The Purpose of the Law. The Law of Moses was much
more than a statement of theological principles or a set of moral codes for the
regulation of human conduct. In the summary statement made at Mount Sinai, we
read:
- (Exodus 19:3-6) - “And when Moses had gone up to God, then called Yahweh to him out of the mountain saying, Thus, shall you say to the house of Jacob, and tell the sons of Israel: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bare you upon wings of eagles, and brought you to myself: Now, therefore, if you will indeed hearken to my voice, and keep my covenant, then you will be mine as a treasure beyond all the peoples, for mine is all the earth. But you will be mine, as a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which you will speak to the sons of Israel.”
Israel was the people chosen by God as His treasure above
all other nations. The Law was not simply a collection of
moral precepts but a covenant between Yahweh
and the entire nation of Israel. The pronoun “you”
in the passage is plural, not singular. It was not individual Israelites that
accepted the covenant one-by-one, but the entire nation proclaimed in unison -
“All that Yahweh has commanded we will do.”
The Law was given to the nation of Israel, and NOT to
any other nation, and her obedience to the Torah was vital to
her possession of the Promised Land. The Torah was a
national contract between Yahweh and Israel, one that included a
sacrificial system, dietary restrictions, laws of inheritance, civil
regulations, penal codes, and so on. Some of its regulations were
specific to the nation residing in the land of Canaan; for example, the
establishment of cities of refuge and regulations governing inheritance.
The Law was intended to keep Israel holy and separate from the
surrounding nations. The dietary restrictions, for example, were designed
to keep Israel distinct from its pagan neighbors and to maintain its ritual
purity - (Leviticus 20:24-26).
None of this means the religion of Israel was closed to Gentiles.
The Law provided the means for a Gentile to become a member of the covenant
community. This included circumcision (for males) and submission to ALL
the obligations of the Law.
In effect, a Gentile “convert” to the faith of Israel became a
member of that nation. Since circumcision was THE
fundamental sign of the covenant, it was not optional.
Gentile Entry into the Church. Originally, the church was
composed of Jews and Jewish proselytes. It did not view itself as a new
religion, but instead, as a messianic movement within Judaism. Jesus did not
abrogate the faith of Israel; instead, he fulfilled it.
The first chapters of the book of Acts record in some detail
how this new “way” spread among the Jewish people.
It is not until sometime later that the gospel was offered to
Gentiles when the Apostle Peter visited the house of Cornelius
in Caesarea. He was a “centurion of the band called Italian.”
Although a Gentile in Roman service, he was also “devout and feared
God…doing many alms to the people and supplicating God
continually.”
Cornelius was an adherent to the precepts of the faith of Israel,
He loved the Jewish people, yet he remained uncircumcised. By the time Peter
arrived, Cornelius was not yet a Jewish proselyte -
(Acts 10:13-28).
The opening of the gospel to the nations necessitated divine
intervention through the visions received by Cornelius and Peter. The latter
saw a sheet descending from heaven filled with ritually unclean animals. A
voice commanded him to eat. This he refused to do. As a devout Jew, “at
no time had he eaten anything common or unclean.” The voice responded, “What
things God has cleansed do not make common” - (Acts 10:9-16).
Following this vision, two men sent by Cornelius arrived and told
Peter:
- “Cornelius, a centurion, a man righteous and fearing God, well–attested by the whole nation of the Jews, has been instructed by an angel to send for you to his house and to hear words from you.”
Though an uncircumcised Gentile, Cornelius had an excellent
reputation among the Jewish people. God did not choose just any Gentile
for this pivotal event; He selected one known by many Jews for his devoutness
and moral character.
But, despite his well-attested devoutness, Peter responded, “You
well know how it is unlawful for a Jew to be joining himself or coming into one
of another race.” This statement demonstrates the obstacle to welcoming
Gentiles into the covenant community. Regardless of how righteous a man might be,
he remained outside the covenant and ritually unclean if uncircumcised. Peter
continued:
- “Yet to me has God pointed out that I should be calling no man common or unclean...of a truth I find that God is no respecter of persons but in every nation, he that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”
During his sermon, the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles while
Peter was speaking. This caused the Jews with him amazement, for “upon
the Gentiles also the free–gift of the Holy Spirit had been
poured out.” God gave the very same gift of the Spirit to uncircumcised
Gentiles - (Acts 10:29-48).
