✪ "In the next world the wicked, with all restraint removed, will go headlong into sin, blaspheming and cursing God, growing worse and worse as they sink deeper and deeper into the bottomless pit. Endless punishment is the penalty for ENDLESS sinning." Ref-0096, p. 79. "God is a being infinitely lovely because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellence and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him. So that since against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinite heinous, and so deserving infinite punishment. Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionately heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also agreeable to the word of God, 1 Sam. 2:25." Ref-1289, p. 118. "“What the white man sometimes despises you for is this: One day you make prayers to the Good Spirit for all you want. And another day,you make offerings to the Evil Spirit. You fear the devil because he is wicked. But the more you worship him, the more power he will have over you. Worship the Good Spirit only, and the Bad Spirit will have no power over you.” “Ah,” said the chief. “But the Evil Spirit is strongest.” “If you worship the Evil Spirits,” warned Thompson, “you will suffer eternal hell fire.” “You white people, you look like wise men,you talk like fools,” said the chief. “How is it possible that anything can resist the continued action of fire?”" Ref-1575, p. 81.
✪ The final destination of the unrighteous.
✪ "The Lake of Fire is the same as Gehenna." Ref-0219, p. 753.
✪ "Question. Do you believe that Yeshua entered Jerusalem on the donkey on the 10th of Nissan, the day that the Passover lamb was to be chosen? I have always felt that as precise as the Lord was to fulfill the typologies of the feasts, He would also have presented Himself as the Passover lamb in Jerusalem on the 10th. If that is a consideration, then the 14th would have been on Thursday. What are your thoughts about that? Answer. To answer your question, yes, the Messiah rode into Jerusalem on the donkey on the 10th day of the 1st month, which is the day that the Passover lamb was set aside. From the 10th until the 14th day of the month, the Jewish people were to test the Passover lamb to make sure that it was without spot and without blemish. In that same period, the Messiah was tested and questioned by four different groups of Jewish leaders (Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, and scribes). He was proven to be without spot and blemish. He would have partaken of the Passover meal with His disciples on the evening of the 14th day of the month, and then on the 15th day of the month, at 9 a.m. (which was the first day of Passover), He was nailed to the cross at the very same time when the Passover sacrificial lamb was offered up by the priests in the Temple compound, to be eaten by them later in the day." Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Question 82. Did Jesus enter Jerusalem on the donkey on the day that the Passover lamb was to be chosen?, [http://arielb.org/archives/1340].
✪ "Each of the first four chapters is a separate lament poem organized to one degree or another on the format of an acrostic. . . . in chap. 1 each verse contains three poetic couplets, and the first couplet of each verse starts with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet: . . . There are twenty to verses in chap. 1, corresponding to the twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet. You find that chap. 2 is organized similarly. In chap. 3, however, you see a triple acrostic format. In groups of three, the sixty-six verses have at the outset of their couplets the same successive Hebrew letter: . . . A glance at chap. 4 . . . You are back to twenty-two verses again, and the verses are only singly acrostic . . . And there are only two couplets per verse." Ref-0749, p. 46.
✪ "The meaning is understood only partially by word order and much more by word-endings or case-endings. . . Greek is a strong synthetic language." Ref-0015, pp. 136-137
✪ "The very order in which the words occur is the way in which we grammatically grasp the meaning of the sentence. English is very much a word order language. . .Hebrew is an analytic language." Ref-0015, p. 136.
✪ "The scientific grammar is at bottom a grammatical history, and not a linguistic law-book. The seat of authority in language is therefore not the books about language, but the people who use the language. The majority of well-educated people determine correct usage (the mos loquendi as Horace says). Even modern dictionaries merely record from time to time the changing phenomena of language." Ref-1236, p. 31. "This struggle between “archaism and life” is old and survives to-day." Ref-1236, p. 59. "Naturally most change is found either in new words or in new meanings in old words, just as our English dictionaries must have new and enlarged editions every ten years or so. This growth in the vocabulary is inevitable unless the life of a people stops." Ref-1236, p. 64.
✪ "One of the greatest mysteries of prehistory is how people in widely separated places suddenly and spontaneously developed the capacity for language at roughly the same time. It was as if people carried around in their heads a genetic alarm clock that suddenly went off all around the world and led different groups in widely scattered places on every continent to create languages." B. Bryson, Mother Tongue (London, England: Penguin Books, 1991), p. 14 cited by Carl Wieland, "All at once", Ref-0028, 31(1) December 2008 - February 2009, p. 16.
✪ "In summary, the world's leading expert on human genetics is telling us that: * All mankind has a common origin. * Racism has no genetic basis; racial differences are largely superficial responses to climate and culture. * The 5,000 or so extant languages can be grouped into about 17 language families, none of which appears to be either the ancestor or descendant of any other. * There is a very close correlation between language groups and genetic groups and this implies that human genetic history can be explained by human language history -- i.e. human genetic history also arose in a brief period just a few thousand years ago. * All language families arose in a brief period just a few thousand years ago (not the millions of years evolutionists believe in." Alexander R. Williams, Language, lineage and the Bible - a review of Genes Peoples and Languages by Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza. Ref-0003, 16(2) 2002, p. 39.
✪ "Jennings has said, ‘The discord of Babel shall, as it were, give place to the unity of language.’ This meaning is disputed by Keil who argues that the Hebrew word rendered ‘pure’ means purity from sin rather than linguistic clarity, and also that the Hebrew noun means lip and ‘does not stand for language.’ But Keil seems to ignore the fact that in Genesis 11:1-9 this noun is so used no less than four times in connection with the confusion of tongues at Babel. As for the idea of moral purity, it is admitted that this is the correct meaning. But this only adds to the force of the idea of linguistic unity, for the curse of language multiplicity came because of the sinful speech of man upon that occasion." Ref-0183, p. 234. "This paper discusses and seeks to identify the date of the Babel event from the writing of biblical and extra-biblical sources. This is a relevant question for creationists because of questions about the timing of post-Flood climatic changes and human migration. Sources used include the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Book of Jubilees, and related historical commentaries. Historical sources suggest that the Babel dispersion occurred in the time of Joktan's extended family and Peleg's life. The preferred solution of this paper is to follow the Masoretic Text and the Seder Olam Rabbah commentary that places the Babel event 340 years post-Flood at Peleg's death. Other texts of the Second Temple period vary from this by only three to six decades, which lends some support to the conclusion." Andrew Sibley, Dating the Tower of Babel events with reference to Peleg and Joktan, Ref-0784, 31(1) 2017, 80-87, p. 78. "The traditional view of the meaning of the verb ‘was divided' . . . (Genesis 10:25) holds that it is a reference to the destruction of the Tower of Babel episode . . . , which is recorded in Genesis 11 and involves a geographical scattering of people, following the confusion of languages. This traditional view is supported by Fouts and Sarfati, who both point to the commentaries of a number of conservative theologians, or at least Fouts thinks the traditional view is the one with the least problems. John Calvin spoke of the division of Peleg in terms of the Babel confusion of languages, as did Bede in his chronology. John Gill also held to a traditional view, although acknowledging a diversity of views, for instance he discussed whether the events occurred at the birth of Peleg or afterwards, and highlights several positions from Josephus and other Jewish writers. Some suggested the division occurred at Peleg's birth, while others pointed to events during his life, or his demise. Keil and Delitzsch, and Leupold, also hold to this traditional view, with the former commentary suggesting it correlates with Peleg's birth, while Leupold suggests Peleg was named in memory of the Babel incident." Andrew Sibley, Dating the Tower of Babel events with reference to Peleg and Joktan, Ref-0784, 31(1) 2017, 80-87, pp. 80-81 "Dispensing with Drouillard and the sign language, he [Lewis] decided to use a translation chain that ran from Sacagawea, speaking Shoshone to the Indians and translating it into Hidatsa, to Charbonneau, who translated her Hidatsa into French, to Private Francis Labiche, who translated from French to English." Ref-1497, p. 277. "For the first time since they had left the Shoshones, the captains had an interpretive route that allowed them to go beyond the sign language. There was a captive Shosone woman with the Wallawallas who could speak to Sacagawea, who could pass it on to Charbonneau, who could communicate with Drouillard or Labiche, who, finally, could speak to the captains in English." Ref-1497, p. 358. "The captains seized the opportunity and held a conference of all the leading men of the Nez Percé. Lewis made a speech. It took nearly half a day for him to get his main points across, because the interpretation had to pass through French, Hidatsa, and Shoshone to get to Nez Percé." Ref-1497, pp. 362-363.
✪ "We take it as proved that Jesus and the Apostles, like most of their Jewish contemporaries in Palestine who moved in public life, spoke both Aramaic and Greek and read Hebrew (cf. Lu. 4:17)." Ref-1236, p. 102.
