I like that you end your videos with a focus on your love for the scripture. Not because I doubt yours but because its always good to center ourselves on the love of God and his word
Neat stuff! It’s interesting to see how in even a small, 2 verse passage that most of us would normally not take a second look at has so many different possible meanings to it. Thanks for this study!
It is crazy to say God gave Israel the law to show them that they couldn't keep it. Some answers are so bad it is amazing anyone becomes a Christian. I think some more related questions are.... what role did Jethro play in the law? And what is meant by "the law"? If the law means the "prophets" as well... then there are your "angels" or messengers. P.s. I wouldn't say we can't understand Paul but he sure is not who I would pick to write anything I wanted understood. Also, why do we think that these letters are scripture? .
Haven’t finished, still listening, but before I forget: To points… 1)malak (Exo2:3) means angel, so yes an Angel actually did talk to Moses through the burning bush as an intermediary of/on behalf of God. “Angel of the Lord” gets a lot of Christophonies (no biblical proof, that’s an external idea applied to Scripture, whether I believe them or not), however angels mediate God’s message among the prophets and many times throughout the OT directly (not to mention this is confirmed by Paul in Gal1:8 and adds credence to Hebrew’s argument on Christology in Heb2). You have to abandon Scripture for a theological interpretation imposed upon it to deny Exo3:2 says malak/angel. 2)I’m not surprised given so few people know what the difference between faith, belief, and trust are from the pulpit no less that the massively important difference between sin, iniquity, and transgression would lead to differing viewpoints on this passage. It’s very obvious, especially rooting in Lev/Numb/Deut that the Law was for the legal revelation of sins having a vertical dimension- a transgression which is a gap or debt that can’t be fixed by simply balancing a scale of injustice but going beyond. Thus, the need for a messiah to pay the debt of transgression, to clean the water that is so muddied and filthy, which can never be paid. Thus, the sacrifices took care of the sin debt while the transgression was a necessary looking forward to Jesus the Christ in faith. 1 salvation from beginning to end.
Thank you for not telling what to believe. Two thoughts for consideration. Jesus being the mediator in both testaments makes total sense if we understand that he is the Word, spoken at Sinai, in the flesh in the NT. Also, could the transgressions refer to when Jethro advised Moses on how to handle disputes in Exodus chapter 18?
I am really surprised that those scholars (who I respect) are all seriously getting Torah wrong. I highly recommend you do a book review of John Walton's "Lost World of the Torah" where he turns that whole law = legislation thing on its HEAD . He delves into the Near Ancient Eastern world to demonstrate they had no concept of government legislation so the "law" is a wrong translation of "Torah" which is instruction for wisdom (Deuteronomy 4:6) . Judges/kings would learn wisdom from the examples given to make decisions. Walton says Paul doesn't interpret the OT but the way the Torah had been used by the Second Temple Judaism or in Galatians the way the Judaizers were using it. Id suggest it's only relevant to understanding Paul and the Judaizers (Gordon Fee reconstructs the scriptural arguments of the Juadizers to show how Paul is countering their arguments) not generally the Torah. The church fathers knew nothing about the context of the Near Ancient East John Waltons book is a paradigm shift, he does have footnotes so he isn't alone
You missed the interpretation that "transgressions" were the sins of the angels who rebelled and the whole Genesis 6 thing, recently popularized by Michael Heiser.
Why the Mosaic Law? The Torah was given to Abraham for the Israelites, but many went astray the Egypt and became transgressors, an amendment was given by Moses to bring them back to faith, but was to be temporary until the Messiah realised the promise given to Abraham. The lost sheep were in fact hypocrites as they boasted being chosen by God but misrepresented God by sinning, and they were given 40 years to repent and follow the Messiah Jesus, then the Temple was destroyed and God divorced them. Those with an oath as a bride of Christ receive the promises, the Spirit and eternal life, but the church had now to reject hypocrites that broke their oath not to sin, as there were no more sacrifices for sin atonement.
Where do you get the premise that "works of the law" are lawkeeping, as they are transgressions and the imputation of sin, and Paul is addressing the same problem in Galatians as Romans. Sin is the problem that came by false teaching after conversion, everywhere grace was being interpreted as a licence to sin, but in both Galatians and Romans Paul has to add that "God forbid".
Regarding Galatians 3:19, when a single verse or small pericope is unclear it may because you’re looking at a leaf through a microscope. Take a step back to see the entire tree and the forest. I’m not suggesting an interpretation, just a an approach to getting a better picture.
I really agree with this. I actually had this in my notes for the end of the video, "Interpret cloudy in light of clear, not clear in light of cloudy" but I forgot to mention it. I'm just collecting interpretations of interesting passages and posting them if others find them interesting. Not intending to build a whole theology- especially around verses like this.
No one watching this video was ever under the law of Moses, so what Paul wrote does not apply directly to anyone today. The OT prophets wrote that when the Messiah came, the two houses of Israel (Judah and Ephraim) would be reunited. The dividing wall between them was the law. Paul’s gospel was to the scattered Israelites living among the nations (non-Jewish Israelites) to call them back to Yahweh through a new covenant, a new covenant which was only promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer. 31). Paul’s Gentiles were not non-Israelites. Paul’s Gentiles were uncircumcised scattered Israelites living among the nations. You have to start there if you’re going to understand anything Paul wrote.
Dude I love this series. It’s so helpful comparing major opinions
Thoroughly enjoy this. It's always good to dig deeper into the Word of God. Thamks for sharing with us. Blessings to you and your family 🙏
I like that you end your videos with a focus on your love for the scripture. Not because I doubt yours but because its always good to center ourselves on the love of God and his word
Neat stuff! It’s interesting to see how in even a small, 2 verse passage that most of us would normally not take a second look at has so many different possible meanings to it. Thanks for this study!
I'm currently studying Galatians to teach to our Bible school. This video and your videos on new perspective have been super helpful
Glad they're helpful!
Very interesting. I had wondered about these verses, but hadn't had the time to dig in deep yet.
Nicely done 👍👍
It is crazy to say God gave Israel the law to show them that they couldn't keep it. Some answers are so bad it is amazing anyone becomes a Christian. I think some more related questions are.... what role did Jethro play in the law? And what is meant by "the law"? If the law means the "prophets" as well... then there are your "angels" or messengers.
P.s. I wouldn't say we can't understand Paul but he sure is not who I would pick to write anything I wanted understood. Also, why do we think that these letters are scripture?
.
Haven’t finished, still listening, but before I forget:
To points…
1)malak (Exo2:3) means angel, so yes an Angel actually did talk to Moses through the burning bush as an intermediary of/on behalf of God. “Angel of the Lord” gets a lot of Christophonies (no biblical proof, that’s an external idea applied to Scripture, whether I believe them or not), however angels mediate God’s message among the prophets and many times throughout the OT directly (not to mention this is confirmed by Paul in Gal1:8 and adds credence to Hebrew’s argument on Christology in Heb2). You have to abandon Scripture for a theological interpretation imposed upon it to deny Exo3:2 says malak/angel.
2)I’m not surprised given so few people know what the difference between faith, belief, and trust are from the pulpit no less that the massively important difference between sin, iniquity, and transgression would lead to differing viewpoints on this passage. It’s very obvious, especially rooting in Lev/Numb/Deut that the Law was for the legal revelation of sins having a vertical dimension- a transgression which is a gap or debt that can’t be fixed by simply balancing a scale of injustice but going beyond. Thus, the need for a messiah to pay the debt of transgression, to clean the water that is so muddied and filthy, which can never be paid. Thus, the sacrifices took care of the sin debt while the transgression was a necessary looking forward to Jesus the Christ in faith. 1 salvation from beginning to end.
Great video! You remind me of my new character
Book of the new sun review when
haha ok I'm getting them on audible right now! I assume start with 'the shadow of the torturer'?
Yes. It's 4 books in a two book collection
Thank you for not telling what to believe.
Two thoughts for consideration.
Jesus being the mediator in both testaments makes total sense if we understand that he is the Word, spoken at Sinai, in the flesh in the NT.
Also, could the transgressions refer to when Jethro advised Moses on how to handle disputes in Exodus chapter 18?
I am really surprised that those scholars (who I respect) are all seriously getting Torah wrong. I highly recommend you do a book review of John Walton's "Lost World of the Torah" where he turns that whole law = legislation thing on its HEAD . He delves into the Near Ancient Eastern world to demonstrate they had no concept of government legislation so the "law" is a wrong translation of "Torah" which is instruction for wisdom (Deuteronomy 4:6) . Judges/kings would learn wisdom from the examples given to make decisions. Walton says Paul doesn't interpret the OT but the way the Torah had been used by the Second Temple Judaism or in Galatians the way the Judaizers were using it. Id suggest it's only relevant to understanding Paul and the Judaizers (Gordon Fee reconstructs the scriptural arguments of the Juadizers to show how Paul is countering their arguments) not generally the Torah. The church fathers knew nothing about the context of the Near Ancient East John Waltons book is a paradigm shift, he does have footnotes so he isn't alone
You missed the interpretation that "transgressions" were the sins of the angels who rebelled and the whole Genesis 6 thing, recently popularized by Michael Heiser.
Why the Mosaic Law? The Torah was given to Abraham for the Israelites, but many went astray the Egypt and became transgressors, an amendment was given by Moses to bring them back to faith, but was to be temporary until the Messiah realised the promise given to Abraham.
The lost sheep were in fact hypocrites as they boasted being chosen by God but misrepresented God by sinning, and they were given 40 years to repent and follow the Messiah Jesus, then the Temple was destroyed and God divorced them.
Those with an oath as a bride of Christ receive the promises, the Spirit and eternal life, but the church had now to reject hypocrites that broke their oath not to sin, as there were no more sacrifices for sin atonement.
Where do you get the premise that "works of the law" are lawkeeping, as they are transgressions and the imputation of sin, and Paul is addressing the same problem in Galatians as Romans. Sin is the problem that came by false teaching after conversion, everywhere grace was being interpreted as a licence to sin, but in both Galatians and Romans Paul has to add that "God forbid".
Regarding Galatians 3:19, when a single verse or small pericope is unclear it may because you’re looking at a leaf through a microscope. Take a step back to see the entire tree and the forest. I’m not suggesting an interpretation, just a an approach to getting a better picture.
I really agree with this. I actually had this in my notes for the end of the video, "Interpret cloudy in light of clear, not clear in light of cloudy" but I forgot to mention it.
I'm just collecting interpretations of interesting passages and posting them if others find them interesting. Not intending to build a whole theology- especially around verses like this.
No one watching this video was ever under the law of Moses, so what Paul wrote does not apply directly to anyone today. The OT prophets wrote that when the Messiah came, the two houses of Israel (Judah and Ephraim) would be reunited. The dividing wall between them was the law. Paul’s gospel was to the scattered Israelites living among the nations (non-Jewish Israelites) to call them back to Yahweh through a new covenant, a new covenant which was only promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer. 31). Paul’s Gentiles were not non-Israelites. Paul’s Gentiles were uncircumcised scattered Israelites living among the nations. You have to start there if you’re going to understand anything Paul wrote.