tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post6092432522908583221..comments2023-10-28T09:17:35.685-04:00Comments on Butterfly House: Open Thread - The Roman Catholic MagisteriumJeff Caglehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-87713585399009799432011-04-18T21:58:09.972-04:002011-04-18T21:58:09.972-04:00Sorry, I couldn't resist a postscript: Take a ...Sorry, I couldn't resist a postscript: Take a look at Augustine, Contra Faustum, ch. 14, 17, and 19.<br /><br />Here's a teaser: <br /><br /><i>And as both grace and truth are by Christ, it follows that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; not by supplying any defects in the law, but by obedience to what is written in the law. Christ’s own words declare this. For He does not say, One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till its defects are supplied, but "till all be fulfilled."</i> -- Augustine, Contra Faustum, 19.Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-75848789284997165202011-04-18T21:44:07.037-04:002011-04-18T21:44:07.037-04:00Second, you said,
Nick: Further, I don't bel...Second, you said, <br /><br />Nick: <i>Further, I don't believe Jesus took the temporal nor eternal punishments for us, so neither 'option' you describe works in the first place. Both options lead not only to theological problems (e.g. Jesus getting eternally damned) but also to exegetical problems (since Scripture never says such things). </i><br /><br />I'm quite surprised at this. For your own catechism teaches,<br /><br /><i>Jesus, Israel's Messiah and therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all embracing detail - according to his own words, down to "the least of these commandments". He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly. On their own admission the Jews were never able to observe the Law in its entirety without violating the least of its precepts. This is why every year on the Day of Atonement the children of Israel ask God's forgiveness for their transgressions of the Law. The Law indeed makes up one inseparable whole, and St. James recalls, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."<br /><br />...<br /><br /><b>Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself "the curse of the Law" incurred by those who do not "abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them"</b>, for his death took place to redeem them "from the transgressions under the first covenant." </i> -- Cath Cat 578, 579<br /><br />And,<br /><br /><i>Jesus did not abolish the Law of Sinai, but rather fulfilled it (cf. Mt 5:17-19) with such perfection (cf. Jn 8:46) that he revealed its ultimate meaning (cf.: Mt 5:33) and redeemed the transgressions against it (cf. Heb 9:15). </i> -- Ibid 592.<br /><br />And,<br /><br /><i>The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation" and teaches that "<b>his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us.</b>" And the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."</i> Ibid, 617.<br /><br />Now, clearly, as a Protestant, I don't understand all of these things in the same way. But still and all, it seems to me that the CCC is arguing many of the same points I'm arguing: <br /><br />(1) That the curse of the Law falls on all who do not do the Law;<br /><br />(2) That Jesus' righteousness was reflected in his keeping of the Law;<br /><br />(3) That His death was to bear the curse of our sins upon Himself; and even,<br /><br />(4) That His death merited our justification!<br /><br />(aside: I'm also surprised that you debate the moral/civil/ceremonial distinction, inasmuch as Aquinas taught it.)<br /><br />The bottom line for me is that the wages of sin is death, which is the wrath of God; and that wrath was propitiated for us by Jesus' death.<br /><br />This appears to me to be the united teaching of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches.<br /><br />To sum up in a strong-but-friendly way: I would encourage you to reconsider the position you find yourself in. When you begin to argue that Jesus did not take eternal punishments for us, you begin to push not merely against Protestantism, but on the whole of Christianity!<br /><br />The last word is yours, good sir.<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-60962262605355887642011-04-18T21:42:26.773-04:002011-04-18T21:42:26.773-04:00Hi Nick,
I think I'll sign off with two thoug...Hi Nick,<br /><br />I think I'll sign off with two thoughts.<br /><br />First, you wrote:<br /><br /><i>If it's all symbolic, then Paul warning Gentiles not to subscribe to the Mosaic Law would be nonsense since 'curse of the law' would be hanging over all men already.</i><br /><br />The second half grasps the Reformed position exactly: The curse of the law is hanging over all men.<br /><br />And here, I fear, we simply must disagree. For if I've read you correctly, you seem to hold that the curse of the law has to do with boasting and deliberately attempting to use the Law as a means of justification.<br /><br />But Paul doesn't go there in Gal 3. Rather, the he says that the curse applies to "all those who do not do what the law says."<br /><br />And whether the Law is in written form (for the Jews) or in conscience form (for the Gentiles), *all* are judged by the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 2).<br /><br />But Paul is certainly not speaking nonsense! For recall that the Judaizers were teaching that relationship with God comes through law-keeping. The Galatians -- Gentiles -- had already been freed from the curse of the Law (Gal 3.13) by Christ's death. What then was left? Nothing but to continue trusting in Christ. Deliberately going under the Law would have been deliberately entering into the curse again.<br /><br />To sum up: the "curse of the Law" applies to all, to anyone who does not keep the requirements of the Law. The way out of that curse is not take on new-and-improved obligations (such a thought is foreign to Gal 3!), but to be justified by faith in Christ, who took the curse for us.<br /><br />(cont...)Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-39501131850643385532011-04-18T18:14:37.762-04:002011-04-18T18:14:37.762-04:00(2 of 2)
Next, I would agree the Law contained si...(2 of 2)<br /><br />Next, I would agree the Law contained significant amounts of typology, and in fact I'd say almost every aspect of the Torah was typological for Christ and the Church. Christ fulfilled/transformed all of the Torah, not just parts. And I wouldn't call this the "ceremonial law," as if morality and such were not likewise fulfilled-transformed by Christ and the Church. Romans 10:6ff describes how the entire law is typological, and does this by quoting Deut 30 (a section all about 'civil law').<br /><br /><br />Lastly, you said the "moral law" is a reflection of what actual righteousness looks like. As with the previous two descriptions, this gives off the impression "righteousness" only applies to morality, but not the other statutes of the Torah. Instead, I see righteousness as a reflection of keeping all of the Law, just as Christians are to keep all of the Gospel demands. <br /><br />I agree that we can think of this under two broad headings of Love of God and neighbor and that the 10 Commandments are a handy summary, but I would not equate the 10 Commandments as a legal code with Christ's new-and-improved Gospel Demands. So while I would strongly agree with you that "the decalogue is repeated in the NT," I would not say Christians are keeping the Decalogue per se. The Decalogue as legal code cannot be divorced from the Torah as a whole, especially since the Decalogue is the epitome of the Torah and since the Torah expounds upon how to properly keep the Decalogue. Given that, if you say Christians are keeping the Decalogue as a legal code, they are butchering the Torah and Decalogue to suit their own whims. On top of that, I wouldn't truncate eternal truths to 'morality', since 'other aspects' like establishing civil law and offering sacrifice apply to some degree to all peoples and times (e.g. Rom 13:1ff).<br /><br />The only sense in which aspects of the Torah "continues on" is in so far as they express eternal principles like Natural Law or Christ's new-and-improved standards (this is how I interpret James 1-2). As a legal code, it has all expired: this is why when (to use the examples you gave) nobody today is put to death for idolatry or necessarily even murder, where as in the Torah if someone commits those sins they must be put to death on God's explicit orders. <br /><br />So while we might actually agree with eachother but use different terminology, I think certain terms/distinctions are not accurate. As I noted earlier, the Torah is a 'package deal' that must be kept as a whole or reformed as a whole, but it cannot be half-and-half since that's effectively cherry picking.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-78724145241111262762011-04-18T18:14:28.269-04:002011-04-18T18:14:28.269-04:00Hi Jeff,
In regards to Romans 2, clearly the Law...Hi Jeff, <br /><br />In regards to Romans 2, clearly the Law cannot be a universal standard if the Gentiles are not under the Law, hence "all who sin apart from the law will perish apart from the law". Thus at the end of the day it's not the Mosaic Law providing these eternal punishments or rewards.<br /><br />And as for "doing the law" resulting in justification in 2:13, this must be understood in living out the *Fulfilled Law*, not the Law as a Covenant (2:27). This concept is something you touched upon in your second post above, and I believe is made clear in light of various factors. For example, in 2:29 Paul says it's not physical circumcision that is what God is concerned with (though physical circumcision was an important thin for the Mosaic Covenant), rather it is circumcision of the heart by the Spirit that God looks for. This also reflects the higher standards Jesus holds Christians to that surpass the standards of the Torah (Matthew 5).<br /><br /><br />Regarding the "curse of the Law" (as described in Gal 3:10), you said:<br />"The problem with this reading is that it would make Christ's death (as discussed in Gal 3) a matter of taking on temporal punishments for us! I think you may have overlooked another possibility: that the temporal punishments of Deut 27 - 28 are symbolic of the eternal punishment due to one who sins against God."<br /><br />I think you're reading more into the Law/situation than what is warranted. Even if the temporal punishments of Deut 27-28 could be taken in a spiritual reading to be symbolic of eternal punishments, that doesn't meant it applies in this case. If it's all symbolic, then Paul warning Gentiles not to subscribe to the Mosaic Law would be nonsense since 'curse of the law' would be hanging over all men already.<br /><br />Further, I don't believe Jesus took the temporal nor eternal punishments for us, so neither 'option' you describe works in the first place. Both options lead not only to theological problems (e.g. Jesus getting eternally damned) but also to exegetical problems (since Scripture never says such things). <br /><br /><br />As for when I've described the law being "monofunctional," I agree that this is a truncated view of the Law, but I only did that to emphasize the temporal nature of the Mosaic Covenant. That said, I don't know if the terminology you used makes the most sense, and I'll explain why. <br /><br />To say one aspect of the law is "civil" gives me the impression only certain parts of the Law applied to day-to-day life, rather than obeying the Law as a whole. Offering sacrifices, keeping the 10 Commandments, and getting circumcised would be "civil law" in that they touched upon how society was to run and receive blessings/curses. <br /><br />(1 of 2)Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-45117422793687385292011-04-17T15:39:16.798-04:002011-04-17T15:39:16.798-04:00The larger problem is that you have presented the ...The larger problem is that you have presented the law as monofunctional: obedience = temporal blessings; disobedience = temporal curses. <br /><br />But the law was more complex than this. It clearly *did* have temporal rewards for obedience and disobedience. We Reformed folk call this the "civil law" or the "civil aspect of the Law."<br /><br />But it also contained significant amounts of typology in the sacrificial requirements and in the festivals such as Passover. That typology is obviously *not* about temporal punishments and rewards, but rather symbolizes eternal matters: specifically, the coming of Christ. We typically call this the "ceremonial law."<br /><br />And finally, the Law also contained a reflection of what actual righteousness looks like. We call this the "moral law."<br /><br />We can think of righteousness under these two headings: Love for God and love for neighbor.<br /><br />And the decalogue, in particular, gave specific commands that spell out what love *looks* like.<br /><br />You wrote: <i>The Law as a legally binding code/covenant is abolished; now it's just a historical document with foreshadowings of Christ in it.</i><br /><br />But significantly, the decalogue is repeated in the NT. It has not expired, but continues on, EVEN to those who are not "under the Law"! <br /><br />Some might argue against the Sabbath Commandment continuing on. I would say that Heb 10.25 qualifies as a sabbath commandment. But even if I'm wrong, the larger point holds: Some of the Torah is <b>not</b> expired, but continues on as a rule of righteousness, an exposition of what it means to love God and neighbor. <br /><br />The reason that the moral law does not expire is simple: It is grounded in the eternal character and nature of God. Loving God <i>means</i> not worshiping other gods, in all ages and at all times. Loving one's neighbor <i>means</i> not murdering him or stealing from him, in all ages and at all times.<br /><br />*This* is the law that continues on as a rule of righteousness.<br /><br />---<br /><br />I'm guessing that you are aware of the civil/ceremonial/moral distinction and have some disagreement with it. But consider James 1.22 - 25 and 2.8 and the fact that he's referring to the OT (since the NT was mostly unwritten and almost entirely unavailable to James' audience).<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-30292881029713264252011-04-17T15:18:44.923-04:002011-04-17T15:18:44.923-04:00Hi Nick,
