Galatians 3:21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.
Paul begins to conclude his theological proofs. To sum up his proofs prior to this point in Chapter 3 –
1) His appeal to personal experience and the objective evidence of what God had done and in the miraculous transformations in the lives of the Galatians -- in a nutshell, he argues that the Galatians had initially experienced the fruit of God's kingdom through faith -- how could they now believe these things had to be "earned" by obedience to the law? (3:1-5) ;
2) the promise to Abraham that was based on faith and that was always intended to include the Gentiles (3:6-9);
3) the concept that observance of the law can never save us, in fact, the reality is quite the opposite – failure to fulfill the law means we are cursed by the law – Jesus was meant to break that curse (3:10-14);
4) the covenant promise to Abraham is eternal and unchanging – the law does not supplant it. The need for Jesus as our Savior was always part of the promise of Abraham (3:15-18);
5) the purpose of the law was to define sin and model good behavior – not to save us (3:19-20).
All of these proofs have a similar theme – it is faith that saves us, NOT observance of the law. Many in the early church, and many folks even today, take this concept and run too far with it – denying the need for the law, arguing that it’s irrelevant, or unnecessary, or even evil. Jesus, of course, did not feel this way, “I have not come to abolish [the law], but to fulfill [it].” Matthew 5:17. This last argument refutes the heresy of antinomianism, the concept that we are set free to sin, rather than FROM sin, and explains why the law was needed – but – it also explains that the law was never intended to do the work of the promise. Indeed, it was never meant to be “law vs. promise.” The Galatians (and many of us today) got these concepts mixed up and/or reversed. The law, however, cannot “impart life.” Righteousness cannot come through obedience to the law. It can’t be achieved at all. It can’t be enforced. Taking what Paul says here, and stating it in the positive – it is the promise that imparts life. Righteousness comes through the promise.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, Verse 20
Galatians 3:20 A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
“mediator” As noted in the previous verse, this was Moses as far as the law was concerned. The legal concept of a mediator really has not changed since Paul’s day. A mediator intercedes between two or more parties to establish an agreeable solution where the parties involved are at odds. An agreement is negotiated (or sometimes imposed by the mediator) that is adopted to the needs of both parties. Paul is pointing out that this is essentially what the Sinai covenant was – a formal arrangement of mutual commitments between God and the people of Israel. Moses served as the intermediary.
“does not represent one party” The promises God made to Abraham were different than the mutual promises made at Sinai. They were unilateral – the covenant God made with Abraham involved a commitment only from God’s side. No mediator was necessary.
“but God is one” This is more than just an emphasis on the unilateral nature of the promise. This is a concept central to the Jewish faith and mindset. Deuteronomy 6:4 states “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” This is the most basic, foundational matter of faith in Judaism. Indeed, this verse is a blessing invoked by Jews at every Sabbath meeting – the focal point of worship. God’s “oneness” was essential, especially when contrasted to the rampant polytheism of the pagan world. The difference between the promise made to Abraham and the Sinai Covenant is ultimately connected to God’s “oneness.” The promise to Abraham is a commitment made from the heart of God, based on His loving nature, His essence, His very being. This is more in keeping with the concept of the unity of God’s existence – his “oneness,” rather than the concept of an ostensibly “brokered” deal conditioned on our behavior. Paul’s Jewish audience would have identified with this metaphor.
As a side note, this also helps address one of the major objections and stumbling blocks modern Jews have with Jesus – that the notion of God the Father and God the Son means God is divided (Some Jewish apologists even go so far as to accuse Christians of being polytheists!). It is easier to grasp the concept of the unity of God, even as manifested as Father and Son, when we know the promise, given by God out of His very oneness, is fulfilled by the Son, who is one in essence with the Father.
“mediator” As noted in the previous verse, this was Moses as far as the law was concerned. The legal concept of a mediator really has not changed since Paul’s day. A mediator intercedes between two or more parties to establish an agreeable solution where the parties involved are at odds. An agreement is negotiated (or sometimes imposed by the mediator) that is adopted to the needs of both parties. Paul is pointing out that this is essentially what the Sinai covenant was – a formal arrangement of mutual commitments between God and the people of Israel. Moses served as the intermediary.
“does not represent one party” The promises God made to Abraham were different than the mutual promises made at Sinai. They were unilateral – the covenant God made with Abraham involved a commitment only from God’s side. No mediator was necessary.