✪ "Jack Barentsen concludes that ‘God must have endowed man with adequate faculties to respond to and interact with His creator.’10 Indeed, ‘Genesis describes God as the first language user . . . . [He] instituted language as the vehicle of communication between man and himself.’11 Similarly, Packer points out that Genesis ‘shows us that human thought and speech have their counterparts and archetypes in [God]’.11 Further more, God continued to employ human language as His medium of communication throughout biblical history. When God spoke directly to Moses, He used intelligible human language; when he spoke to His prophets He used intelligible human language; when Jesus taught He used intelligible human language; when He appeared to Saul, He used intelligible human language. . . . God is sovereign and He wills to be understood (2 Tim. 3:15-17). amd actively reveals Himself to us.15 Human language ‘offers no resistance to his purposes and cannot frustrate his desire to communicate.’16 As E. R. Clendenen succinctly writes: ‘Language works. A skillful reader will experience what a skillful communicator intended to accomplish through the agency of a text as an interface takes place between the worlds of the author, text, and reader.’17 Indeed, everyday human experience confirms this to be so. As innate users of language, human beings readily engage in meaningful linguistic communciation. Such communication is not always easy, but it is never impossible." Andrew S. Kulikovsky, The Bible and Hermeneutics, Ref-0691 Vol 19(3) ISSN 1036-2916, 14:20, p. 15. "While it is true that an infinite God must in some way accommodate Himself to finite human ways of knowing in order to reveal His nature, law and gospel, this does not imply the loss of truth, nor the lessening of Scriptural authority. Accommodation occurs specifically in the use of human words and concepts, and refers to the manner or mode of revelation, not to the quality and integrity of the revelation itself.49 It is adaptation to human finitude, not accommodation to human error. Communication directed at mankind may involve less precision, but imprecision must not be confused with error. Inerrantists do not require scientific precision in order for a statement to be true.50" Andrew S. Kulikovsky, The Bible and Hermeneutics, Ref-0691 Vol 19(3) ISSN 1036-2916, 14:20, p. 18. "Furthermore, arguing that interpretation is always uncertain due to the supposed limitations of language is ultimately self-defeating and incorherent, as Mcquilkin and Mullen point out: ‘If we do not do interpretation on the premise that God has spoken and that he can be understood, that truth about him can be communicated accurately in words, we run the danger of ending up where postmodern thinking has taken some proponents: speaking nonsense. That is, they use their own words in an attempt to communicate their own thougth about how impossible communication with words is.’36" Andrew S. Kulikovsky, The Bible and Hermeneutics, Ref-0691 Vol 19(3) ISSN 1036-2916, 14:20, p. 17 "If God's communication is not objectively understandable, then He has essentially failed to communicate. In effect, He may as well not have spoken at all! If this is the case, then on what basis can the Bible be regarded as the word of God? What authority can it possibly have? Indeed, what is the point of having an authoritative, infallible, inerrant message if it is impossible to ascertain its meaning?" Andrew S. Kulikovsky, The Bible and Hermeneutics, Ref-0691 Vol 19(3) ISSN 1036-2916, 14:20, p. 17 "[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy] Article IV . . . We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration." Ref-1382, p. 17.
✪ "Languages that belong to the same language family (such as French and Spanish, or Swedish, Norwegian and Danish)." Ref-0015, p. 135.
✪ As of 1996, according to Wycliffe Bible Translators, there are 6,170 separate languages on earth and at least one book of the bible has been translated into 1,978 of these languages. Ref-0020, p. 185. "Today, thanks to decades of research and mission work, we know that there are 7,361 languages. Of these languages, only 683 languages have a complete Bible. That means that only 9% of the world’s languages have the full counsel of God. An additional 1,534 languages have a New Testament. However, 2,163 language communities are still waiting for a translation." Aaron Shryock, Why Translate the Bible?, [https://www.tms.edu/blog/why-translate-the-bible/].
✪ "In the Greek text of John 21 Jesus uses two different Greek words for love and for taking care of the flock, and Peter uses two different words for know. None of these pairs, however, can be reproduced in Hebrew or Aramaic; this was apparently a conversation originally carried on in Greek. Also, the play on the Greek words petra and petros in Matthew 16:18 cannot be reproduced in Hebrew or Aramaic and is best explained as occurring in a discussion originally carried on in Greek. In all likelihood, Jesus’ conversations with the Syrophoenician woman, the Roman centurion, and Pilate were in Greek. Stephen (Acts 7) and James (Acts 15) quote from the Septuagint, thus giving evidence of their facility in the Greek language. . . . Apparently, then, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic were all commonly spoken and understdood among the Palestinian Jews of Jesus’ day." Ref-0091, pp. 302-303
✪ "The city with the name Laodicea was established by Antiochus II, the Seleucid king who ruled from 261-246 BC. He named the city in honor of his first wife Laodice, whom he divorced in 253 BC. Some people have interpreted the name of the city as "rule of the people," yet the name comes from the wife of Antiochus II." Gordon Franze, Lukewarm in Laodicea: Revelation 3:14_22, Ref-0066, Vol. 25 No. 2 Spring 2012, 47-56, p. 48.
✪ "There is a tradition that his [Mark's] parents’ house (cf. Acts 12:12) was the one in which the Last Supper was held." Ref-0239, p. 33.