I made an important omission in reconstr...Hi Nick,<br /><br />I made an important omission in reconstructing my post. What I meant to say was, <br /><br />JRC (meant!): <i>You have stated that 'the Mosaic Law provides <b>temporal</b> rewards.' Rom 2, 3 make this thesis impossible.</i><br /><br />And you responded, reasonably, to my original post by explaining the temporal-eternal distinction.<br /><br />But it is precisely that distinction that I believe falls apart in light of Romans 2:<br /><br /><i>All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law <b>will be judged by the law.</b> For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.</i> -- Rom 2.12 - 16.<br /><br />We notice: <br /><br />(1) Those who keep the Law will be declared righteous in God's sight. <br />(2) The righteous requirements of the Law extend even to Gentiles (not "under the Law"),<br />(3) Those under the Law who sin will be judged by the Law, and<br />(4) This judgment will take place when Jesus judges the world; that is, it is an eternal judgment and not temporal.<br /><br />So I think your temporal/eternal distinction needs significant modification in light of Rom 2.<br /><br />In the same vein, you wrote,<br /><br />Nick: <i>I don't believe the curse of the Law is or equates to eternal punishment for the above reason, but also because Paul explicitly quotes in Gal 3:10 the passage of Deuteronomy 27-28, the temporal curses on life.</i><br /><br />The problem with this reading is that it would make Christ's death (as discussed in Gal 3) a matter of taking on temporal punishments for us!<br /><br />I think you may have overlooked another possibility: that the temporal punishments of Deut 27 - 28 are symbolic of the eternal punishment due to one who sins against God.<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-23987214204428177012011-04-16T18:25:53.410-04:002011-04-16T18:25:53.410-04:00(2 of 2)
I would agree with your comments on Gal ...(2 of 2)<br /><br />I would agree with your comments on Gal 3:24f except for your claim that the Law "still remains as a rule of righteousness." The Law as a legally binding code/covenant is abolished; now it's just a historical document with foreshadowings of Christ in it.<br /><br />Thus, embracing the Law is a return to slavery in light of the revealed Christ; you're choosing to live in a system that doesn't recognize Christ = Gal 5:4. For example, it's an abomination to celebrate Passover when we know the True Passover is Jesus. Living under the Law is an (implicit) affirmation that the Messiah has not come, when we know in reality He has.<br /><br /><br />In your last post, you went onto talk on Gal 3:15ff. While I agree with much of your analysis here, I didn't see you pointing out that the saving promise was given to Abraham and conditioned on Faith while there was no such promise attached to the Law and conditioned on law-keeping. So the Judaizer error was saying God attached salvation to the Mosaic Covenant, when in reality He attached salvation to the Abrahamic Covenant. This is why "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (Rom 9:6).<br /><br />Now when you said Abraham "was a sinner -- a sinner not under the law, in fact -- who was justified by faith," I don't see how this connects to the clause that "Christ kept the Law for us". If the Law never applied to Abraham, it's superfluous to say Christ kept it for him. The same can be said for the Gentiles, especially those who lived after the Mosaic Covenant ended: there wasn't even an opportunity for them to be under the Law.<br /><br />And when you said: "It is not the keeping of the 613 commands that equals righteousness; rather, it is righteousness that entails the keeping of the 613." Are you saying one doesn't attain the status of 'righteous' by keeping the commandments, rather one shows they already have that status by keeping the commandments? If so, I think that's problematic.<br /><br />Lastly, when you say Christ kept the Law for us to mean "He would be a blameless sacrifice," I totally agree but still fail to see how this proves or necessitates an imputation of Active Obedience and especially within a "Covenant of Works". If that Sacrifice is so that we can be "in Him" and thus righteous, great, but I wouldn't say that righteousness is to be taken as a 'positive legal righteousness' in the sense Active Obedience entails.<br /><br />So when you say "we mean that Christ lived righteously on our behalf, and was therefore a spotless sacrifice for us; and we are counted righteous because we are in Him," I would agree, but now I don't see how you're defining "righteousness".Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-87338367138621299752011-04-16T18:25:33.068-04:002011-04-16T18:25:33.068-04:00Hi Jeff,
If a post disappears, it probably went ...Hi Jeff, <br /><br />If a post disappears, it probably went into blogger's new COMMENTS SPAM folder, which is very annoying. <br /><br />To begin with, I agree with your comments on the background of Galatians: the Judaizers sought to condition being a child of God on being circumcised a la Acts 15:5. The thing I keep in mind is that this is *not* equivalent to 'meriting' or pelagianism.<br /><br />Next, I agree that the underlying question is: why the Law in the first place? As you said: to expose sin and to lead us to Christ.<br /><br />As for the notion that the law "provided a curse," I think that needs it's own clarification. The Law wasn't made to make life hell, the Law was a glorious way of life in the OT and a testimony to the nations. The law emerged as a curse only in the sense that in light of Christ the Law was old, outdated, and imperfect. That is why Galatians 5:4 says if one gets circumcised they have "been severed from Christ, fallen from grace," where as before this wasn't true.<br /><br />I also agree that sin is a larger category than breaking the Law, and this is why so many err in projecting or assuming the "covenant of works" is built into the Mosaic Law. Truth be told, there is no such Law-Gospel distinction, with "Law" in Paul referring to sin in the larger category.<br /><br />You said: <br />"You have stated that 'the Mosaic Law provides rewards.' Rom 2, 3 make this thesis impossible."<br /><br />This is where the temporal-vs-eternal distinction must be made. All through the Torah it says explicitly if the Law is kept God will bless with large family, long life, and wealth (e.g. Deut 28). The punishments for breaking the Law only extended to physical death penalty and expulsion from the covenant. But as I said earlier, the Torah never speaks of heaven or hell; those were outside the scope of the Law.<br /><br />I don't believe the curse of the Law is or equates to eternal punishment for the above reason, but also because Paul explicitly quotes in Gal 3:10 the passage of Deuteronomy 27-28, the temporal curses on life.<br /><br />(1 of 2)Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-57207756239583574362011-04-14T19:57:47.152-04:002011-04-14T19:57:47.152-04:00To qualify my comments on "Law as tutor"...To qualify my comments on "Law as tutor" (4/14 4:28) -- the Law's tutoring function is gone <i>for those in Christ</i>.Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-42589777032397078922011-04-14T16:40:33.568-04:002011-04-14T16:40:33.568-04:00OK, OK, but how does this explain Gal 3.15 - 18?