“but God is one” This is more than just an emphasis on the unilateral nature of the promise. This is a concept central to the Jewish faith and mindset. Deuteronomy 6:4 states “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” This is the most basic, foundational matter of faith in Judaism. Indeed, this verse is a blessing invoked by Jews at every Sabbath meeting – the focal point of worship. God’s “oneness” was essential, especially when contrasted to the rampant polytheism of the pagan world. The difference between the promise made to Abraham and the Sinai Covenant is ultimately connected to God’s “oneness.” The promise to Abraham is a commitment made from the heart of God, based on His loving nature, His essence, His very being. This is more in keeping with the concept of the unity of God’s existence – his “oneness,” rather than the concept of an ostensibly “brokered” deal conditioned on our behavior. Paul’s Jewish audience would have identified with this metaphor.
As a side note, this also helps address one of the major objections and stumbling blocks modern Jews have with Jesus – that the notion of God the Father and God the Son means God is divided (Some Jewish apologists even go so far as to accuse Christians of being polytheists!). It is easier to grasp the concept of the unity of God, even as manifested as Father and Son, when we know the promise, given by God out of His very oneness, is fulfilled by the Son, who is one in essence with the Father.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 19
Galatians 3:19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.
Paul shifts gears here. As discussed before, the Judiazers (and Jews in general) saw the law as necessary. Without it, there would be no standard or guidance to live a moral life. Paul addresses this concern by defining the purpose of the Law.
“It was added” The promise given to Abraham was the foundation, the centerpiece of the Jewish faith. There are actually 6 separate covenants (7 if you count the promises made to Abraham as 2 distinct and separate covenants) in the Old Testament. The first was with Noah, where God promised not to destroy the earth again.
Then came the promises God made to Abraham – that his descendants would be too numerous to count, that he would receive the promised land, and all the people of the earth would be blessed through him and his offspring. God made this covenant with Abraham because Abraham was “righteous,” that is, the faith Abraham had was “credited to him as righteousness.” (see Genesis 15:6 and Galatians 3:6). This covenant was based on grace. (As an aside, some scholars consider the discussion between God and Abraham in Genesis 18 as a separate, distinct covenant. There, God pledges to be the God of Abraham and his descendants. This second set of promises seems conditioned on consecration to the Lord as manifested or symbolized by circumcision. Interesting! God had already made the covenant of grace with Abraham prior to introducing the concept of circumcision, and, even when introduced, it was always meant as an outward sign of an inner commitment).
Then came the Sinai Covenants, spoken of in these verses and traditionally as “the Law.” This covenant was a similarly conditional pledge of God being Israel’s Lord, Protector and Provider, with the nation of Israel corporately promising total consecration to the Lord as His people to live by His rules and to serve His purposes.
The last 3 historic covenants were all unconditional – God promised Phineas in Numbers 25 that there would an everlasting priesthood; God promised David in 2 Samuel 7 that there would be an eternal throne in Israel occupied by his descendants; and the “new” covenant of Jeremiah 31: 31-34, where God promised the unfaithful nation of Israel the He would forgive them, and “write the law on their hearts.”
First, following the course of Paul’s “legal” arguments in the previous section (Galatians 3:15-18), the last covenant, the “new” covenant, is completely based on grace, as is the original promise to Abraham. Second, as discussed more later, ALL of the Covenants were fulfilled in Jesus.
“because of transgressions” This concept would have made sense to both the Jews and the Gentiles in Paul’s audience. The function of the law as a moral code or a set of rules was designed by God to define evil, and define good behavior. Even the pagan philosophers agreed with this (although they thought those who achieved “wisdom” would naturally be a law unto themselves). Paul discusses this in Romans 2, where he notes that Gentiles could live ostensibly moral lives outside the law. Paul also discusses the purpose of the law as the guide to defining what is sin in Romans 7: 7-12.
“until the Seed” Paul continues his “singular seed” concept from Galatians 3:16 – of course, this is Jesus. Thus the law was added to the covenants between God and mankind not to contradict the promise of grace, but to help protect God’s people until the time when the Seed would come and provide the means both to fulfill the promise made to Abraham and to transform us and to fulfill the covenants made at Sinai.