✪ Note in Gal. 3:10 that all things written in the book of the law must be kept. No escape by way of dividing the law up into moral, civil, and ceremonial in order to keep a subset of the law is provided. "The Law is an organism and therefore an indivisible unity." Ref-0197, p. 126. "One of the problems with this view is that no verses show that Paul divided the Law of Moses into ceremonial, civil, penal, and moral codes. Paul categorically stated that the Decalogue kills and that the Sinaitic Covenant was a covenant of death (2Cor. 3:6-7). Gentiles cannot simply pick and choose within the Mosaic Law what they want to obey (Gal. 5:2-3)." Femi Adeyemi, "The New Covenant Law and the Law of Christ", Ref-0200 Volume 163 Number 652, October-December 2006, 438:452, p. 445. "Moo observed, “Of Paul’s 119 uses of nomos, none occurs in the plural. . . . [T]his statistic should be regarded as significant: Paul discusses the law as a single entity rather than a series of commands.” Therefore, if the law is an indivisible unit, it follows that there is a certain “all or nothing” quality about it. This understanding of the law as a unit is supported by at least three New Testament texts [Mat. 5:19; Gal. 5:8; Jas. 2:10]." Bruce A. Baker, The Dangers of Kingdom Ethics, Part III: Theonomy, Progressive Dispensationalism, and Social-Political Ethics, Ref-0785 vol. 21 No. 63, Autumn 2017, 133-156, pp. 141-142. "It is useless to claim that it was the judgments and ordinances that were done away and that the commandments abide, since it is that which was "written and engraven in stones" which is said to have been "done away" and "abolished" (2 Cor. 3:11, 13). Nor is the situation relieved for those who claim that the law has ceased as a means of justification; for it was never that, nor could it be (Gal. 3:11)." Ref-1518, p. 49.
✪ See law - and Jews in NT
✪ Gentile believers have freedom from observing the Law of Moses whereas Jewish believers have freedom to observe the Laws of Moses.
✪ "The Mosaic system was in three parts, namely, (a) "the commandments," which governed Israel's moral life (Ex. 20:1-17); (b) "the judgments," which governed Israel's civic life (Ex. 21:1-24:11); and (c) "the ordinances," which governed Israel's religious life (Ex. 24:12-31:18)." Ref-1518, p. 48.
✪ "These, then are the two points I want to make. First, that human beings all over the earth have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave that way. They know the Law of [Human] Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 27:28, cited by Ref-0122, p. 312. "To illustrate this point we may refer to Paul’s teaching on the new man and the old man in the Christian. It is the new man in Christ Jesus who is the true man. But this new man in every concrete instance finds that he has an old man within him which wars within his members and represses the working out of the principles of his true new man. Similarly it may be said that the non-believer has his new man. It is that man which in the fall declared independence from God, seeking to be his own reference point. As such this new man is a covenant breaker. He is a covenant breaker always and everywhere. He is as much a covenant breaker when he is engaged in the work of the laboratory as he is when he is engaged in worshiping gods of wood or stone. But as in the new man of the Christian the new man of the unbeliever finds within himself an old man warring in his members against his will. It is the sense of deity, the knowledge of creaturehood and of responsibility to his Creator and Judge which, as did Conscience in Bunyan’s Holy War, keeps speaking of King Shaddai to whom man really belongs. Now the covenant breaker never fully succeeds in this life in suppressing the old man that he has within him. He is never a finished product. That is the reason for his doing the relatively good though in his heart, in his new man, he is wholly evil. So then the situation is always mixed. In any one’s statement of personal philosophy there will be remnants of his old man. In the case of the Christian this keeps him from being consistently Christian in his philosophy of life and in his practice. In the case of the non-believer this keeps him from being fully Satanic in his opposition to God. . . . And it is to his old man that we must make our appeal. Not as though there are after all certain good tendencies within this old man which, if sufficiently played upon, will assert themselves and reach the ascendancy. Not, as though we can, after the fashion of a liberating army, appeal to the underground army of true patriots who really love their country. The true appeal may be compared to Christ’s speaking to Lazarus. There was not some little life left in some part of his body to which Christ could make his appeal. Yet he made his appeal to Lazarus, not to a stone. So the natural man is made in the image of God. He has the knowledge of God. The appeal is made to what is suppressed. And then as it is the grace of God that must give man the ability to see the truth in preaching so it is also the Spirit of God that must give man the ability to accept the truth as it is presented to him in apologetical reasoning." Ref-1345, pp. 24,39.