...OK, OK, but how does this explain Gal 3.15 - 18?<br /><br />In this way: More basic than the Law is God's covenant relationship: I will be a God to you and to your descendants (Gen 17).<br /><br />Abraham needed to be <i>justified</i> in order to be in that covenant relationship; he was a sinner -- a sinner not under the law, in fact -- who was justified by faith.<br /><br />The fact that he (a) needed justification, and (b) received it by faith apart from law, puts the lie to the Judaizers' claim that "covenant equals law-keeping."<br /><br />This is what Paul means AFAICT.<br /><br />---<br /><br />So how does this fit in with "Christ kept the Law for us"?<br /><br />In this way. The Law symbolizes or expresses what it means to properly be righteous (namely, to love God and neighbor). It is not the keeping of the 613 commands that equals righteousness; rather, it is righteousness that entails the keeping of the 613.<br /><br />When we say that "Christ kept the Law for us", we mean that (a) Christ lived righteously, as expressed in keeping the Law; and (b) that His living was <i>on our behalf</i>, so that He would be a blameless sacrifice.<br /><br />Granted: Jesus would have lived righteously anyway! But the life that he lived, he lived SO THAT he could be the spotless offering.<br /><br />AND<br /><br />Because we are "in Him", we are accounted also as "righteous."<br /><br />(And obviously, I'm knocking on the door of my question on 4/12 4:05.)<br /><br />So we don't mean that "the Law brought justification, and Christ met the requirements, so He was first justified by law-keeping, and then signed his justification over to us."<br /><br />Instead, we mean that "Christ lived righteously on our behalf, and was therefore a spotless sacrifice for us; and we are counted righteous because we are in Him."<br /><br />Am I making the difference intelligible?Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-77587704404431215152011-04-14T16:28:35.815-04:002011-04-14T16:28:35.815-04:00"So the law was our guardian until Christ cam..."So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." (3.24-25)<br /><br />We have to be careful here to remember that Abraham also was justified by faith. So Paul is not saying "before Christ, justification by law; after Christ, justification by faith."<br /><br />Instead, he is saying that before Christ came, the law was a tutor: It made plain our sin. This caused us to eagerly await our savior, the one who would remove the guilt of our sin.<br /><br />Now that the savior has come, there is no longer a need for the Law <i>in its tutoring function.</i><br /><br />This does not abolish the Law utterly; it still remains as a rule of righteousness fulfilled by those who have the Spirit. But it does abolish the cursing function of the Law.<br /><br />And this exposes the lie of the Judaizers. If we are in Christ, then what need is there of <i>law-keeping</i> as a means of righteousness? None whatsoever. Those who are in Christ <i>have already been justified</i>, and a return to the Law is a return to slavery.Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-87399334529171670412011-04-14T16:23:55.167-04:002011-04-14T16:23:55.167-04:00"The Law was added because of transgressions&..."The Law was added because of transgressions" (3.19).<br /><br />In 3.10 - 3.20 Paul explains that the Law was given in order to provide a curse upon those who broke it. It was added because of transgressions. This is a difficult phrase, but it can be properly understood by comparison to Rom 2 and Rom 5.<br /><br />Sin itself is a larger category than "breaking the Mosaic Law." Adam sinned by breaking God's command -- and from Adam till Moses, the guilt of sin was clearly in effect as evidenced by the existence of death (Rom 5.12ff.). But the Law was given so as to clearly mark "sin" as "transgression." Hence Rom 5.20: The law was given so that trespass might increase. <br /><br />NOT, that people might sin more! But rather, that people's sin might be clearly marked as transgression. Hence, all who sin "under the Law" will be judged by the Law (Rom 2.12). And those who obey the Law will be judged righteous (Rom 2.13).<br /><br />So by comparison, Gal 3.19 becomes clear: The law was added "because of the need to mark sins as transgressions."<br /><br />---<br /><br />A moment here to challenge you. You have stated that "the Mosaic Law provides rewards." Rom 2, 3 make this thesis impossible.<br /><br />For a breaking of the Law was a sin; and the wages of sin is eternal death.<br /><br />Not all sins are trespasses according to the Law; but all trespasses of the Law are sins, and therefore bring eternal punishment with them. This is the "curse of the Law" of Gal 3.10. And this is the accountability that we have before God in Rom 3.19 - 20.<br /><br />Breaking of the Law is therefore of eternal import.Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-76896016696151246952011-04-14T16:05:57.519-04:002011-04-14T16:05:57.519-04:00ACK! My post disappeared.