“angels” Deuteronomy 33:2 say the law was delivered by the Lord with “myriads of holy ones.” In Acts 7:38, Stephen says that angels spoke with Moses on Sinai. Hebrews 2:2 says the Law was “spoken by angels.” The traditions of post Old Testament Judaism also held that the law was given to Moses by angels. I don’t have the time this morning to plumb the depths of the book of Exodus and other parts of the Pentateuch to compare and check all this out, but one concept is interesting – there are many times God spoke to men in the form of an angel, which was really the embodiment of the pre-incarnate Christ. (e.g. Jacob wrestling with an angel; the angels that appear to Abraham; the angel that appears to Joshua prior to the battle of Jericho; the angel that speaks to Samson’s parents; the 4th person who appeared with the "three hebrew children" in the fiery furnace in the book of Daniel – these are just a few examples) We might infer from this that Moses received the law while He was speaking to Jesus in pre-incarnate form.
“mediator” This is Moses, and this will be discussed in the next verse.
Paul shifts gears here. As discussed before, the Judiazers (and Jews in general) saw the law as necessary. Without it, there would be no standard or guidance to live a moral life. Paul addresses this concern by defining the purpose of the Law.
“It was added” The promise given to Abraham was the foundation, the centerpiece of the Jewish faith. There are actually 6 separate covenants (7 if you count the promises made to Abraham as 2 distinct and separate covenants) in the Old Testament. The first was with Noah, where God promised not to destroy the earth again.
Then came the promises God made to Abraham – that his descendants would be too numerous to count, that he would receive the promised land, and all the people of the earth would be blessed through him and his offspring. God made this covenant with Abraham because Abraham was “righteous,” that is, the faith Abraham had was “credited to him as righteousness.” (see Genesis 15:6 and Galatians 3:6). This covenant was based on grace. (As an aside, some scholars consider the discussion between God and Abraham in Genesis 18 as a separate, distinct covenant. There, God pledges to be the God of Abraham and his descendants. This second set of promises seems conditioned on consecration to the Lord as manifested or symbolized by circumcision. Interesting! God had already made the covenant of grace with Abraham prior to introducing the concept of circumcision, and, even when introduced, it was always meant as an outward sign of an inner commitment).
Then came the Sinai Covenants, spoken of in these verses and traditionally as “the Law.” This covenant was a similarly conditional pledge of God being Israel’s Lord, Protector and Provider, with the nation of Israel corporately promising total consecration to the Lord as His people to live by His rules and to serve His purposes.
The last 3 historic covenants were all unconditional – God promised Phineas in Numbers 25 that there would an everlasting priesthood; God promised David in 2 Samuel 7 that there would be an eternal throne in Israel occupied by his descendants; and the “new” covenant of Jeremiah 31: 31-34, where God promised the unfaithful nation of Israel the He would forgive them, and “write the law on their hearts.”
First, following the course of Paul’s “legal” arguments in the previous section (Galatians 3:15-18), the last covenant, the “new” covenant, is completely based on grace, as is the original promise to Abraham. Second, as discussed more later, ALL of the Covenants were fulfilled in Jesus.
“because of transgressions” This concept would have made sense to both the Jews and the Gentiles in Paul’s audience. The function of the law as a moral code or a set of rules was designed by God to define evil, and define good behavior. Even the pagan philosophers agreed with this (although they thought those who achieved “wisdom” would naturally be a law unto themselves). Paul discusses this in Romans 2, where he notes that Gentiles could live ostensibly moral lives outside the law. Paul also discusses the purpose of the law as the guide to defining what is sin in Romans 7: 7-12.
“until the Seed” Paul continues his “singular seed” concept from Galatians 3:16 – of course, this is Jesus. Thus the law was added to the covenants between God and mankind not to contradict the promise of grace, but to help protect God’s people until the time when the Seed would come and provide the means both to fulfill the promise made to Abraham and to transform us and to fulfill the covenants made at Sinai.
“angels” Deuteronomy 33:2 say the law was delivered by the Lord with “myriads of holy ones.” In Acts 7:38, Stephen says that angels spoke with Moses on Sinai. Hebrews 2:2 says the Law was “spoken by angels.” The traditions of post Old Testament Judaism also held that the law was given to Moses by angels. I don’t have the time this morning to plumb the depths of the book of Exodus and other parts of the Pentateuch to compare and check all this out, but one concept is interesting – there are many times God spoke to men in the form of an angel, which was really the embodiment of the pre-incarnate Christ. (e.g. Jacob wrestling with an angel; the angels that appear to Abraham; the angel that appears to Joshua prior to the battle of Jericho; the angel that speaks to Samson’s parents; the 4th person who appeared with the "three hebrew children" in the fiery furnace in the book of Daniel – these are just a few examples) We might infer from this that Moses received the law while He was speaking to Jesus in pre-incarnate form.
“mediator” This is Moses, and this will be discussed in the next verse.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 18
Galatians 3:18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
To close his second scriptural proof/argument, Paul almost seems to be mixing his metaphors. I think he does this as a transition – He has already driven home the comparison to the common, everyday legal issues of a last will and testament. Now, he wants to hammer home the spiritual truth without the aid of metaphor.
“If the inheritance depends on the law” This is what feels like a mixed metaphor – but an ingenious one! Paul has been discussing the Law of Moses and the Word of God in the context of a last will and testament, and the common cultural understanding (of that time, that is, in ancient Greek and Hebrew culture) of the irrevocability of such a will. The use of “inheritance” evokes the same sort of comparison. “Inheritance” can mean the result of the fulfillment of that last will – the money or property we receive from the decedent who drafted that will. But if the Word of God is like a last will under this argument, the “inheritance" under the Word is eternal life, freedom from sin, victory and transformation in this life, but most of all – a living relationship with the true God (it connects nicely back to Paul’s first argument back in Galatians 3:2-5!). “The law” here is not the law controlling wills and estates – it’s the law of Moses. So, the comparison of the last will and God’s Word holds true – in both cases, we do not receive the inheritance by what we do. Both a will and God’s Covenant are a PROMISE – the will says “when I die, you get all I have.” The covenant says “I will be your God, I will bless you. I will save you. I will love you.” In both cases, all we have to do is receive. We can, of course, refuse to accept the promise. I can disclaim or renounce an inheritance under a will. I can also refuse to accept and believe in God’s Covenant.
“but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.” This is the first time in Chapter 3 that Paul uses this very important word:”grace.” Its also the first use of “give” or “gift.” Its as if the rabbinical, scriptural analysis is done. The need to prove his point with Old Testament references is over. We’re down to the nitty gritty truth. The covenant – God’s salvation, forgiveness, favor, our whole relationship with God, is a free gift, bestowed on us by God’s grace – his unmerited favor, which we can never deserve. That is really the essence of the Gospel. This last phrase is set apart, because there is no argument to counter – God gave a gift to Abraham in His Promise (connecting his argument back to Galatians 3:6-9) – in Jesus, we partake in the same Promise, and receive the same gift as well!
To close his second scriptural proof/argument, Paul almost seems to be mixing his metaphors. I think he does this as a transition – He has already driven home the comparison to the common, everyday legal issues of a last will and testament. Now, he wants to hammer home the spiritual truth without the aid of metaphor.
“If the inheritance depends on the law” This is what feels like a mixed metaphor – but an ingenious one! Paul has been discussing the Law of Moses and the Word of God in the context of a last will and testament, and the common cultural understanding (of that time, that is, in ancient Greek and Hebrew culture) of the irrevocability of such a will. The use of “inheritance” evokes the same sort of comparison. “Inheritance” can mean the result of the fulfillment of that last will – the money or property we receive from the decedent who drafted that will. But if the Word of God is like a last will under this argument, the “inheritance" under the Word is eternal life, freedom from sin, victory and transformation in this life, but most of all – a living relationship with the true God (it connects nicely back to Paul’s first argument back in Galatians 3:2-5!). “The law” here is not the law controlling wills and estates – it’s the law of Moses. So, the comparison of the last will and God’s Word holds true – in both cases, we do not receive the inheritance by what we do. Both a will and God’s Covenant are a PROMISE – the will says “when I die, you get all I have.” The covenant says “I will be your God, I will bless you. I will save you. I will love you.” In both cases, all we have to do is receive. We can, of course, refuse to accept the promise. I can disclaim or renounce an inheritance under a will. I can also refuse to accept and believe in God’s Covenant.
“but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.” This is the first time in Chapter 3 that Paul uses this very important word:”grace.” Its also the first use of “give” or “gift.” Its as if the rabbinical, scriptural analysis is done. The need to prove his point with Old Testament references is over. We’re down to the nitty gritty truth. The covenant – God’s salvation, forgiveness, favor, our whole relationship with God, is a free gift, bestowed on us by God’s grace – his unmerited favor, which we can never deserve. That is really the essence of the Gospel. This last phrase is set apart, because there is no argument to counter – God gave a gift to Abraham in His Promise (connecting his argument back to Galatians 3:6-9) – in Jesus, we partake in the same Promise, and receive the same gift as well!
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 17
Galatians 3:17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Paul now connects the spiritual principle he wishes to drive home to his original legal metaphor from verse 15. If a last will and testament – a promise of inheritance – cannot be revoked or changed, then how could the law, introduced nearly 5 centuries after Abraham’s time, replace the original covenant promise of God? The original, first covenant takes precedence.
Now, there is an implied notion here in this argument that the second covenant, the covenant or “last will” that came later in time, somehow contradicts the first. This is not true (though I am sure the Judiazers then (and now) played this for full effect). Paul will explain in verses 19-25 about the purpose of the law. But this issue of ostensible conflict between law and promise remains to this day in some people’s minds. But this section of Galatians helps put this matter to rest. God’s Word does not change. Its not that the law contradicts the promise to Abraham – Paul has already used the “last will” and covenant argument to show that God could never revoke the 1st Covenant of faith and replace it with a covenant based on works, But trying to understand that argument makes us realize that the reason why there was an issue at all is the Jews of that time (and its still true today) misinterpreted the true purpose of the law.
The law was never intended to be a promise regarding our standing with God, but rather to define evil, and act as a guide. If we continue to use a legal metaphor, we should view the covenant of Abraham as being like the law of citizenship. You are born a citizen of the United State, or you become naturalized, but once you are a citizen, it defines who you are. The law of Moses is like any statue or regulation that defines how we behave. E.g. speed limits, criminal conduct, industrial safety laws etc. If you drive your car faster than the speed limit, you could get a ticket, lose your license, or get into an accident and hurt yourself or others. But – you will not lose your citizenship! Your relationship with the government might become strained (i.e. you could go to jail), but you are still an American. Paul’s ultimate conclusion is this – as far as his legal argument goes, a binding covenant is irrevocable. God made a promise – an irrevocable promise – to Abraham (See Galatians 6:9). There is no need to behave a certain way, follow a certain set of rules, or be part of a particular ethnic or social group to partake of that covenant. All you must do is believe. The law of Sinai, which came centuries later, may define what good behavior is, give us guidelines to live by, and even define the penalty for disobedience, but it really has no relevance with regard to the earlier covenant. This is an apples to oranges comparison.
This truth helps diffuse one of the arguments used by Jewish folks I have known who refuse to believe in Jesus—they argue that Christians throw the law of Moses out the window. To look at it from their perspective, they argue “How could God change His mind?” Besides pointing out that modern Jews don’t follow the totality of the law either (there are no animal sacrifices these days), the essence of Paul’s arguments here in Galatians 3 lays this issue to rest. The law was never meant to make us right with God – only the promise to Abraham, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ!
Paul now connects the spiritual principle he wishes to drive home to his original legal metaphor from verse 15. If a last will and testament – a promise of inheritance – cannot be revoked or changed, then how could the law, introduced nearly 5 centuries after Abraham’s time, replace the original covenant promise of God? The original, first covenant takes precedence.
Now, there is an implied notion here in this argument that the second covenant, the covenant or “last will” that came later in time, somehow contradicts the first. This is not true (though I am sure the Judiazers then (and now) played this for full effect). Paul will explain in verses 19-25 about the purpose of the law. But this issue of ostensible conflict between law and promise remains to this day in some people’s minds. But this section of Galatians helps put this matter to rest. God’s Word does not change. Its not that the law contradicts the promise to Abraham – Paul has already used the “last will” and covenant argument to show that God could never revoke the 1st Covenant of faith and replace it with a covenant based on works, But trying to understand that argument makes us realize that the reason why there was an issue at all is the Jews of that time (and its still true today) misinterpreted the true purpose of the law.