Only after the Spirit fell on the household of Cornelius did Peter
confess that people from every nation were acceptable to God if they feared him
and lived righteously, regardless of whether they were members of Israel,
circumcised or not. The “revelation” on that day was the acceptability of
Gentiles AS GENTILES into the covenant community.
Some Jewish believers in Jerusalem found fault with Peter’s
actions. He had fellowshipped with “men uncircumcised and ate
with them.” They did not criticize Peter simply for eating
with uncircumcised Gentiles. He justified his actions by pointing to the
outpouring of the Spirit on the Gentiles: “If the same free–gift God gave to
them as even unto us when we had believed upon the Lord Jesus Christ,
who was I that could withstand God?” – (Acts 11:1-3).
The fact that God had given the Spirit to Gentiles while they were
still in an uncircumcised state was irrefutable proof that He had
accepted them because of their faith in Jesus. After hearing
Peter’s defense, the church at Jerusalem glorified God and declared, “even
to the Gentiles has God granted repentance for life.”
In Galatia. In chapters 1 and 2 of his letter, the
Apostle Paul detailed how he received his gospel for the Gentiles by divine
revelation, a commission confirmed by the leadership of the Jerusalem church. He
also described how certain “false brethren, secretly introduced, slinked in
to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus.”
Paul was referring to an earlier controversy in Antioch,
where Jewish believers from Jerusalem had infiltrated the church to spread
disruptive teachings, including claims that it was inappropriate for Jewish
believers to eat with Gentile Christians. The pressure was so great, that
even Peter and Barnabas were caught up in it - (Galatians 2:1-13).
The Apostle Paul would have none of it and confronted even Peter over
his hypocrisy:
- (Galatians 2:14) - “But when I saw that they were not walking with straightforwardness regarding the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before all: If you, although a Jew, like them of the nations and not like the Jews live, how do you compel them of the nations to live like Jews?”
The key phrase in the preceding is “compelling Gentiles to
live like Jews.” The Greek verb is a strong one and means, “to
compel, force” (anangkazō – Strong’s #G315).
The infinitive rendered “to live like Jews” occurs only here in the New
Testament (Ioudaizo – Strong’s #G2450). The latter
term refers to efforts to compel non-Jews to adopt a Jewish
lifestyle.
This was the crux of the matter. Some Jewish believers in Antioch were “compelling” Gentiles to conform to Jewish practices. To refuse to eat with Gentiles insinuated there was something defective in their faith and conduct.
The controversy in Galatia focused on circumcision (“If you are
getting circumcised Christ will profit you nothing”). Paul’s opponents were
“compelling you to get circumcised.” To be members in good
standing, must Gentile believers add circumcision to their faith in Jesus? - (Galatians
5:12).
This controversy was not surprising. The first disciples of
Jesus were all Jews. It was only after the incident with Cornelius that
the Gospel was opened to Gentiles, at least formally. Was not Jesus the
promised Jewish messiah? Questions about how Gentiles were to enter the
covenant community were inevitable.
The new “Jesus movement” was connected to the faith of
Abraham. It was natural for Jewish believers to look to the old covenant
for the things that defined the people of God. Inevitably, circumcision would
become an issue. It was the original sign of Yahweh’s covenant with Abraham,
and it even predated the Torah. And proponents of circumcision had
a strong scriptural basis. Did not the Law already provide the means for
Gentiles to enter the covenant community, namely, circumcision?
The Response of Paul. Paul did not charge his
opponents with compelling Gentiles to keep the entire Law, or with repudiating
the need for faith. His opponents were insisting that Gentiles must conform to
certain requirements of the Law; at a minimum, circumcision.
The opponents believed in Jesus and did not deny the need for
faith. There is no evidence they insisted that Christians must keep all the
requirements of the Torah to be “saved.” In effect, they
argued for faith in Jesus PLUS circumcision, and perhaps other
regulations including calendrical observations and dietary restrictions - (Galatians
4:9-11).