OK, let's try again...ACK! My post disappeared.<br /><br />OK, let's try again.<br /><br />Galatians is addressed to a group of churches troubled by Judaizers, those who teach that to be a child of God, one must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses (cf. Acts 15).<br /><br />Against this, Paul raises a powerful argument.<br /><br />(1) Those who have begun by faith ought not continue by the flesh (3.1-6).<br /><br />(2) Those who are in Christ are already children of Abraham and therefore have no need of circumcision (3.7-29).<br /><br />(3) The Law brings slavery that cannot make one a child of the promise (ch. 4).<br /><br />More could be said, but that's enough to get on with.<br /><br />Paul's argument then raises a burning question: If justification comes through faith in Christ, then why did God give the Law at all? (3.19). Unspoken is this thought: if the Law does not justify, then placing Israelites under the Law from Moses to Christ seems pointless.<br /><br />He answers this question in two different ways. First, the Law was given because of transgressions (3.19).<br /><br />Second, in the history of redemption, the Law was given to lead us to Christ (3.23-25).<br /><br />Let's take each of these in turn.Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-83473436339708138872011-04-13T21:19:40.628-04:002011-04-13T21:19:40.628-04:00Hi Jeff,
I totally understand if this is too muc...Hi Jeff, <br /><br />I totally understand if this is too much and/or you don't have time. <br /><br />If anything, at the very least, could you exegete Galatians 3:15-18 and tell me how it harmonizes with your position.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-91119066926367083812011-04-13T18:58:00.724-04:002011-04-13T18:58:00.724-04:00Nick,
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm puzzling...Nick,<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughts. I'm puzzling over how the discussion can proceed from here. We clearly have very different ideas of what God's Law is, how it functioned and functions, and what Jesus' obedience to the Law meant for us.<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-18906967631225353952011-04-13T13:50:46.882-04:002011-04-13T13:50:46.882-04:00You said: "What was the obstacle to the recep...You said: "What was the obstacle to the reception of that promise? Sin.<br />What was the solution to the obstacle? Christ"<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />You said: <br />"Where does the Law figure in? NOT, says Paul, as the remedy to sin. But instead, says Paul, to bring a pointed curse on sin. 'The Law was added because of transgressions', right?"<br /><br />Agreed. The Law was not introduced to provide salvation, only to expose sin. This is why it makes no sense to suggest Christ kept the Law 'in our place' or that keeping the Law saves.<br /><br />You said: "For who else's place do you have in mind?! :)"<br /><br />Keeping the Law in place of another doesn't follow from someone needing a Sacrifice for their sins. If I have to pay a speeding ticket, it makes no sense to say someone else kept the speed limit for me and also paid the fine for me. Paying the fine follows from my breaking, and keeping the speed limit doesn't grant a citizen any special blessings. <br /><br />You said:<br />Seriously, though:<br />* The sacrifice was in our place;<br />* The Law-keeping made him a worthy sacrifice;<br />* Therefore, the Law-keeping was in our place. It was for our benefit, so that our failure to keep the Law would not be held against us.<br /><br />But the Law keeping wasn't it's own component for any 'positive' blessing, so even if you want to say Jesus kept the Law in our place, that was only a condition to be a Sacrifice and thus yield forgiveness. Failure to keep the Law was Atoned for by the Sacrifice; it didn't require an additional crediting of perfect Law keeping to our account: Heb 9:15. <br /><br />Lastly, you said: <br />for you,<br />"to merit" means "to accrue status points by the performance of specific actions."<br />Is that right?<br /><br />Basically correct, I just would use the term 'status points'.<br /><br />You said:<br />Whereas I am using "merit" more in keeping with the equation of "righteousness = true law-keeping = love." And that is<br />"to merit" means "to fulfill the conditions of the relationship" (or "covenant.")<br />So Jesus didn't need to rack up status points on our behalf. <br /><br />But it is Christians who fulfill the Law in that sense without Christ doing it for us: Rom 2:29; 13:8ff<br /><br />You said:<br />Of course not! BUT,<br />* Adam's sin and ours following it had broken the conditions of relationship.<br />* Our sin nature made repairing that relationship impossible.<br />* And Jesus repaired the relationship through his obedience<br />That's what "merit" means in my book.<br /><br />I would actually largely agree with this, I would just say *The Law* wasn't the standard by which this was done. Adam didn't violate nor was he under the Law; it didn't even exist yet. The analogy I would use is that Adam introduced cancer into humanity, the Law came to expose the cancer, Jesus (in virtue of His Divinity) provided the cure. The Law didn't cure cancer nor could it.<br /><br /><br />To conclude, you asked:<br />One final thing. I sense that where we're headed is a discussion of this question:<br />"Does the righteousness of Christ that saves us from God's wrath consist of Christ's righteousness granted to us as a status, OR of Christ's righteousness transforming us from sinner by nature into saint by nature?"<br />Is that a fair assessment of what you're thinking? <br /><br />The latter. It's basically a grand Adoption process. We go from children of Adam - those who lack the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit - to (Adopted) children of God by the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. <br />Sin doesn't have ontological existence, rather it is a 'defect' in what is ontologically good, and in this case the defect is a privation of the 'love and Spirit poured into our hearts' (Rom 5:5). This is precisely why Paul's #1 concern in Galatians was to ask: <b>Let me ask you only this: Did you *receive the Spirit* by works of the law or by hearing with faith?</b><br />The Law never did promise nor could it give the believer the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-56680081812376528692011-04-13T13:50:19.179-04:002011-04-13T13:50:19.179-04:00You said: Here's my shot at it. The Law of God...You said: Here's my shot at it. The Law of God, as expressed in the Law of Moses is<br />(A) The law of love (Matt 22.40). The 1st table of the decalogue corresponds to love for God; the 2nd, for neighbor.