✪ "The truly emancipated man is not in bondage to his liberty. If he wishes for certain proper purposes to perform a ritual act not sinful in itself he will do so, not asunder an obligation, but freely." F. F. Bruce, "Acts of the Apostles", Ref-0008, p. 1:41a "The biblical basis for this freedom to keep the law can be seen in the actions of Paul, the greatest exponent of freedom from the law. His vow in Acts 18:18 is based on Numbers 6:2,5,9, and 18. His desire to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost in Acts 20:16 is based on Deuteronomy 16:16. The strongest passage is Acts 21:17-26, where we see Paul himself, the apostle of freedom from the law, keeping the law. The believer is free from the law, but he is also free to keep parts of it. Thus, if a Jewish believer feels the need to refrain from eating pork, he is free to do so. The same is true for all the other commandments of the Law of Moses. One danger is the idea that by doing so he is contributing to his own justification and sanctification. This is false and should be avoided. The second danger is in one’s expecting others to keep the same commandments he has decided to keep. This is equally wrong and crosses into legalism. The one who exercises his freedom to keep the law must recognized and respect another’s freedom not to keep it." Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Ref-1217, pp. 118-119.
✪ "Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament law in several ways. 1. He obeyed it perfectly and satisfied its perfect demands. 2. Both by His life and His teaching, Jesus revealed its true meaning. 3. He is the anti-type of its types and shadows. 4. He offers a salvation that meets all the requirements of that Law. Hence,those who put their faith in Christ have an ‘honorable pardon.’" Ref-0208, p. 47. "In these Gospels Christ is seen as loyal to and vindicating the Mosaic Law under which He lived;" Ref-1518, p. 36. "Christ’s obedience in death, not his lifetime of obedience, provides the grounds for justification. Yes, a lifetime of obedience is required, but this is only because it is qualifies Him to be a sacrifice." Drew Curley, New Calvinism, Part III: A Calvinist Soteriology, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), 133-184, p. 156. "Christ himself is not declared to be righteous by his works of the law, which He obeyed perfectly, but through his faith. His faith was demonstrated, in part, by his obedience to the Law." Drew Curley, New Calvinism, Part III: A Calvinist Soteriology, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), 133-184, p. 161.
✪ "It is opposed to truth to claim that the law is no longer a means to justification. When was it ever a justifying agency? True, men became "just" men by its observance (cf. Luke 6:1-5), but that is far removed from the Christian's absolutely perfect justification apart from law works (Rom. 4:5-6; 5:1) in Christ Jesus." Ref-1518, p. 91.
✪ "Continuing through the 1689 Exposition series, in chapter 19 on the Law of God, comes this lesson: a look at the different ways in which the word “law” is used in the New Testament. Our English words can have various meanings depending on the context (as for example the word “set,” many different meanings); a look at New Testament scriptures shows seven different uses/meanings of “law.” 1) To refer to all of the scriptures (which at that time was the OT). Here, consider John 10:34 — Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? – Yet He quotes from a Psalm. Also Romans 3:10-21: quotations of numerous Old Testament scriptures, including several from the Psalms; then Paul refers back to these quotes: Now we know that whatever the law says. Both Christ and Paul in these texts are using the term law in its broadest sense, all of scripture. 2) To refer to the Pentateuch (the books of Moses, which are not all actual laws), as seen in wording of “the Law and the Prophets.” Examples here include Luke 24:44 and Romans 3:21. 3) To refer to the time period of the Old Covenant, the whole Mosaic economy. Examples here include Paul’s teaching in Galatians 3 – note Galatians 3:17-24, and references to “the law” as that time period when the law was a guardian. 4) Referring to the ceremonial / sacrificial law: Hebrews 10:1 “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come” 5) As the penalty of the law – similar to how we refer to a fugitive, that “the law is after him,” or “his is running from the law.” Romans 6 includes this use of the law. Per Romans 6:14 we are “not under law but under grace.” But as 1 John says, sin is lawlessness. Paul is not saying we are not “under law” in any sense, that we are lawless. The context of Romans 6 is the penalty of the law. 6) The word “law” as a rule, principle, or an axiom. Romans 7 contains multiple meanings of law, and in some of these verses “law” is an axiom. Consider Romans 7:21-23: in verse 21, “So I find it to be a law” (a principle or axiom), and again in verse 23, “but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind.” 7) To refer to the moral law, the Decalogue. This is seen in passages which cite one or more of the moral laws, as in Romans 3:19-21: Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Other references to the law as the moral law: Romans 7:22 (I delight in the law of God, in my inner being), also Romans 7:7-14 (reference to the commandment about not coveting), Romans 13:8-10, and Ephesians 6:1-4." Lynda O., The Law: Seven Different New Testament Uses/Meanings, [https://scripturethoughts.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/the-law-seven-different-new-testament-usesmeanings/] accessed 20160420.