In the letter’s propositional statement, Paul first presented what
he held in common with his opponents, then summarized the points of
disagreement. He began by spelling out the basis on which a man or woman was
set in right standing with God:
- (Galatians 2:15-16) - “We, by nature Jews, and not sinners from among the nations, knowing, however, that a man is not declared righteous from the works of law, except through the faith of Christ Jesus; even we, on believed Christ Jesus, that we might be declared righteous from faith in Christ and not from works of the law; because from the works of law shall no flesh be declared righteous.”
The statement begins with an emphatic pronoun, “we
ourselves.” Paul was stating truths accepted by Peter and
other Jewish believers; namely, that a man is not put in right standing with
God “from the works of the Law, but instead, from faith. This was
common ground; even Jewish believers responded to the gospel by exercising
faith (“even we believed in Christ Jesus”).
His opponents were not advocating legalism but faith plus other things.
Paul was specific and qualified what set of “works” he meant,
the “works of the law.” In this context, “law” can
only refer to the Law of Moses. Paul stated that a man or woman is not
set right with God on the basis of the works
required by the Law. Instead, a man is justified “from the faith of
Christ Jesus.” Note well: the issue was not good works or human efforts in
general, but certain requirements of the Law of Moses.
Next, Paul presented the key areas of disagreement with his
Judaizing opponents:
- (Galatians 2:17-21) - “Now, if in seeking to be declared righteous in Christ we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ, therefore, a minister of sin? Far be it! For if the things that I pulled down, these again I build, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For I, through means of law, to law died, that to God I might live. With Christ have I been crucified; and living no longer am I, but living in me is Christ, while so far as I now do live in flesh, from faith I live, the faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up in my behalf. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if through law is righteousness, then Christ without cause died.”
Precisely what Paul meant by “the faith of Jesus” is not
spelled out, though believers responded to it by faith in him, but becomes
clearer in verse 20: “I live from faith, that of the Son of God who
loved me and gave himself up on my behalf.” “From the faith of
Jesus” is shorthand for the obedience of Jesus in his death on Calvary.
That faithful act of Jesus is the basis for justification before
God, not the requirements of the Law. The contrast is between two
different ways of being justified: “from the works of the law,” or,
“from the faith of Jesus Christ.” One is not set right through faith in
general, but through a specific faith, the faith of Jesus Christ.
And “if righteousness is through the law,” then “Christ died in vain.”
 |
| Jesus - Photo by Eran Menashri on Unsplash |
Possibly, the Judaizing opponents claimed that if the Law did not regulate Christian conduct, then sin and moral anarchy would result. However, by this logic, Christ would become responsible for sin. This Paul emphatically denied. The charge that a Law-free Gospel would lead to sin is false. To return to the Law after having been freed from it was the real transgression. By rebuilding the old ways, a man transgressed because he declared, in effect, that the death of Jesus failed to achieve what God intended. This would be transgression of the worst sort.
The purpose of the law was to bring believers to a position where
they could live for God - (“I through the law died to the law that I might
live unto God”). The place where the Christian “dies to the Law”
is on the Cross. In Paul’s parlance, to die to something is to cease to
have any relevant relationship to it. It is the crucifixion of Jesus that
released believers from the Law’s jurisdiction, and from its potential curse so
that they may now live for God.
Arguments from Experience. The first argument appealed
to the original experience of receiving the Spirit by
the Galatians. When they responded to the Gospel, they received the gift
of the Spirit, which occurred before the latter controversy
with its questions about circumcision, and while the Gentile believers remained
uncircumcised.
- (Galatians 3:1-5) - “O thoughtless Galatians! who has bewitched you, before whose very eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth as a crucified one? This only am I wishing to learn from you. From works of law received you the Spirit, or from a believed report? So thoughtless, are you? Having made a beginning in Spirit, are you now in flesh to be made complete? Such things you suffered in vain, if, at least, it is even in vain? He, then, who was supplying you with the Spirit and energizing mighty works among you, from the works of law or from a believed report?”
This is reminiscent of the argument after the incident with
Cornelius. Like Peter, Paul points to the bestowal of the Spirit as the irrefutable
evidence of God’s acceptance of the uncircumcised Galatians. The means by which
the Spirit entered their lives was faith, not meeting any requirement of the
Law.
