When we take away what was added

[shnarkle]

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul points out that the law "that was added because of transgressions" is done away with.

When a law is added, it stands to reason that it was added to something that already exists. In this case it is added to the law, and it is only added because of transgressions. It is not added because of observance to God's law.

So if we have one law, and then we add yet another law, then we have two laws. When the law that was added is taken away, we still have the original law that always existed.

Here it is stated mathematically: 1 + 1 = 2; Paul then states that 2 - 1 = 1. So we still have 1. Why is that ignored?

My question is how is it that the original law is now included with "that which was added"? Where does Paul state that the law that originally existed was done away with as well, and how does one identify this as the original law rather than that which was added?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

I'm not entirely with you on what laws were added and removed that you're referring to, but just because something was added doesn't mean it was added to something of a similar nature. A carrot can be added to a cake, for example, without a cake originally being a carrot. A law can be added to a list of principles. You may still be right though since I'm not sure what you're referring to, but it simply doesn't necessitate addition to something of the same kind.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

The original law, the law of God... is love.

God is Himself love. Naturally the law that comes from Him will be love. Love from love (truth and life also come from love).


Christ confirms the law also when He states that the two most important laws are to love God with your whole heart, mind, soul... and to love your neighbor as yourself. He even says that all the prophets and all the law hang upon these two commandments. He goes even further when He tells us (clarifies) that we are to love our enemies; and even the new command that He leaves His apostles is to love one another as He has loved us.





**

Israel was given a written law because of transgressions, yes, because their hearts were too hard for the law (of love) to (yet) be written upon. As Christ also said (regarding the law on divorce): Moses gave you this law because your hearts were hard, but it was not this way from the beginning.


Israel needed a tutor.

Before the written law was given though... love was the law written upon Abraham's heart (and he would have taught that law to his sons), the law that he followed.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[ElCodeMonkey]

Ah, sorry, I get what you were saying now. Yeah, in essence, what Tam said .

I might add that love itself isn't a law. If one were to follow it as a law, it ceases to actually be love. Love for my wife, for example, might have me wash dishes more often, but a law requiring me to wash dishes does not suddenly make me love my wife. It will, however, make me wash dishes. Because I transgressed to love, the dishes remained undone, and this was bad, so a law was created to make me do what love should have had me do without any laws. Laws, therefore, are made as a means to make up for what is lacking. If a person follows love, no laws are necessary. Laws were "added" to "our way of life" because we lacked love. So now, with a proper understanding of God's decree to love, we can do away with law and use our brains to determine what is loving in all situations. We're not bound by "do the dishes" or other laws like had become of the Pharisaical religion, but we should love which would indeed likely yield dishes being done. Everyone's love, however, might differ in how we do it. Just because dishes aren't done doesn't necessarily mean love is absent.

[ttruscott]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

The original law, the law of God... is love.

Yes - and we heard it in the beginning...2 John 1:5 And now I urge you, dear lady--not as a new commandment to you, but one we have had from the beginning--that we love one another.

Beginning of what? is an interesting question.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

I'm not entirely with you on what laws were added and removed that you're referring to, but just because something was added doesn't mean it was added to something of a similar nature. A carrot can be added to a cake, for example, without a cake originally being a carrot. A law can be added to a list of principles. You may still be right though since I'm not sure what you're referring to, but it simply doesn't necessitate addition to something of the same kind.

Sorry for the vague post. When Paul speaks of those laws which "were added because of transgressions" he is referring to the commandments. How do we know this? Because it is the commandments that are being transgressed. Sin is defined in the bible as transgressing the commandments, and they are explicitly the commandments of God.

I think your example of carrots and cake is good though because it is just like what we're dealing with in that people will cherry pick laws that are to be observed while ignoring others. There's no rhyme or reason to any of it.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

If you read where Jesus is attributed with saying that all the 10 laws could be kept simply by observing 2 of them, and that in observing 2 of them, observing either 1 of those 2 was observing both, you might glean a better understanding.

Adding to the laws have there consequences. Whatever Paul was attempting to explain, it may well be that he was unaware of what Jesus is attributed with saying regarding the law, and - in that - complicated things. Also, perhaps his audience was different to the folk Jesus was teaching.

[shnarkle]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

The original law, the law of God... is love.

God is Himself love. Naturally the law that comes from Him will be love. Love from love (truth and life also come from love).


Christ confirms the law also when He states that the two most important laws are to love God with your whole heart, mind, soul... and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Yes, and these laws he is referring to are to be found within one's heart as well as within the written code of Moses. To those he was speaking, it was clearly evident that he was referring to the written law of Moses.

He even says that all the prophets and all the law hang upon these two commandments.

Yes, and if they are hanging there, they clearly are not done away with.

He goes even further when He tells us (clarifies) that we are to love our enemies;

Yes, and this is straight from the written Mosaic law. Exodus 22:4,5.

and even the new command that He leaves His apostles is to love one another as He has loved us.