✪ "Christians are no longer under the law code of Moses at all; they are under a completely new law system, the law of Christ. Significant overlap between the two law systems is because both are derived from the universal law code, love God and love your neighbor. The New-Law View removes Christians from under the law of Moses, the strength of the No-Law View, but leaves them under the law of Christ as a moral rule of life, the strength of the Old-Law-Edited View." Jack Hughes, "The New Perspective's View of Paul and the Law", Ref-0164 Vol. 16 No. 2 Fall 2005 261-276, pp. 265-266. Covenant Theology disagrees: "And the Westminster Confession, perhaps the first major confession of faith to promote systematized Covenant Theology, reads, “The moral law [i.e., the ten commandments] doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.”" Larry D. Pettegrew, "The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology", Ref-0164, Volume 18 Number 2 Fall 2007, 181:199, p. 188. "When I came to chapter 7 and the apostle again says that, “We’re not under law,” in order to show the specific law that he’s speaking about, he cites one of the commandments, “Thou shalt not covet.” So it’s obvious that when Paul said, “We’re not under law,” he was speaking of the commandments." S. Lewis Johnson 2 Corinthians and the Mosaic Law (S. Lewis Johnson) [http://scripturethoughts.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/2-corinthians-and-the-mosaic-law-s-lewis-johnson/] accessed 20140605.
✪ "The New Testament does not provide us with detailed instructions of that kind. Rather, it says: ‘You are called; remember you are God's men. Here are the principles; go and apply them.’" Ref-0170, p. 280.
✪ "The παιδαγωγος emerges from ancient literature not as the tutor leading a child on to something (a function often attributed to the law in the life of an individual in accordance with this understanding of Gal. 3:24-25), nor as an excessively harsh character, but as a servant who closely supervises, monitors and watches over a young child." Douglas J. Moo, "The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ," Ref-0199, p. 214. "In English the word “pedagogue” refers to a teacher, but the Greek word does not have that meaning. Like the word “tutor,” the rendering “schoolmaster” in the King James Version is also misleading. The παιδαγωγός “was distinguished from the didaskalos, for he gave no formal instruction but administered the directives of the father in a custodial manner -- though of course indirectly he taught by the supervision he gave and the discipline he administered.” It would seem reasonable, therefore, that a better translation for παιδογωγός is “custodian,” since the word “tutor” is too closely associated with the idea of formal teaching." Michael J. Smith, "The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians" Ref-0200, Volume 163 Number 650 April-June 2006, 197:214, p. 198. "Ramsay adds another differentiation between the pedagogues in Greek and Roman cultures, explaining why some had teaching duties while others did not. “In that day [i.e., Paul's time] it would appear that the paidagogoi were trusted servants and faithful attendants, standing in very close relation to the family (in which they were slaves). Their duty was not to teach any child under their charge, but simply to guard him. Among the Romans, who adopted this institutation from the Greeks, the paidagogos gave some home instruction to the child: he was a Greek-speaking slave, who looked after the child, and taught him to use the Greek language,” not by means of formal instruction but in daily conversation." Michael J. Smith, "The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians" Ref-0200, Volume 163 Number 650 April-June 2006, 197:214, p. 200. "In that close association the pedagogue was responsible for the moral development of the child by disciplining him when he erred and protecting him from harmful influences." Michael J. Smith, "The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians" Ref-0200, Volume 163 Number 650 April-June 2006, 197:214, p. 201. "The Law was a παιδαγωγός in that it had a temporary function. One of the most obvious aspects of the pedagogue-child relationship in any culture is that it is temporary. “While the young master was a child he differed not at all from a slave. [When he reached maturity], however, the pedagogue's dominance ended and the young man became master de facto and not simply de jure.”" Michael J. Smith, "The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians" Ref-0200, Volume 163 Number 650 April-June 2006, 197:214, p. 207. "Covenant renewal ceremonies were patterned on the Old Testament, and covenants had been a staple of new England since its founding. One of the uses of the law, according to Reformed theology, was as a guide to Christian living in response to grace. So Puritans could both preach salvation by wholly unmerited grace and at the same time guide the church with a legal system of moral law (but not the ceremonial law) that replicated practices of ancient Israel. In joyous gratitude for their undeserved salvation, true believers would gladly contract to adopt the full moral law as their guide for life, even if they knew the could never keep it perfectly." Ref-1348, p. 261. Some closing words from J.C. Ryle regarding the Old Testament and its importance (from his commentary on Matthew 5): "Jesus came to fulfill the predictions of the prophets, who had long foretold that a Savior would one day appear. He came to fulfill the ceremonial law, by becoming the great sacrifice for sin, to which all the Old Testament offerings had ever pointed. He came to fulfill the moral law, by yielding to it a perfect obedience, which we could never have yielded – and by paying the penalty for our breaking of it with His atoning blood, which we could never have paid. Do not despise the Old Testament under any pretense whatsoever. Let us never listen to those who bid us throw it aside as an obsolete, antiquated, useless book. The religion of the Old Testament is the embryo of Christianity. The Old Testament is the gospel in the bud. The New Testament is the gospel in full flower. The saints in the Old Testament saw many things through a glass darkly. But they all looked by faith to the same Savior and were led by the same Spirit as ourselves. Also, beware of despising the law of the Ten Commandments. Let us not suppose for a moment that it is set aside by the gospel or that Christians have nothing to do with it. The coming of Christ did not alter the position of the Ten Commandments in the least. If anything, it exalted and raised their authority (Romans 3:31). The law of the Ten Commandments is God’s eternal measure of right and wrong. By it, is the knowledge of sin. By it, the Spirit shows men their need of Christ and drives them to Him. To it, Christ refers His people as their rule and guide for holy living. In its right place it is just as important as “the glorious gospel.” It cannot save us. We cannot be justified by it. But never, never let us despise it. It is a symptom of an ignorant and unhealthy state of religion when the law is lightly esteemed. The true Christian “delights in God’s law” (Romans 7:16-20)." J. C. Ryle, How Did Jesus "Fulfill" the Old Testament? [http://www.jesus.org/is-jesus-god/old-testament-prophecies/how-did-jesus-fulfill-the-old-testament.html] accessed 20140923.
