This is eisegesis. The discussion in Galatians is not about faithless obedience to the Law (whatever that is; Paul didn't use the term or the concept) and faithful obedience. It is about justification and, more specifically, sanctification (ongoing growth in Christ-likeness), either by the works of the Law or by faith. The dichotomy is between faith and law-following, not faith and non-faith. If Paul meant faith-filled obedience to Law versus faithless obedience, he would have said so.
Again, you're reading 'faithless' into the text. Because you are doing this, the rest of your argument is groundless.
Interesting idea, which might have some validity if Paul had not already made it clear in 3:3 and 3:5 that sanctification is by faith, not by Law. His point was that obedience to the Law benefited them nothing! In thinking it did, they fell from grace! That's the point of the letter. To reframe it and claim that Paul was trying to tell them to obey the Law "with faith" is to misapprehend the main message. Your last sentence quoted above is an argument from silence, and is therefore invalid.
While they were in captivity, they were actively prevented from complete obedience, but they weren't following it completely anyway, which is why they were in captivity in the first place. While I agree that the inability to comply with one part does not absolve them of the rest, it remains that the Law is a unit, and that breaking one 'part' is breaking the whole. We in Christ do not have a relationship with God which is based on Law, as Israel did. Ours is based solely on Christ, in the context of, but not on the basis of, Israel's history and the Law.
Hello Dino246,
Thanks for writing back!
Looks like we have quite a few issues on the table now...about 9 on my count.
Let's get into it!
1. You wrote: "The discussion in Galatians is not about faithless obedience to the Law (whatever that is; Paul didn't use the term or the concept) and faithful obedience."
My response: No. You are incorrect. Read Gal. 5:4-5. Paul, here, sets up a contrast between two groups:
Group 1: Those who seek to be justified by law (Gal. 5:4)
Group 2: Those who are righteous by faith (Gal. 5:5)
Now, which group has faith? Group 2!
Which group must (by contrast) NOT have faith? Group 1!
Therefore, Group 1 refers to people who seek justification by law (without faith).
The "without faith" insertion is not an instance of eisegesis (as you wrongly claim).
Rather, it is inferred from the contrast which Paul, himself, set up in the text.
Thus, Paul's critique of the Galatians is a critique in which he rejects FAITHLESS Torah-obedience.
BUT, is all Torah-obedience faithless?
Of course not!
Where does Torah require that we NOT have faith in the Messiah? NOWHERE!
To the contrary, Torah REQUIRES that we embrace the Messiah (Dt. 18).
So, Paul critiques faithless Torah-obedience, because proper Torah-obedience is FAITHFUL Torah-obedience.
Therefore, Paul's critique of the Galatians is NOT evidence against the claim that we should grow in FAITHFUL Torah-obedience.
Moreover, my position is confirmed (and yours is disconfirmed) by the evidence in (2) below.
2. You are evidently unfamiliar with Paul's writings which confirm that he expected believers to grow in faithful obedience to Torah. Here are a few of the many lines of evidence:
A.
i. Paul taught we should not sin (Rom. 6:15).
ii. Paul taught that sin is Torah-obedience (Rom. 3:20; 7:7).
iii. Paul taught that we should not disobey Torah (from i and ii).
iv. Paul taught that we should obey Torah (from iii).
v. Torah-obedience is either faithful or faithless. (logically necessary)
vi. Paul opposed faithless Torah-obedience (Gal. 5:4-5).
vii. Paul advocated faithful Torah-obedience (from iv, v, and vi)
B. Paul quotes the Torah-obedient Dt. 30:14 passage in Rom. 10:8, thereby confirming that faithful Torah-obedience IS the word of faith which Paul preached.
C. Paul said we live by faith (Gr. "pistis", Gal. 3:11), equating "pistis" with faithfulness (Heb. "emunah", Hab. 2:4, which he was quoting.) AND, what is this way of "emunah" by which we should live? TORAH! (see "emunah" in Ps. 119:30,86,138). Thus Paul is an advocate of faithful Torah-obedience.
D. Paul says we should admonish one another with Psalms (Col. 3:16), thereby confirming that we should be admonished to obey Torah just as the Psalms confirm that we should obey. But since Paul opposed faithless Torah-obedience (Gal. 5:4-5), Paul must be advocating FAITHFUL Torah-obedience.
E. Paul said we are not excluded from Israel or the covenants (Eph. 2:12). Thus we are included as fellow participants in the covenants (Mosaic, Abrahamic, New). It follows we should obey (not oppose!) the Torah of the covenants in which we participate. But since Paul opposed faithless Torah-obedience (Gal. 5:4-5), Paul must be advocating FAITHFUL Torah-obedience.
F. Paul said that ALL Scripture (including, of course, TORAH!) should correct and train our behavior (2 Ti. 3:16).
I could list much more...but let's start with that.
Do you now see that Paul taught Torah-obedience, but opposed faithless Torah-obedience, so he therefore taught FAITHFUL (not faithless) Torah-obedience?
Unless you directly address all these objections to your position, your position remains undefended.
3. You wrote: "If Paul meant faith-filled obedience to Law versus faithless obedience, he would have said so."
My response: Why should I accept your unjustified claim?
Peter warned us that Paul's writings are DIFFICULT to understand (2 Pe. 3:16), so we should not be surprised if Paul refrains from always explicitly spelling things out in a simple way (as you have wrongly presupposed).
So, pending justification of your unsupported claim regarding what Paul would have allegedly written, your claim here remains unsubstantiated.
Come to think of it, your claim regarding what Paul "would have said" is, itself, an argument from silence. I thought you thought arguments from silence were bad?
Please stop using unsubstantiated assumptions in an effort to justify your position.
4. You wrote: "Again, you're reading 'faithless' into the text. Because you are doing this, the rest of your argument is groundless."
My response: Again, unless you address the Pauline evidence I've brought forth (which confirms my position, and which disconfirms yours), then your claim of eisegesis remains unsupported.
5. You wrote: "Interesting idea, which might have some validity if Paul had not already made it clear in 3:3 and 3:5 that sanctification is by faith, not by Law."
My response: Wait a minute! I thought eisegesis was bad?
Where does Gal. 3:3 (or 3:5) say that Paul was talking about sanctification? Remember? If Paul was talking about sanctification in 3:3 or 3:5, then "he would have said so", right?
Hmmm....I'm picking up on an inconsistent hermeneutics here...
Moreover, not all sanctification is by faith. Remember? Sanctification is also something we PURSUE (Heb. 12:14).
So, we're not surprised to see Jesus pray (Jn. 17:17) that we be sanctified by the word of God (i.e., Torah). Yes...as we obey Torah, we are sanctified.
And, we're not surprised to see Peter tell us that sanctification (holiness) is something WE do (1 Pe. 3:15).
And, we're not surprised to see that we should work to present ourselves as slaves of righteousness unto sanctification (Rom. 6:19)....and oh by the way, righteousness is also something we must DO (Gr. "poieo", 1 Jn. 2:29) as evidence of having been born of Him. So, "righteousness unto sanctification" is not an exclusively faith-based work-less experience.
In fact, Peter explicitly applies Lev. 11 to us (1 Pe. 1:16) as a means by which we may exemplify holiness through our ACTIONS of obedience to the Torah which Peter quoted and applied to even you!
Again, we're finding my position confirmed, and yours disconfirmed.
6. You wrote: "His point was that obedience to the Law benefited them nothing!"
My response: No. If Torah-obedience has no benefit, then we should not bother obeying Torah, which means we should not bother abstaining from sin (sin=Torah-disobedience, Rom. 3:20; 7:7). But Paul told us to NOT sin! (Rom. 6:15). Again, we've disconfirmed your claim here.
That's another reason why my position is better than yours.
7. You wrote: "To reframe it and claim that Paul was trying to tell them to obey the Law "with faith" is to misapprehend the main message."
My response: Your claim here is now seen to be ignorant of considerations I've brought forth earlier in this post.
8. You wrote: "We in Christ do not have a relationship with God which is based on Law, as Israel did."
My response: No! Righteousness has always been by faith...even since the time of Abraham. But, we who are righteous by faith also properly obey the Torah available to us (just like Abraham, Ge. 26:5).
AND, why assume you are excluded from Israel? Have you not read Eph. 2:12, which explicitly states that even believing Gentiles are NOT excluded?
AND, do you not participate in the New Covenant? Surely you do!
AND, is the New Covenant with only Israel? (answer: yes! Jer. 31:33)
Therefore, you MUST be an Israelite! Otherwise you are NOT a New Covenant participant.
AND, Torah passes directly into the New Covenant (Jer. 31:33), so let's stop pretending that it is terminated or somehow no longer applicable.
Furthermore, you just confessed that you are in Christ...but Christ is an Israelite! Therefore, you are IN an Israelite...I'd say that makes you rather Israelitish!
(or you could say "grafted in")
9. You wrote: "Your last sentence quoted above is an argument from silence, and is therefore invalid."
My response: I see you do not appreciate the force of the logic of my position.
Let's be explicit:
1. Torah-obedience is either FAITHFUL or FAITHLESS (neccesary truth)
2. Paul opposed faithless Torah-obedience (Gal. 5:4-5).
3. Premise (2) is not evidence that Paul opposed FAITHFUL Torah-obedience.
I think you should see the logic now.
If A and B are diametrically opposed, then my opposition to A does not entail my opposition to B.
Therefore, Paul's opposition to faithless Torah-obedience is NOT evidence that Paul opposes faithful Torah-obedience.
So, justify your "argument from silence" accusation, or else retract it.
CONCLUSION: All right...there's 9 issues to kick off our chat...
Look forward to hearing from you...
blessings...
BibleGuy