This isn't just a new command, but one that nullifies loving your neighbor as yourself. You can't do both. Once one see's Christ in the world, they no longer treat themselves, or their neighbor as themselves.

Israel was given a written law because of transgressions,

Yes, they were given a written law that was "against" them, but this is not the commandments which are not against them, but "for" them and their benefit; e.g. "The Sabbath was made FOR man...etc."

because their hearts were too hard for the law (of love) to (yet) be written upon.

No, this is backwards. God doesn't write his laws on hearts that are flowing with love. He takes the cold dead heart and tosses it out, and replaces it with a brand new one. Jer.31:33; Ezekiel 11:19. More importantly, one needs to look at the reason God does this which is so that they keep his commandments, not so they can ignore them.

As Christ also said (regarding the law on divorce): Moses gave you this law because your hearts were hard, but it was not this way from the beginning.

Right, but here you're conflating the law allowing divorce with "that which was added because of transgressions". The law allowing divorce is showing God's grace. People with cold dead hearts shouldn't get married in the first place, therefore there needs to be a remedy for those who make this mistake. Divorce in this context isn't a violation of the commandment, but an addendum for special circumstances. The mistake was in getting married in the first place, and there certainly is no law against marriage "from the beginning".

Israel needed a tutor.

Yes, but the tutor was only for those who transgressed God's commandments, not for those who kept them. The tutor is not the commandments as is evidenced by the fact that the tutur (Gr. paedegagos) doesn't teach anything. Paul is clear that the Law is for our instruction.

Before the written law was given though... love was the law written upon Abraham's heart (and he would have taught that law to his sons), the law that he followed.

No, Abram was originally an idolator just his father was. Even after Abraham had his name changed, he still didn't follow God in his heart as can be seen by his faithless response to God's promise of a son the following year. He wouldn't have had Ishmael if God's promise was written on his heart.

Simply codifying God's commandments is not what is in view with "what was added because of transgressions" as the commandments are not a "curse", nor are they 'against' us. See Deuteronomy 30:25,26 to see what Paul is referring to when he speaks of the ordinances that are against us.

It is important to "rightly divide the word" here as what laws are "for" us can't be the laws that are "against" us. Note also where the commandments are located verses where the "scroll" is located. The commandments are located inside the Ark while the scroll is located beside the Ark. The commandments are chiseled into stone while that which was added is written on a scroll.

Note that the law that is "established" cannot be the law that is done away with. They can't be the same law.

I will concede that there is all the difference in the world between keeping God's commandments in one's heart verses only keeping them externally, but the fact remains that if one keeps them in their heart due to God's grace, then they most certainly keep them externally. The glaring problem here is in noting those who do just the opposite with the added abomination of justifying their disobedience.

It makes no sense to keep a law just in one's heart without actually manifesting it externally in the world around them. Examples include, but are not limited to keeping the Sabbath, the dietary laws, the laws against usury, etc.

Christ and Paul at no time ever allow or condone cherry picking laws to keep while ignoring those we've redefined as no longer sinful.

Taking the Sabbath as a prime example, the Sabbath was created and kept by God himself. A written code wasn't necessary for Adam due to the fact that he hadn't transgressed God's commandment. He was walking with God which doesn't require God's law to be codified. When one falls into bondage, and then released, they necessarily will need to know God's will. If they refuse to return into the presence of God (as is evidenced at Mt. Sinai, e.g. "they stood afar off"), then they need a code to live by. When that code is violated, then those laws dealing with violations are "added".

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

If you read where Jesus is attributed with saying that all the 10 laws could be kept simply by observing 2 of them, and that in observing 2 of them, observing either 1 of those 2 was observing both, you might glean a better understanding.

First off, I know of no place where Jesus is attributed with confining his statement to just the 10 commandments. It is stated "the law and the prophets". The clear message is that when one loves God, they keep all of his commandments. It just naturally follows that those who love God, keep his commandments. Which necessarily leads to the bewildering "doctrines of demons" being propagated which openly and defiantly justify ignoring God's commandments, e.g. the 4th, the 7th, the dietary laws, usury, etc.

Adding to the laws have there consequences.

Here again, this is backwards from what Paul states. The violation of the commandments results in the consequential laws being added.

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by shnarkle]

First off, I know of no place where Jesus is attributed with confining his statement to just the 10 commandments.

What I said is that he reduced the 10 into 2 and that the two were one and the same.

It is stated "the law and the prophets". The clear message is that when one loves God, they keep all of his commandments.

The message I referred to was that if one loves GOD, one automatically 'keeps the commandments' Observing hundreds of laws does not amount to the same thing.

Adding to the laws have there consequences.

Here again, this is backwards from what Paul states. The violation of the commandments results in the consequential laws being added.

Nonetheless, adding to the laws have there consequences. As the story goes, there were only 10. The tribes of Israel chose to add all the sub-clauses - likely because they immediate argued the points.

Confusion when taking it one way. Clarity when understanding it the other.