never "unjust", never "oppression", never "abuse", never "revile". Instead God is always Just and acts in accordance with His revealed nature.

And my point is that Christ bearing our sin on the cross is indeed "unjust" toward Christ who was innocent. And it allowed God to be just and still justify sinners. This explains Christ's almost bizarre behavior at his mock trial. He deliberately chose not to defend himself because he knew he was taking on our sin and acting on our behalf and therefore was doing God's will in bearing our guilt - which was just in God's eyes (thankfully for us). For his part, he technically won his case, and was put to death anyway by the hands of evil men for several reasons, one of them being to bear our sin, but they didn't know any of that.

Here you are pretending we disagree where we do not. I do not know why as we have enough actual differences to talk about.

You are really hardening in your heretical beliefs and I hope you will take some time and think this over. I wish the other moderators would step in and give you some time to do so. I try to be as conciliatory as I can and I was hoping you did agree basically but maybe had some concerns about the way in which PSA is expressed by some in the shallow evangelical community and was hoping that maybe you were just concerned about the lack of emphasis on our need for new birth and union with Christ. But I see there is truly a deep seated animosity toward substitutionary atonement which I believe is central to Christianity.

 

[JonC]

Well you certainly did if you also believe God is just.

No, I absolutely do not believe that God opressed Jesus, abused Jesus, unjustly punished Jesus.

Let me explain. We know that Muslims do not worship God when they worship Allah. Do you know why the Muslim god and the God of the Bible are not the same? Because the attributes of their god do not match the attributes of God as He has revealed Himself to us.

Same with those who proclaim God punished the innocent and cleared the guilty; that the punishment Jesus suffered, the oppression, unjust judgment, abuse was God's punishment. They worship another god because God has revealed thar He is Just, that His judgment is Just, that He is holy, that He is righteous.

Any person who declares that God's punishment is oppression, abuse and unjust judgment, that God punishes the innocent and clears the righteous worships a god different from the God of the Bible. Period. There is no way around it.


Is PSA shallow? It depends on what you compare it to. It holds a shallow view of sin (believing it is a matter of jurisprudence, remedied by punishment) compared to other Christian views. It holds a shallow view of divine justice by holding punishment satisfies justice, when compared to most other Christian views.

BUT we have to remember that your view differs from many who believe PSA. Many PSA theories do not believe thar God oppressed, judged with unjust judgment, or abused Jesus. Manu PSA theorists hold these theological aberrations separate from how they view God (the "rooms" @Anthony Pritchard mentioned). When I was a PSA theorist (and a Calvinist) I never claimed that God oppressed, abused, or engaged in unjust judgment.

The issue is when PSA theorists are carried away from thr biblical God (the God who judges righteously, Who dies not punish the innocent or clear the guilty, Whose judgment is always just rather than oppression, unjust judgment and abuse to worship a god foreign to God as He has revealed Himself to us in His Word.

In Psalm 22 we read the Servant forsaken to suffer, crying out for God to deliver Him. His appeal was to God's absolute faithfulness, the faithfulness you reject.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I have a question (wanting the input from somebody who holds an opposing view... kinda a different topic, but kinda not).

Galatians tells us that Christ was made a curse under the Mosaic Law to redeem those who were in bondage under the Law (they were curses under the Law, transgressors). The reason was for us (that in Christ the blessings of the Promise would come to us).

Paul also explains that Christ abolished the Mosaic Law (the Old Covenant, the certificate of debts against those under the Law).

We have two concepts - redeeming those under the bondage of the Law to bring the blessings of the Promise to those not under the Law and redeeming those under the bondage of sin and death.

In your opinion, how was the Mosaic Law abolished (as opposed to redeeming humanity from bondage to sin and death)?

I am not talking about two events, I know this was one event. I am asking how you view the two concepts.

 

[DaveXR650]

In Psalm 22 we read the Servant forsaken to suffer, crying out for God to deliver Him. His appeal was to God's absolute faithfulness, the faithfulness you reject.

You have no right to suggest that about me as I haven't commented on Psalm 22. The fact is, I don't believe at any time God was angry with Jesus. As for the concept of "punishment", in the sense that what was inflicted upon the son was enough to pay as it were our sin debt, call it whatever you wish. And if Christ was "made a curse for us" then somehow he was made a curse by someone. If you don't want that to be by the will of the Trinity for our benefit then you are left with the illegal action of the mob and the Roman and Jewish authorities being the only reason this happened. That is not what scripture says at all.

Is PSA shallow? It depends on what you compare it to. It holds a shallow view of sin (believing it is a matter of jurisprudence, remedied by punishment) compared to other Christian views. It holds a shallow view of divine justice by holding punishment satisfies justice, when compared to most other Christian views.

If it's serious enough to cause Christ to go through what he did it cannot be shallow in that regard. It is only shallow if used as a stand alone concept where someone may claim a get our of jail free card as a result of a superficial profession of faith. That is called antinomianism by the theologians and is dealt with as early as Romans 6. It does not require PSA to be so but it is what we see mostly in our world today.