<br /><br />I think it's good to address what the Mosaic Law is. The "two greatest commandments" of Mt 22:40 are not taken from the 10 Commandments but from two different sections in the Torah. This helps show that the Law was a 'package deal', it had to be kept as a whole and not cherry picked. Now when we turn to the 10 Commandments, we notice that commandments such as the 4th relate to Sabbath keeping, but this never applied to non-Jews, nor does it apply today, and thus the 10 Commandments are not the perfect or eternal standard by which we're judged.<br /><br />You also said: (B) The rule of righteousness, the breaking of which brings a curse and the fulfillment of which brings reward (Rom 2).<br /><br />Romans 2 is talking about the final judgment, and in every text of Scripture where we see mention of being worthy of entering heaven, it's a legal context and the judgment is based upon our *own* good works, not Christ's good works in our place. This is the exact opposite of what we would expect if being worthy to enter Heaven was based on Christ's good works done in our place.<br /><br /><br />You said: "(A) and (B) are not separate, but identical: we owe God obedience-(B) because we are his creatures. Genuine love leads to genuine obedience; true obedience proceeds from love."<br /><br />I sort of agree, but I think your premises are not correct.<br /><br />You concluded with:<br />(2) That Jesus' status as son is accounted to us (Gal 3.26-29), so that we also are children of God.<br />The fulfilling refers to his "meeting the demands of." ... In (2), He causes us to reap the purpose of the Law, which is to be in right relationship with God. We are God's children (viewed as righteous) because we are in Christ; He thus fulfills the Law in that sense.<br /><br />I'd say #2 is where the main disagreement rests. The way I interpret Gal 3 and other similar texts is that the promises given to Abraham were put on hold until Jesus came, and the Law was introduced as "our guardian until Christ came" (3:24). If you read Gal 3:19-24, it never indicates 'the purpose of the Law was to put us in a right relationship with God', just the opposite (cf Rom 4:13-15). The theme in Rom 4 and Gal 3 is becoming a child of Abraham, which has no direct connection to Law keeping. <br /><br /><br />Later you said: I think you may be partially agreeing with me without realizing it! Not in terms of "abolishing" the Law. Christ clearly indicated that He was fulfilling, not abolishing -- Matt 5. Paul confirms that the righteousness of faith does not abolish the Law (Rom 3.31). So we don't agree there. <br /><br />By 'abolish' I mean 'no longer binding', hence Paul's 'abolish' language in places like Eph 2:15. I am not saying the Law is worthless, only that it served its purpose. The Mosaic Law was inherently imperfect (Mk 10:2-12), as Hebrews 8 makes abundantly clear: "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete." The talk of a New Testament doesn't make sense if the Old is still in force. <br /><br /><br />You said: "But in terms of our receiving the Abrahamic promise, yes, exactly. And what was that promise? "I will be your God, and you will be my people" (and the various benefits that flowed from that)."<br /><br />I think you're either conflating promises or mixing them up. The phrase you quote is Mosaic, not Abrahamic. The promise that God would give Abraham the promised land and numerous descendants was already fulfilled by God, but the promised "Seed" (Jesus) and that spiritual Sonship is only fulfilled in light of the Gospel.<br /><br />(2 of 3)Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-57354632378976469552011-04-13T13:49:28.746-04:002011-04-13T13:49:28.746-04:00Hi Jeff, I've broken this into 3 posts, hopefu...Hi Jeff, I've broken this into 3 posts, hopefully this wont get too long: <br /><br />Hi Jeff, <br /><br />You asked me: "How do you get this from the text?" <br /><br />My 'short' answer is to appeal to Gal 3:15-18, which clearly delineates that the promise given to Abraham was not the same attached to the Law. This is why it would help if I saw your interpretation of Gal 3:15-18.<br /><br />You also asked: "(1) And in particular, how do you account for the fact that failing to keep the Mosaic Law gives eternal punishment?"<br /><br />I don't believe failing to keep the Law results in eternal punishment, just the opposite in fact! The Mosaic Law could only inflict physical and temporal punishments, not eternal. This is why there is no mention of Heaven/Hell in the Mosaic Law. One good passage that shows this contrast is Hebrews 10:28-29, where it says anyone violating the Mosaic Law was put to death, but anyone violating Christ will be damned.<br /><br /><br />You also asked: "(2) And in fact, Paul specifically attributes eternal rewards to law-keeping in Rom 2."<br /><br />Not in virtue of keeping the Mosaic Law though, since he says Gentiles are included in this (2:10) and that circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit (a power man does not have) is what really counts (2:29).<br /><br />You asked: "Don't these demand that keeping of the Law is tied up with something more than temporal rewards and punishments?"<br /><br />I would say the Biblical testimony is clearly against that idea. On another theological front, the Mosaic Law was imperfect and temporary, so it cannot be an eternal and universal standard. <br /><br />You said: So I think a clearer account of righteousness and law is needed before we can proceed effectively. <br /><br />That sound fair to me. I'd say the three main texts I'd point to are Gal 3:15-18; Rom 10:5-7; Phil 3:3-6. These texts don't make sense when interpreted as "TWO ways to attain ONE type of righteousness," and rather as "TWO types of righteousness, each attained their own way". <br /><br /><br />You said: I'm not convinced that there are two kinds of righteousness; what I think I'm seeing in Scripture is two approaches to the Law: Try to fulfill it (and fail); or have the requirements met in you by Another (who succeeded). Rom. 8.4.<br /><br />How can there be two approaches to the Law for someone who lived chronologically prior to the Law or who lives after the Law has been done away with? Further, as I've said from a few posts ago, there are no explicit texts that say Jesus kept the Law in our place. As for Romans 8:4, often this verse is truncated, resulting in a changed meaning. 8:4b shows the righteous requirements are met in us since we walk by the Spirit and thus fulfill them a la 13:8ff (which is what ch8 is all about).<br /><br />(1 of 3)Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-72023470907513578342011-04-12T16:05:09.726-04:002011-04-12T16:05:09.726-04:00One final thing. I sense that where we're hea...One final thing. I sense that where we're headed is a discussion of this question:<br /><br />"Does the righteousness of Christ that saves us from God's wrath consist of Christ's righteousness granted to us as a status, OR of Christ's righteousness transforming us from sinner by nature into saint by nature?"<br /><br />Is that a fair assessment of what you're thinking?<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-53586474310238595962011-04-12T16:02:00.904-04:002011-04-12T16:02:00.904-04:00A couple of points:
Nick: Second, I see Paul'...A couple of points:<br /><br />Nick: <i>Second, I see Paul's argument as pushing the Law out of the way, not vouching for vicariously keeping it, but rather abolishing it. Paul says Christ redeemed us from the Law so that we could receive the Abrahamic promise.</i><br /><br />I think you may be partially agreeing with me without realizing it!<br /><br />Not in terms of "abolishing" the Law. Christ clearly indicated that He was <i>fulfilling</i>, not <i>abolishing</i> -- Matt 5. Paul confirms that the righteousness of faith does not abolish the Law (Rom 3.31). So we don't agree there.<br /><br />But in terms of our receiving the Abrahamic promise, yes, exactly. And what was that promise? "I will be your God, and you will be my people" (and the various benefits that flowed from that).<br /><br />What was the obstacle to the reception of that promise? Sin.<br /><br />What was the solution to the obstacle? Christ's life and death and resurrection for us.<br /><br />Where does the Law figure in? NOT, says Paul, as the remedy to sin. But instead, says Paul, to bring a pointed curse on sin. "The Law was added because of transgressions", right?<br /><br />---<br /><br />You asked, <i>Third, Christ indeed perfectly kept the Law, and this was necessary to make Him a worthy Sacrifice, but where does this entail He kept it in our place?</i><br /><br />For who else's place do you have in mind?! :)<br /><br />Seriously, though: <br /><br />* The sacrifice was <i>in our place</i>; <br />* The Law-keeping made him a worthy sacrifice; <br />* Therefore, the Law-keeping was <i>in our place.</i> It was for our benefit, so that our failure to keep the Law would not be held against us.<br /><br />---<br /><br />I get the sense that you're working off of a different idea of "meriting" than I am. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think I'm seeing that for you,<br /><br />"to merit" <i>means</i> "to accrue status points by the performance of specific actions."<br /><br />Is that right?<br /><br />Whereas I am using "merit" more in keeping with the equation of "righteousness = true law-keeping = love." And that is<br /><br />"to merit" <i>means</i> "to fulfill the conditions of the relationship" (or "covenant.")<br /><br />So Jesus didn't need to rack up status points on our behalf. Of course not! BUT, <br /><br />* Adam's sin and ours following it had broken the conditions of relationship.<br /><br /><i>for all have sinned ...</i><br /><br />* Our sin nature made repairing that relationship impossible.<br /><br /><i>For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.</i><br /><br />* And Jesus repaired the relationship through his obedience<br /><br /><i>For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.</i><br /><br />That's what "merit" means in my book.<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-58199030886737315302011-04-12T16:00:54.491-04:002011-04-12T16:00:54.491-04:00Hi Nick,
You said: There is soteric[Abrahamic]-...Hi Nick, <br /><br />You said: <i>There is soteric[Abrahamic]-righteousness and Mosaic-righteousness. The former promises eternal rewards, the latter only temporal rewards.</i><br /><br />Here, I turn the challenge to you: How do you get this from the text?<br /><br />(1) And in particular, how do you account for the fact that <i>failing</i> to keep the Mosaic Law gives eternal <i>punishment</i>? <br /><br />(2) And in fact, Paul specifically attributes eternal rewards to law-keeping in Rom 2.<br /><br />Don't these demand that keeping of the Law is tied up with something more than temporal rewards and punishments?<br /><br />So I think a clearer account of righteousness and law is needed before we can proceed effectively. I'm not convinced that there are two kinds of righteousness; what I think I'm seeing in Scripture is two approaches to the Law: Try to fulfill it (and fail); or have the requirements <i>met</i> in you by Another (who succeeded). Rom. 8.4.<br /><br />Here's my shot at it. The Law of God, as expressed in the Law of Moses is<br /><br />(A) The law of love (Matt 22.40). The 1st table of the decalogue corresponds to love for God; the 2nd, for neighbor.<br /><br />(B) The rule of righteousness, the breaking of which brings a curse and the fulfillment of which brings reward (Rom 2).<br /><br />(A) and (B) are not separate, but identical: we <i>owe</i> God obedience-(B) because we are his creatures. Genuine love leads to genuine obedience; true obedience proceeds from love.<br /><br />Thus, the phrase "Jesus fulfilled the law for us" as I'm using it <i>means</i><br /><br />(1) That Jesus bore the curse for our disobedience (Gal 3.13), or lack of love.<br /><br />(2) That Jesus' status as son is accounted to us (Gal 3.26-29), so that we also are children of God.<br /><br />The <i>fulfilling</i> refers to his "meeting the demands of." In (1), He dies as the one condemned -- the requirement of the Law. In (2), He causes us to reap the purpose of the Law, which is to be in right relationship with God. We are God's children (viewed as righteous) because we are in Christ; He thus <i>fulfills the Law</i> in that sense.<br /><br />That's the best I can do, I'm afraid. But see below on "merit"...<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-88829606710131008012011-04-11T20:24:48.713-04:002011-04-11T20:24:48.713-04:00Hi Jeff,
