Corpus-Paul

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Mark,

> Strangely, folks who are so concerned with the meaning of every verse do not
> seem to wrestle with v. 15 (NASB): Brethren, I speak in terms of human
> relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been
> ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. If that is so, then
> it follows that Paul is not going to argue that Torah has been set aside or
> that conditions have been added to it--for Jews, as for proselytes. (They
> are quick to see that this means the Abrahamic covenant is not set aside,
> but fail to see the logic goes both ways: since the Mosaic is in play before
> Paul writes, it is not set aside either.


HH: You make an interesting argument, but Paul's 
reasoning is only to affirm the lasting nature of 
the Abrahamic promises. He is not arguing to 
affirm the lasting nature of the Mosaic covenant. 
In fact, he stresses the temporary nature of the 
Mosaic covenant:

Gal. 3:19 ¶ What, then, was the purpose of the 
law? It was added because of transgressions until 
the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. 
The law was put into effect through angels by a 
mediator.

HH: Its purpose was to extend until the Seed came 
to whom the promises of the Abrahamic covenant 
were directed. This is where the law as the 
child-guiding slave comes in. The NIV has:

Gal. 3:24 So the law was put in charge to lead us 
to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
Gal. 3:25 Now that faith has come, we are no 
longer under the supervision of the law.

The HCSB puts it slightly more literally:

Gal 3:24 The law, then, was our guardian until 
Christ, so that we could be justified by faith,
Gal 3:25 But since that faith has come, we are no 
longer under a guardian, . . . .

HH: We are no longer under the law's supervision, Jew or Gentile:

Gal 3:26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.


>  Paul must work with both of these
> covenants, although Christian theologians have not.) Put in play with 5:3,
> that everyone who is circumcised "is obliged to observe the whole Torah," it
> follows that Paul, who is circumcised and a Christ-believers, is obliged to
> observe the whole Torah. Otherwise, his non-Jewish addressees should be
> expected not to be persuaded by this argument, but to reply: "But Paul, we
> will be just like you, circumcised, but because believers in Christ, we are
> not obliged to observe Torah at all."


HH: I have to agree with Tim here about Paul's 
not being under the law. Paul's words in 5:3 
concern Gentiles who undergo circumcision as an 
expression of religion. That obligation comes 
from the law, so someone voluntarily subscribing 
to that obligation as a means of justification 
(Gal 5:4) must be subscribing to the law of which 
it is only one fragment. So the motive for doing 
so is important. I was circumcised as a Gentile, 
but evidently because circumcision was seen as 
healthy or customary.

HH: I think you have to look at Gal 3:15 in terms 
of the word KUROW, which implies in the passive 
"confirmed," "ratified," or "put into effect." 
This is a covenant that is currently in force. 
One is not at liberty to disregard it or alter it 
unilaterally. Paul points to the Abrahamic 
covenant as still in force. But the Mosaic 
covenant is not still in force. God found fault 
with it because of human inability to keep it 
(Heb 8:8-9), so He replaced it with something 
better that took deity to bring. You could say 
that the old covenant: is obsolete rather than 
"in force":

Heb. 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has 
made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete 
and aging will soon disappear.

HH: The old covenant was nullified by human 
violation of it. The replacement of it with a new 
covenant by God for that reason means that Gal 
3:15 is not really applicable to the Mosaic 
covenant. It is not being rejected or added to 
while it is in force. It has been replaced by 
something better. The Law in its covenantal 
aspect was not destroyed but fulfilled. What Paul 
describes as the curse of the law seems like what 
the writer of Hebrews, quoting Jeremiah, cites as 
the law's fault. People can't keep it and so come 
under its curse.

HH: The writer of Hebrews also talks about a 
change of the law, and in this case he means a 
replacement of the old covenant with the new 
covenant.

Heb. 7:12 For when there is a change of the 
priesthood, there must also be a change of the 
law.

Heb. 7:19  (for the law made nothing perfect), 
and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw 
near to God.

Heb. 7:28 For the law appoints as high priests 
men who are weak; but the oath, which came after 
the law, appointed the Son, who has been made 
perfect forever.

Heb. 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly 
everything be cleansed with blood, and without 
the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Heb. 10:1 ¶ The law is only a shadow of the good 
things that are coming - not the realities 
themselves. For this reason it can never, by the 
same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after 
year, make perfect those who draw near to 
worship.

HH: If the law is only a shadow of the good 
things to come, not the realities themselves, why 
should part of the body of Christ go back to the 
shadow as a standard for living when the reality 
has come in Christ and the indwelling Spirit?

HH: If Christian Jews were supposed to take on 
the yoke of the law, I believe the Book of 
Hebrews could have been written very differently. 
Yes, Acts 21 shows that Jewish Christians could 
live by the law, but they had grown up under the 
law and followed it as an expression of their 
faith in God. They lived in a transitional period 
and do not seem to have understood well some of 
the truths Paul proclaimed. Even Peter had 
difficulty putting into practice the new 
revelation (Gal 2:11-21). I believe Heb 8:13 
speaks of the disappearance of the old covenant 
in a visible way when the temple was destroyed


> Also,
> I would like to comment on your reply to Tim along with your query here. I
> don't think Paul has in mind the issues of curse for Jews here, but is
> trying to make it clear that the implications of Torah arise for proselytes
> just as they do for Jews, for everyone, just as the curse of being hung
> after killed applied to everyone, so to Jesus. Of course Jews accept the
> curse of the Law, that is a part of what it means to be in the covenant
> community of Israel. It is, strangely, a part of the relationship privileges
> versus the other nations, who are not in this special relationship; what Jew
> would not want to be in this relationship, and hence, under these
> conditions?


HH: Paul indicates that the Christian Jew would 
not want to be under this curse. I agree with Tim 
that Gal 3:13 does look to the Jew in particular 
because it is they who were under the law, as you 
say, Mark. The Gentiles are not portrayed by Paul 
as being under the law, so they would not need to 
be redeemed from it as the Jews would.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard