- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
I knew I could find where Paul said this in black and white somewhere in my bible. Thank goodness I'm reading thru my bible in a year for the umpteenth time (started last October 4) and I'm almost done. I found this in Galatians:
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Galatians 3:17)
People who debate against lost tribes doctrine about Israel becoming many nations do not realize or understand the covenants. They say that the promise of many nations to the "Jew" and other fantastic promises were DISANNULLED because they disobeyed the Law and rejected Christ. What the debaters do not understand is that the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants were UNCONDITIONAL whereas the "Old Covenant" mentioned in the bible is merely the Law of Moses--- not the other covenants. They confuse these other covenants with the Law because they were made in the "Old Testament" time frame.The whole point of the Law as Paul said was to be a schoolmaster to bring one to Christ, and kept us until the one who should come. But the promise was made 430 years prior to the Law! So if there was no law to break, then what standard of righteousness would be used to keep the promises? And again, to put it another way, since the promise of Christ came along with the promise of becoming great nationally, if the people could disannul it by their behavior, then God would not be obligated to have a Messiah if they also lost the promise to become many nations.This is indeed what Paul was saying in the above verse. There was no stipulation that the Law had to be obeyed for the promises to be good. He said it plainly: that the Law could not make the promise to none effect.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Galatians 3:17)
People who debate against lost tribes doctrine about Israel becoming many nations do not realize or understand the covenants. They say that the promise of many nations to the "Jew" and other fantastic promises were DISANNULLED because they disobeyed the Law and rejected Christ. What the debaters do not understand is that the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants were UNCONDITIONAL whereas the "Old Covenant" mentioned in the bible is merely the Law of Moses--- not the other covenants. They confuse these other covenants with the Law because they were made in the "Old Testament" time frame.The whole point of the Law as Paul said was to be a schoolmaster to bring one to Christ, and kept us until the one who should come. But the promise was made 430 years prior to the Law! So if there was no law to break, then what standard of righteousness would be used to keep the promises? And again, to put it another way, since the promise of Christ came along with the promise of becoming great nationally, if the people could disannul it by their behavior, then God would not be obligated to have a Messiah if they also lost the promise to become many nations.This is indeed what Paul was saying in the above verse. There was no stipulation that the Law had to be obeyed for the promises to be good. He said it plainly: that the Law could not make the promise to none effect.
eople who debate against lost tribes doctrine about Israel becoming many nations do not realize or understand the covenants. They say that the promise of many nations to the "Jew" and other fantastic promises were DISANNULLED because they disobeyed the Law and rejected Christ. What the debaters do not understand is that the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants were UNCONDITIONAL whereas the "Old Covenant" mentioned in the bible is merely the Law of Moses--- not the other covenants. They confuse these other covenants with the Law because they were made in the "Old Testament" time frame.The whole point of the Law as Paul said was to be a schoolmaster to bring one to Christ, and kept us until the one who should come. But the promise was made 430 years prior to the Law! So if there was no law to break, then what standard of righteousness would be used to keep the promises? And again, to put it another way, since the promise of Christ came along with the promise of becoming great nationally, if the people could disannul it by their behavior, then God would not be obligated to have a Messiah if they also lost the promise to become many nations.This is indeed what Paul was saying in the above verse. There was no stipulation that the Law had to be obeyed for the promises to be good. He said it plainly: that the Law could not make the promise to none effect.