The law was never intended to be a promise regarding our standing with God, but rather to define evil, and act as a guide. If we continue to use a legal metaphor, we should view the covenant of Abraham as being like the law of citizenship. You are born a citizen of the United State, or you become naturalized, but once you are a citizen, it defines who you are. The law of Moses is like any statue or regulation that defines how we behave. E.g. speed limits, criminal conduct, industrial safety laws etc. If you drive your car faster than the speed limit, you could get a ticket, lose your license, or get into an accident and hurt yourself or others. But – you will not lose your citizenship! Your relationship with the government might become strained (i.e. you could go to jail), but you are still an American. Paul’s ultimate conclusion is this – as far as his legal argument goes, a binding covenant is irrevocable. God made a promise – an irrevocable promise – to Abraham (See Galatians 6:9). There is no need to behave a certain way, follow a certain set of rules, or be part of a particular ethnic or social group to partake of that covenant. All you must do is believe. The law of Sinai, which came centuries later, may define what good behavior is, give us guidelines to live by, and even define the penalty for disobedience, but it really has no relevance with regard to the earlier covenant. This is an apples to oranges comparison.
This truth helps diffuse one of the arguments used by Jewish folks I have known who refuse to believe in Jesus—they argue that Christians throw the law of Moses out the window. To look at it from their perspective, they argue “How could God change His mind?” Besides pointing out that modern Jews don’t follow the totality of the law either (there are no animal sacrifices these days), the essence of Paul’s arguments here in Galatians 3 lays this issue to rest. The law was never meant to make us right with God – only the promise to Abraham, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 16
Galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
“The promises” specifically “spoken to Abraham” – these would have been well known to Paul’s audience, particularly the Jews. What were these “promises?”
In Genesis 13:16, God promises that Abraham’s offspring will be like the dust of the earth; that is, their number will be vast and immeasurable. Abraham also receives the promise of the possession of the land of Canaan – the “promised land.” (Genesis 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:7, 18-21; and 17:8) God promises that all the peoples of the earth will be blessed through Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18) or his offspring (Genesis 22:18). Its pretty obvious by looking at this list that the emphasis was on this side of heaven – that is, the here and now, particularly regarding the promised land. This is what Jewish tradition focused on as well. The promise involving descendants was also viewed quite literally – combining the concept of countless descendants and blessing via offspring, the Jews clung to the concept that one LITERALLY needed to be “part of the family” in order to participate in these promises. Of course, the Jews of the early first century took this too far, and made blood-kin connections the centerpiece of their identity. In addition, though, in Romans 4:13, Paul sums up the promises made to Abraham as him being the “heir of the world.” This was a popular concept in Jewish tradition. The Hebrew word for “land” in places like Genesis 12:7 can also be translated as “earth” or “world.” So the Jews understood the promise of Canaan to Abraham as a larger metaphor for Abraham and his descendants inheriting the world to come. Thus, in the Jewish mindset, even heaven would be populated by a single ethnic group. Paul is about to correct this notion.
“Seed” verses “seeds.” The argument Paul uses to prove otherwise is ingenious, and has a distinctively Jewish bent. Paul argues his case the same way the rabbis and the Pharisees of that time did (as a former Pharisee, I suppose Paul had a lot of practice, and this would have impressed the Judiazers). That is, Paul focuses on a grammatical issue, a peculiarity that really isn’t that peculiar. Just like in the English language, the Hebrew word for “seed” or “offspring” (the word used in Genesis 12:7, 13:15 and 24:7 could be translated both ways) could convey either a singular or plural meaning. This was a common debate technique among the learned rabbis – i.e. “sons of Israel” meant either only men, or could include all of the people of Israel, men AND women, depending on what the rabbis needed the text to mean. The Judiazers, of course, were in the habit of twisting scripture like this to prove the heresy they were promoting to prove it was true. Is Paul “twisting” scripture? Not really. But Paul is using this technique to sort of “one up” his opponents – to give them a taste of their own medicine. Paul uses “seed” in a singular sense – a meaning that makes sense, and is logical, but when taken in the context of the Genesis references to Abraham doesn’t seem to fit. But Paul already knows on other grounds that Jesus is the ultimate end to the promise made to Abraham. Most Jews understood the “seed” to apply to all of Israel – indeed, Paul also uses the plural concept of “seed” in other letters (Romans 9:7 and 11:1) He even uses “seed” in its plural sense in Galatians 3:29, when he says the Galatians are all “Abraham’s seed.” How do we make sense of this then?
1) Combined with other promises made in Scripture – to Moses, to David, to the prophets, as well as Abraham – we see that Jesus is the epitome, the ultimate fulfillment of this promise. The focus needs to be on Jesus here, and not on ourselves.
