Does Paul write a single word about "legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands?"
Originally Posted by eliyahu
Does Paul repeatedly speak of the CURSE OF THE TORAH as being the reason the Lord Jesus Christ had to die on the Cross?
The New Covenant plainly declares that the Old Covenant was about to vanish away entirely.
And how does it contradict Mat 5:17? Jesus said that the Law would not pass UNTIL He fulfilled it, which he did no the Cross. What is left? You know you do not need to go to Temple, eat kosher, sacrifice animals and be circumcised to be justified in the sight of God, so what are you imagining to be the purpose of the Old Covnenant Law in the life of New Covenant believers?
Originally Posted by eliyahu
OK - Let's see if your interpretation holds up to a close review of the text. The allegory begins with a question in Gal 4:21:
Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Is there anything in this verse that suggests Paul is using the phrase "under the law" to mean "faithless obediance to the law?" No. Paul was talking to Christians and whom he explicitly assumed to have faith earlier in the book when he wrote that they had "received the Spirit" and had "begun by faith":
Galatians 3:1-4 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
Paul began his argument with "do ye not hear the law?" He was speaking about the true and valid demands of God's Torah. He did not begin by asking "do you not hear the legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands by those unbelieving Jews?" That idea is found no where in the text at all. This is confirmed in the next part of Gal 4:22-2:
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.The text says that the TORAH "gendereth" (meaning begets or gives birth to) BONDAGE by its very nature. It has absolutely nothing to do with a "legalisitically perverted" interpretation of the "kinder and gentler" Torah that otherwise wouldn't cause bondage (and death through sin). On the contrary, it is the true and valid understanding of the Torah that brings bondage. This is what Paul meant in vs. 21 when he spoke of being "under the law." He was talking about the Jews faith in Torah as opposed to Christ. That is the whole point of the passage.
ETA: I am guessing you got this intepretation from some messianic teacher. Could you post the link? I'd like to refute the whole article.