✪ Since the ‘law’ is based upon the Mosaic Covenant, it is important to understand the relationship between the different covenants of the Old Testament and their application to Israel and to believers who are ‘sons of Abraham’ by faith (Gal. 3:7). (1) The Old (Mosaic) covenant was conditional and was broken by Israel. (Jer. 31:32). (2) The New Covenant was made with the same people (Israel) as the Mosaic Covenant (Jer. 31:32-33). (3) The Old Covenant is obsolete and vanishing (Heb. 8:13). People of faith are no longer under it (Heb. 9:10; Gal. 3:25; 5:18). (4) Salvation is by faith based on participation in the Abrahamic Covenant -- which preceded the Mosaic Covenant and was not annulled by it (Gal. 3:7-18). Gentiles participate in the blessing of Abraham (Gen. 12:3) via faith in Christ (Gal. 3:8,14) who fulfilled the law (Mat. 5:17). The Abrahamic Covenant is not abolished by the passing away of the Mosaic Covenant (Gal. 3:17). (5) Gentiles were strangers from the covenants (plural), having no hope and without God. Christ abolished in His flesh the law of commandments (the Mosaic Covenant, which separated Jews from Gentiles) creating one new man -- the church (Eph. 2:12-15). (6) The covenants given to Israel which remain in effect include the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3; Gen. 15:1-21) and the three covenants which spring forth from it: the Land Covenant (Ex. 6:4; Deu. 29:1-12), the Davidic Covenant (2S. 7:8-17; 1Chr. 17:9-16; Ps. 89:19-51; Ps. 132:10; Luke 1:32-33), and the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-40; Mat. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:14-20; Rom. 11:26-27). (7) The law was meant to expose our sin (Rom. 3:19; 5:20; 7:7), guide us, and point us to Christ (Gal. 3:19-25). (8) The law is an all-or-nothing proposition. Those who would seek to be justified by the law have become estranged from Christ (Gal. 3:10; 5:3-4; Jas. 2:10). (9) No one is justified (declared righteous) by the law (Gal. 3:11). Justification has always been by faith in God based on the work of Christ (Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6). (10) Believers are now subject to the law of Christ, the law of the Spirit (Rom. 8:2; 1Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; Jas. 1:25; Jas. 2:12).
✪ "Sometimes the whole Hebrew Bible, or any part of it, is referred to as ‘the law?: in John 10:34 Jewish disputants are told that part of Psalm 82 is ‘written in your law’; in 1 Corinthians 14:21 a quotation from Isaiah 28:11 f. is similarly said to be written ‘in the law’, while in Romans 3:10-19 a chain of quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah is included in ‘whatever the law says’." Ref-0073, p. 32.
✪ "James I himself had a firm understanding of the importance of the Bible both for personal faith and communal behavior and values. He set out something of his understanding of the role of the Bible in the opening section of the Basilikon Doron, intended to provide instruction to his son for godly princely living. . . . But because no man was able to keepe the Lawe [sic], nor any parte [sic] thereof, it pleased God of his infinite wisdeom and goodness, to incarnate his only Son in our nature, for satisfaction of his justice in his suffering for us: that since we could not be saved by doing, we might (at least) be saved by believing [sic]." Ref-0686, pp. 219-220. ". . . the provisions of the sacrificial system were limited. [E.g., the sacrificial system did not provide atonement for sins committed ‘with a high hand’ (Num. 15:28-31).] Sins of covenant breaking in particular could not be atoned for, and yet these very sins were foreseen as inevitable for sinful people (Deut. 31:16-21; 1 Kgs 8:46; cf. 2 Chr. 6:36). Moreover, the sacrificial system itself eventually became corrupt, and therefore no longer functioned properly as a means of atonement. The apostle Paul testified that through Christ ‘everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses’ (Acts 13:39). Given that one of the things beyond the scope of the atonement provided in the law was the covenant curse of Deuteronomy 27:26, cited in Galatians 3:10, Jesus’ substitutionary death is absolutely necessary." Ref-1291, p. 92.