“Beginning in Spirit” and going on “to be made
complete by the flesh” point to the logic of the opponents: “Now
that you have come to faith and received the Spirit, you need to add
circumcision (and other deeds of the Law) to complete your faith.”
Arguments from Scripture. Next, Paul appealed to
Scripture and the example of Abraham. This section is linked to
the previous one by its reference to the Spirit. Paul referred to passages from
Genesis that linked Abraham to faith, righteousness,
and blessing for the Gentiles.
Paul then continued with the theme of faith but added the example
of the faith of Abraham. New topics are introduced:
- Who are the true “sons of Abraham”?
- The salvation of the Gentiles was foretold to Abraham.
- The curse of the Law.
Abraham was reckoned righteous from faith (“just as Abraham
believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness”), therefore,
those who are “from faith, the same are sons of Abraham.” In His
covenant with Abraham, Yahweh promised that, in him, “all the Gentiles will
be blessed.” From the beginning, His purpose was “that the
blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Jesus Christ in order that
the promise of the Spirit we might receive through the faith.” Thus, Paul
linked the “blessing of Abraham” to the “promise of the Spirit.”
In contrast, those “from the works of the Law” had placed
themselves under its curse. The Law pronounced anyone under it obliged to
continue “in ALL the things written in the Book of
the Law, to do them.” Every man who was circumcised was “a debtor to
do the whole law” - (Deuteronomy 27:26, Galatians
5:3).
The Law is not a pick-and-choose menu. Instead, it is an all-or-nothing proposition. Gentile believers considering circumcision must understand that much more is required than just the removal of the foreskin.
This line of argumentation suggests that the opponents of Paul
were not insisting that Gentiles must keep the entire Law, but only certain of
its commandments. Otherwise, their argument loses force. The Law itself
requires members of the covenant to do all that was written in it.
Paul concludes this section with the word “promise,” which
leads to the next section and is its key theme.
Original Covenant and Promise. Next, Paul argued that the
covenant with Abraham represented the original intent and irreversible will of
Yahweh. A covenant, once ratified, “no one voids or appends,”
therefore, the Law that “came into being four hundred and thirty years later
did not invalidate or nullify” the promise.
The promise was not spoken only to Abraham, but also to “his
seed,” singular, and that “seed” was none other than Jesus.
The promised inheritance included blessings for Gentiles and was not “from
the law”; instead, it was through “the promise to Abraham.” Paul's
line of reasoning was covenantal.
Purpose and Duration. Paul began the next section
with the obvious question: “Why, then, the law?” He responded that,
first, the Law was “added.” It was brought in after the
original promise, therefore, it was supplemental and subordinate to the
covenant.
Second, the Law was added “because of transgression,” that
is, it was intended to identify sin.
Third, Paul placed a time limit on the Law -
“Until the promised seed should come.”
Fourth, the Law was mediated by angels. The idea is derived
from the Jewish interpretation of Deuteronomy 33:1-3, according to which
angels were the intermediaries that gave the Law at Sinai. In contrast,
the covenant with Abraham came directly from Yahweh - (Acts 7:51-53, Hebrews
2:1-4).
Fifth, the Law was given by the “hands of a mediator,” that
is, Moses - (“Now a mediator implies more than one; but God is one”).
Paul was demonstrating the inferior position of the Law to the original
promise. A mediator implied a plurality of persons, but God, who is one,
acted directly and unilaterally when He established His covenant with Abraham.
The function of the Law was to identify trespasses and condemn the
sinner. It was a “custodian” assigned to supervise the life of
Israel. This supervisory function was temporary, until
the “faith was revealed.” That faith was “the promise from the faith
of Jesus Christ” that is now “given to those who believe.” With the
coming of the promise, believers were no longer “under the custodian.”
To his covenantal line of reasoning, Paul added a temporal aspect
- The provisional status of the jurisdiction of the Torah.
Promise Redefines Relationship. The next paragraph is pivotal
to Paul’s argument; it emphasizes the oneness of God's people.
The old social and ethnic divisions were wholly inappropriate now that the
promised “seed” had come. Regardless of ethnicity or circumcision, all were
now the “children of Abraham” because of their relationship to Jesus
Christ.
- (Galatians 3:26-29) - “For you are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus; for you, as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ: there cannot be Jew or Greek, there cannot be bond or free, there cannot be male and female, for all you are one in Christ Jesus. Now, if you are of Christ, by consequence, you are Abraham’s seed, according to promise, heirs.”
To pursue a Torah-observant lifestyle would re-erect
the old barriers, especially the divide between Jew and Gentile. Here, Paul
stressed the word “ALL.” Jewish and Gentile believers were
constituted “sons of God” through their unity with Jesus. “In Christ,”
believers became true sons of God and “Abraham's seed, heirs according to
promise.” Such distinctions no longer mattered to a person’s standing
before God.
Analogy of Guardianship. Paul used an illustration
from everyday life to show how the Law provided guardianship over Israel,but
only for a set period. That role was to supervise the
nation during its “spiritual minority.”
- (Galatians 4:1-7) - “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, who came to be of a woman, who came to be under the law, that those who were under law he might redeem, that the son-ship we might duly receive; and because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts exclaiming, 'Abba! Oh Father!' So that no longer are you a servant but a son; and if a son, an heir also through God.”
With the coming of Jesus, the time of the Law’s custodianship had
come to an end, and the sons of God, the “heirs,” became free from the
restrictions of the “custodian,” the jurisdiction of the Law. From then
on, believers were “in Christ,” not “under the law.”
Paul's Personal Concern. The next section expressed Paul’s
concern for the Galatians and what would result if they took the path they were
contemplating. He likened pursuing the “works of the Law” to their pagan
past. To return to it meant “turning back to the weak and beggarly elemental
principles”; in short, the abandonment of what God has done in Christ.
Paul saw the true danger. If Gentile believers added a Torah-observant
lifestyle to their Christian faith, they would return to a state of bondage
under the “elemental things.”
Hagar and Sarah. The allegory based on Hagar and Sarah linked the
physical line of descent from Abraham through Ishmael to slavery, while the
line of promise through Isaac meant freedom and promise. It is not the
physical descendants of Abraham who were free, but the “children of promise.”
Hold Fast to Freedom in Christ. Paul argued even more
aggressively: If one was circumcised, he was obligated to keep
the entire Law of Moses. Implicit in his words was the
proposition that obligating oneself to keep the Law of Moses was incompatible
with “freedom in Christ.”
- “With her freedom Christ has made you free. Stand fast, therefore, and do not again be held fast with a yoke of servitude! See, I Paul say to you if you are getting circumcised that Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I bear solemn witness again to every man getting circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law. You have been set aside from Christ, you who are to be declared righteous from the law; you have fallen out of his grace... for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith energizing through love.”
Live by Love and the Spirit. One charge made against
Paul's law-free gospel was that detaching yourself from the Law would lead to
sin (“If, in seeking to be set right in Christ even we ourselves were found
sinners, is Christ, therefore, a minister of sin?”). Paul next
addressed this claim.
- (Galatians 5:13-18) - “Only turn not your freedom into an occasion to the flesh but by means of your love be serving one another; for the whole law is summed up in one word: you shall love your neighbor as yourself... Be walking in the Spirit and fleshly coveting you will in nowise fulfill... And if by the Spirit you are being led, you are not under the law.”
In the first place, believers are to live according to the rule of
love; to serve one another. True love forbids one to do anything that
might hurt another.
In the second place, Christians must walk “in the Spirit”
so they will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Those who do so are “NOT
UNDER THE LAW.” Here is an explicit statement that those who
respond to Christ from faith are not under the Law.
Flesh Versus Spirit. Paul gave two catalog
lists: the “works of the flesh” and the “fruit of the Spirit.”
The works of the flesh included “fornication, impurity, wantonness,
idolatry, enchantment, enmities, strife, jealousy, wrath.” Those who
practiced such things would not “inherit God's kingdom.” Paul's
law-free gospel was NOT a formula for moral anarchy; sin had
consequences.
- (Galatians 5:19-26) – “Manifest, however, are the works of the flesh, which, indeed, are fornication, impurity, wantonness, idolatry, enchantment, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of wrath, factions, divisions, parties, envying, drunkenness, revellings; and such things as these, as to which I forewarn you, even as I have forewarned you, that they who such things as these do practice shall not inherit God’s kingdom. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, graciousness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such things as these there is no law. And they who are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its susceptibilities and lusts. If we live by Spirit, by Spirit let us also walk. Let us not become vain-glorious challenging one another, envying one another.”