No, I absolutely do not believe that God opressed Jesus, abused Jesus, unjustly punished Jesus.

The bottom line is use whatever terminology you wish but if anything at all involved in the death of Christ was of God's plan or desire as well as the desire of the Son then there is a sense in which this was unjust. Jesus was innocent and the Father's will was that he come to earth to do this very thing. Jesus himself was just. We are unjust. That is scripture refers to when it says "the just for the unjust". But thank goodness, this plan, devised by the just Father allows Him to be true to his overall sense of justice and yet deliver us who he saves from that which we by rights - deserved. This seems to be what you oppose. Stop playing with terms. Some say God punished Jesus, some say God temporarily hated Jesus. All we know for sure is that this is the way God's holiness and justice was satisfied so that he could save us and be true to his nature. To reject this knowingly is to reject salvation.

The issue is when PSA theorists are carried away from thr biblical God (the God who judges righteously, Who dies not punish the innocent or clear the guilty, Whose judgment is always just rather than oppression, unjust judgment and abuse to worship a god foreign to God as He has revealed Himself to us in His Word.

This is exactly what baffles the Muslims. It always comes down to this in debates with them. If God is like you suggest (and he would have a right to be so) then after Adam sinned the world would be destroyed or left to go spiraling off on it's own. At best we could demand our own chance with the knowledge that as soon as we personally sinned we would be toast.

 

[DaveXR650]

Galatians tells us that Christ was made a curse under the Mosaic Law to redeem those who were in bondage under the Law (they were curses under the Law, transgressors). The reason was for us (that in Christ the blessings of the Promise would come to us).

I think where you ere is that "in Christ the blessings of the Promise would come to us" is true. But why do you tie this to the Jews being redeemed by Christ being made a curse for them? What Paul is saying is that these Jews, who are trying to tell gentile Christians that they must still keep Jewish law are forgetting that they themselves never kept the Law and their salvation was because of Christ's being made a curse for them - and Christ is also how the gentiles who are saved would be saved - even though they were never officially under the Law.

The Law was given to the Jews. They made a mess of keeping it and Paul pulls no punches in Romans where he tells them that a pagan who tries to do right is as good as a Jew who doesn't really keep the Law anyway. Paul is not going to have these Judaizers start trying to interfere with these gentile Christians by telling them they have to add law keeping, especially when they themselves did such a poor job of keeping it - and as it turns out, depend on Christ to save them, not law keeping, anyway.

Now I think that we need to be careful. You have to read the whole book of Galatians. There is a reason circumcision is always brought up. Paul is not saying that the moral part of the Law is no longer important. If you believe that you have to cut our Galatians 5 and 6 from your Bible. But he is saying that law keeping never was the way to salvation for anyone, especially not gentiles who were never part of Israel after the flesh. With Christ's work on the cross completed there is no difference between Jew and gentile. But we are equal in that we are all equally dependent on Christ for our salvation.

 

[JonC]

I think where you ere is that "in Christ the blessings of the Promise would come to us" is true. But why do you tie this to the Jews being redeemed by Christ being made a curse for them?

Why do I tie in the blessing of Abraham coming to the Gentiles with Christ redeeming those under the Law (those who were made a curse) from the curse of the Law by Jesus being made a curse?

I do not see any other way to read the verse. That is why I was asking your opinion.

I read the "in order that" in Galatians 3 to tie the two statements together. The structure I see is "x" happened in order that "y" may occur links x and y.


"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:11–15)

Galatians 3 tells us that those under the Law are a curse because they disobey the Law. Jesus became a curse not for disobedience but because He was hung on a cross.

This was to redeem those under the Law in order that in Christ the blessings of Abraham (an older Covenant, covenants are not nullified becsuse new ones arise but when they are fulfilled [the previous chapter]) might come to the Gentiles, so we would recieve the promise by faith.

The Old Covenant (the Law) kept the Jews from receiving the promises (the Abrahamic Covenant, the Promise). Their disobedience made them a curse. The New Covenant is the manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the Law. It is by faith we receive the promises, not by works.

 

[DaveXR650]

This was to redeem those under the Law in order that in Christ the blessings of Abraham (an older Covenant, covenants are not nullified becsuse new ones arise but when they are fulfilled [the previous chapter]) might come to the Gentiles, so we would recieve the promise by faith.

I just think Galatians 3:11 applies to everyone, Jew and gentile. The blessings of Abraham is explained later in verse 16 as to Abraham and his seed, not seeds. It refers to Christ. He became a curse for us just has he became a curse for the Jews. We are all saved the same way. Nothing was done for the Jews that directly lead to something involved in our salvation, if that is what you mean.

 

[JonC]

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:8–14)

@DaveXR650

I am trying to understand how you understand the passage.

How do you not tie "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us" to "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles"?