✪ "Because it is believed that this age is peculiarly one of divine favor does not militate against the belief that God's grace is abundantly exercised in all other ages." Ref-1518, p. 70.
✪ "Is not, then [after Abraham], a period of law covering fifteen centuries superfluous, a needless delay, indeed a retrogression? There [in Abraham] a direct inward life of faith -- here [under the Law] outward mediating forms; there, restful sublime simplicity -- here, complexity, scarcely to be comprehended: there the word and the promise prevailing -- here, demand and symbol dominating. But the simpler is nobler than the complicated, and the word is more direct than the symbol; the promise is more creative than the command, and the inward higher than the form." Ref-0197, p. 121.
✪ "As one might expect, there [are] a variety of proposed solutions to the problem of the use of the Mosaic Law in ethics. Nevertheless, the solutions eventually reduce themselves into one of two approaches: 1) Everything in the Mosaic law remains in force for the New Testament believe except that which the New Testament specifically changes; or 2) Nothing in the Mosaic law remains in force except that which the New Testament specifically repeats. These two understandings of the use of the Mosaic law can be described as stressing either continuity between the testaments or discontinuity. John Calvin championed the continuity position (option 1), while Martin Luther taught the discontinuity position (option 2). . . . each position has its modern adherents and modifications." Bruce A. Baker, The Dangers of Kingdom Ethics, Part III: Theonomy, Progressive Dispensationalism, and Social-Political Ethics, Ref-0785 vol. 21 No. 63, Autumn 2017, 133-156, p. 135.
✪ "In passages like Deut 28:58 (cf. 29:29 [Heb 29:28]; 31:12; 32:46), Josh 1:7 (cf. 22;5; 23:6) and Neh 9:34 (cf. 2 Chr 14:3; 33:8), “do/perform the law” has reference to the entire law, not to one particular ordinance. These same passages call for the implementation of covenant curses for disobedience to the law. By context these texts do not refer to ethnic or social markers identifying Israel. Instead, they refer to the entire Mosaic legislation including every facet of that law. The point is that such references to works of the law are virtually identical with paul's use of “works of the law” in both Galatians and Romans . . . In the intertestamental period, sectarian authors at Qumran spoke of the members of their community as “doers/workers of the law” . . . They did not indicate that “the law” in such cases was limited to circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, or dietary regulations." William D. Barrick, "The New Perspective and “Works of the Law” (Gal_3:16 and Rom_3:20)", Ref-0164 Vol. 16 No. 2 Fall 2005 277-292, pp. 278-279.
✪ Questionable: 2Ti. 4:13 (?);
✪ The third division of Jewish scriptures -- the writings -- are not mentioned. This is probably due to the Jewish view of inspiration. The law (Torah) is said to be of greatest authority, as it is the very words of God dictated directly to a human scribe. The Prophets (Nevi'im) are of lesser authority, being God's messages spoken through the mouths of men. The Writings (Ketubim) are considered to be of least authority, as they are reckoned to be the words of men whose thinking was guided by God. Jesus used all three sections of the Old Testament (Luke 24:44) because, as far as he and the apostles were concerned, all of the Hebrew Scriptures were of equal validity. Ref-0011, p. 10.
✪ Blomberg holds that this passage is a parable: "One of the most misinterpreted of Jesus’ parables is the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), which has been used repeatedly to provide in great detail a realistic depiction of life after death. In fact, the picture of a rich man in Sheol and Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom separated by a chasm but able to call to each other across it is paralleled by popular Jewish and Egyptian folk tales. Jesus may simply have adopted well-know imagery but then adapted it in a new and surprising way to warn the godless wealthy about their need for repentance in this life before their fate is sealed . . . The objection that Luke does not specifically call this passage a ‘parable’ is most decisively countered by form criticism; approximately half the stories in the Gospels that are commonly called parables are not specifically labeled as such, but they are recognized by the common form and structure they share with passages specifically termed parables." Ref-1282, pp. 51-52
✪ Lazarus was dead 4 days because Judaism thinks the spirit hovers over a dead body 3 days and so can still be resuscitated. On 4th day on, only resurrection could bring someone back from the dead. . .that's why Jesus waited. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Prophecy and the Nation of Israel, Tyndale Theological Seminary. [https://www.tyndale.edu]
✪ abbreviation of Eliezer?
✪ Stage 1: Lazarus was dead and could not respond. Stage 2: Lazarus was defeated (alive, but bound in grave clothes). Stage 3: Lazarus was dangerous -- leading to the plot to kill him. These are analagous to the stages believers go through (prior to their calling until fully equipped for ministry).