Each sin listed is condemned under the Old Covenant. The New
Covenant in Christ has both continuity and discontinuity with the old
system. Paul was not opposed to right living or obedience.
Actions Have Consequences. Paul demonstrated his
conviction that human actions have consequences, both good and bad. He was
not opposed to good works or obedience. How one lived determined what one
would reap in the future.
- (Galatians 6:1-10) - “Be not deceiving yourselves! God is not to be mocked; for whatever a man sows, the same will he also reap, because he that sows to his own flesh, out of the flesh will reap corruption, whereas he that sows to the Spirit, out of the Spirit will reap everlasting life. And in doing that which is honorable let us not be fainthearted for in due season we will reap if we faint not.”
Because Christians are not under the Law of Moses does not mean they
are lawless or unaccountable for their actions. To believe that sin is
inconsequential is to deceive oneself.
Paul’s Concluding Arguments. The letter’s conclusion summarizes
the basic issue: compelling Gentile believers to get
circumcised. Paul waxed bold by attacking the motives of his
opponents; they did so to avoid persecution.
- (Galatians 6:11-18) - “As many as are wishing to make a good show in flesh, the same are compelling you to get circumcised, only that for the cross of Christ Jesus they may not be suffering persecution! For not even they who are getting circumcised are themselves observing the law but are wishing you to be circumcised that in your flesh they may boast themselves. With me, however, far be it to be boasting except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ whereby to me a world has been crucified and I to a world; for neither circumcision is anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”
By convincing Gentile converts to get circumcised Paul’s opponents
removed something offensive to non-Christian Jews. Circumcision made Gentiles
into Jewish proselytes, and, therefore, acceptable to Jews.
It is not clear what Paul meant when he said that his opponents do
not “keep the law.” Based on his previous statements, this
suggests they were not, in fact, keeping the entire law despite their
insistence on circumcision.
Because of the death of Jesus, Paul's former way of life had come to
an end. To those who were new creatures “in Christ,” circumcision
no longer was relevant. Regarding right standing before God, such things were
matters of indifference.
Summary Points. Paul's line of reasoning was covenantal. He
appealed to the original covenant with Abraham and made the later Law supplemental
to it.
He also used temporal or “salvation
history” arguments. The Law came 430 years after the promise; therefore,
it was an interim stage in Redemptive History. It was to continue only
until the “seed of Abraham” arrived.
Paul answered the logical question: Why the Law?
It came because of transgressions. Its purpose was custodial; to
supervise Israel for a set period until the promise came. But the Law was a
package deal. If one was obligated to keep portions of it, one was just
as obligated to keep the whole thing. And since Christ had come, the
jurisdiction of the Law had reached its intended goal.
Paul addressed the charge that his Law-free gospel produced
sin. Continuing in sin produced a deadly harvest. The New Covenant “in
Christ” was epitomized by love, which is inherently incompatible with sin -
(1 Corinthians 9:15-23).
The underlying dispute in Galatia centered on the status of
Gentile believers. Is the Gentile who exercises faith in Christ and
receives the Spirit acceptable in the covenant community AS A
GENTILE, or must he also adopt a Jewish way of life?
Paul did not exhort Jewish Christians to have their circumcision
undone or to cease from all Jewish customs. What he objected to was forcing
others to conform to a Jewish way of life. Since circumcision had no effect on
one’s standing before God, it was a matter of indifference.
One great reality lay behind Paul’s understanding; Jesus, the
crucified Messiah, the one “who gave himself for our sins that he might
deliver us out of the present evil age according to the will of our God.” At
the appointed time, he came to redeem those who were under the Law to receive
the sonship - (Galatians 1:4, 4:4-5, 5:11, 6:12-14).
The criterion that determines membership in the covenant community
is Jesus, not circumcision, dietary restrictions, calendrical rituals, or
ethnicity. The crucified Messiah is the paradigm by which Christians must
conform their lives. Anything that distracts or deviates from that must
be discarded.
No comments:
Post a Comment