I was more specifically drawing a distin...Hi Jeff,<br /><br />I was more specifically drawing a distinction between two kinds of "being righteous," and not mutually exclusive kinds either. There is soteric[Abrahamic]-righteousness and Mosaic-righteousness. The former promises eternal rewards, the latter only temporal rewards. <br /><br />I didn't explicitly mention Original sin because the "Judaizer issue" of "Do this and live" wasn't directly related to that but to the Mosaic Law. That said, Original Sin comes into the picture in regards to the 'cure' I mentioned which is soteric-righteousness that the Mosaic Law never offered. So in places like Romans 4 and Galatians 3, Paul is refuting the idea the Mosaic-Righteousness was soteric in the first place.<br /><br />As for the idea Jesus kept the Law in our place, you said:<br />"<b>That's precisely what I see in Scripture. Heb 9 for example. Or Galatians 3.</b>"<br /><br />I'd be interested in the specific passages you have in mind, because I see nothing even close to suggesting that. <br /><br />You then presented what you thought was Paul's argument and concluded with:<br /><br />"<i>Stop and consider the point implied in his argument. How does Christ redeem us from the curse of that Law? By taking the curse for us. But a man cannot take the curse for someone else unless ... He is righteous. Fulfills the Law.</i>" <br /><br />I think there are a few critical assumptions being made here that you'd be hard-pressed to substantiate with Scripture. <br /><br />First of all, you're arguing Christ kept the Law in our place as the epitome of meriting and yet you say this is based on what is <b>"implied"</b> in Paul's argument. I have a hard time believing something that significant has to be concluded from what is only "implied" in Scripture rather than clearly spelled out. <br /><br />Second, I see Paul's argument as pushing the Law out of the way, not vouching for vicariously keeping it, but rather abolishing it. Paul says Christ redeemed us from the Law so that we could receive the Abrahamic promise. Could you please exegete Galatians 3:15-18 for me?<br /><br />Third, Christ indeed perfectly kept the Law, and this was necessary to make Him a worthy Sacrifice, but where does this entail He kept it <b>in our place</b>? Such is, again, nowhere stated anywhere in Scripture. Further, keeping the Mosaic Law only entitles one to the temporal blessings of long life, health, wealth, etc, - not heaven - so keeping it perfectly in our place wouldn't save us without supplanting the chronologically earlier promise to Abraham. I would also add that the term "fulfill" does not mean "keep perfectly" in Scripture.<br /><br /><br />You asked: <br />"Or put another way: What does Paul mean when he says that we become the righteousness of God in Christ? (2 Cor 3)."<br /><br />I'm not sure how you can equate "righteousness of God in Christ" with "keep the Law perfectly in our place" - I just don't see any exegetical basis for doing such. <br />The "righteousness of God [the Father]" is not a Mosaic Righteousness or even a merited righteousness, especially since the Father never had to merit this. <br /><br />If you are to parallel 2 Corinthians 5:21 with Galatians 3:13 - which I think can be done - here is what we'd have to equate "righteousness of God" with: <br /><br />For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, <br /><b>*so that in him* we might become the righteousness of God.</b><br /><br />Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us...<br /><b>*so that in Christ Jesus* the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.</b><br /><br />Thus, the "righteousness of God" is somehow synonymous or relates to "the blessing of Abraham" and receiving the Holy Spirit by faith.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-26266225551614165952011-04-09T21:48:50.898-04:002011-04-09T21:48:50.898-04:00Hi Nick,
Am I correct in sensing that you want to...Hi Nick,<br /><br />Am I correct in sensing that you want to draw a distinction between "keeping the Law" and "being righteous"?<br /><br />Anyway, what I don't see in your analysis is the role of original sin. Romans 4, for example, argues that lawkeeping cannot make us righteous death came to all through Adam; and life comes to all through Christ.<br /><br />You say,<br /><br /><i>If the merit thesis were true, we'd expect to see Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 interpreted as saying Jesus kept the Law perfectly in our place - but such is never taught in Scripture.</i><br /><br />That's precisely what I see in Scripture. Heb 9 for example. Or Galatians 3.<br /><br />Consider Paul's argument:<br /><br />* Those who are of faith are of the sons of Abraham.<br />* But those who rely on the Law are under a curse.<br />* What is that curse? That those under the Law must obey it everything written in it.<br />* But Christ redeemed us from the curse of that Law.<br />* So that we become children of God by being in Christ.<br /><br />Stop and consider the point implied in his argument. How does Christ redeem us from the curse of that Law?<br /><br />By taking the curse for us. But a man cannot take the curse for someone else unless ... He is righteous. Fulfills the Law.<br /><br />Or put another way: What does Paul mean when he says that we become the righteousness of God in Christ? (2 Cor 3).<br /><br />The odd thing is that I thought that Catholics and Protestants agreed on this point: Christ's sacrifice was meritorious because He was righteous. Right?<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-9219271236021245982011-04-05T19:14:46.296-04:002011-04-05T19:14:46.296-04:00This brings us back to Galatians 3:12, "But t...This brings us back to Galatians 3:12, "But the law is not of faith, rather The one who does them shall live by them." <br />To read this as saying 'faith is about not meriting' while the 'law is about meriting' doesn't fit based on what was just said. Of course, obeying the Law presupposed faith in the first place, so "the law is not of faith" cannot mean "obeying the Law as an unbeliever." Thus, the "Faith" mentioned here must mean something else, as Romans 10:5f indicates:<br />"<b>5For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).</b>"<br /><br />If the merit thesis were true, we'd expect to see Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 interpreted as saying Jesus kept the Law perfectly in our place - but such is never taught in Scripture. (In fact, the very text Paul is quoting from the Law is where God says the Law is not too hard to keep.) Rather, it says the "Faith" here is in the miracle of believing in Christ's Resurrection and Ascension. Thus, the "Faith" is a radical faith, and thus the "righteousness of faith" is a soteric-righteousness the Law could never give, while the "righteousness of the Law" is a earthly-temporal righteousness that never saves even if attained: Deuteronomy 28.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com