2) Paul says the emphasis needs to be on “one person – Christ.” Again, the emphasis on everything in this book is RELATIONSHIP. Its not what you do, or what you know, its WHO you know. A personal, intimate relationship with Jesus is the key.
3) By placing the focus on the singular, on Jesus alone as the source of salvation, and taking the emphasis off of a plurality of people – the nation – ethnic issues become irrelevant. If God meant a singular meaning – one seed – when he made the promise, and through that one seed would bless the whole earth, then the need to be part of Abraham’s blood line is removed. Tie this back to the argument Paul made in Galatians 3:6-9, and we put this notion completely to death. Culture, national origin, ethnicity, social status, custom, even denomination or the concept of “good taste” are absolutely meaningless (see Galatians 3:28). It is only in the singular “seed” – only in Jesus – that we have access to God and completeness.
4) In keeping with the “legal” concept of a last will and testament (introduced in Galatians 3:15) Paul would have expected his audience to understand that under the customs of that time, a last will and testament would often stipulate that property be left first to one heir, and then to another after the first heir’s death. (Indeed, this is a common estate planning tool today!). In keeping with the legal theme, its logical to move to the concept of a promise meant for a singular “seed” – one person, who dies, and then the promise is left to someone else. So the concept is understandable from a strictly legal perspective – Christ was the heir of the promise. He died, and we all became heirs. (Using a “legal” argument also helped strengthen Paul’s premise in the eyes of people who relied on "the law").
“The promises” specifically “spoken to Abraham” – these would have been well known to Paul’s audience, particularly the Jews. What were these “promises?”
In Genesis 13:16, God promises that Abraham’s offspring will be like the dust of the earth; that is, their number will be vast and immeasurable. Abraham also receives the promise of the possession of the land of Canaan – the “promised land.” (Genesis 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:7, 18-21; and 17:8) God promises that all the peoples of the earth will be blessed through Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18) or his offspring (Genesis 22:18). Its pretty obvious by looking at this list that the emphasis was on this side of heaven – that is, the here and now, particularly regarding the promised land. This is what Jewish tradition focused on as well. The promise involving descendants was also viewed quite literally – combining the concept of countless descendants and blessing via offspring, the Jews clung to the concept that one LITERALLY needed to be “part of the family” in order to participate in these promises. Of course, the Jews of the early first century took this too far, and made blood-kin connections the centerpiece of their identity. In addition, though, in Romans 4:13, Paul sums up the promises made to Abraham as him being the “heir of the world.” This was a popular concept in Jewish tradition. The Hebrew word for “land” in places like Genesis 12:7 can also be translated as “earth” or “world.” So the Jews understood the promise of Canaan to Abraham as a larger metaphor for Abraham and his descendants inheriting the world to come. Thus, in the Jewish mindset, even heaven would be populated by a single ethnic group. Paul is about to correct this notion.
“Seed” verses “seeds.” The argument Paul uses to prove otherwise is ingenious, and has a distinctively Jewish bent. Paul argues his case the same way the rabbis and the Pharisees of that time did (as a former Pharisee, I suppose Paul had a lot of practice, and this would have impressed the Judiazers). That is, Paul focuses on a grammatical issue, a peculiarity that really isn’t that peculiar. Just like in the English language, the Hebrew word for “seed” or “offspring” (the word used in Genesis 12:7, 13:15 and 24:7 could be translated both ways) could convey either a singular or plural meaning. This was a common debate technique among the learned rabbis – i.e. “sons of Israel” meant either only men, or could include all of the people of Israel, men AND women, depending on what the rabbis needed the text to mean. The Judiazers, of course, were in the habit of twisting scripture like this to prove the heresy they were promoting to prove it was true. Is Paul “twisting” scripture? Not really. But Paul is using this technique to sort of “one up” his opponents – to give them a taste of their own medicine. Paul uses “seed” in a singular sense – a meaning that makes sense, and is logical, but when taken in the context of the Genesis references to Abraham doesn’t seem to fit. But Paul already knows on other grounds that Jesus is the ultimate end to the promise made to Abraham. Most Jews understood the “seed” to apply to all of Israel – indeed, Paul also uses the plural concept of “seed” in other letters (Romans 9:7 and 11:1) He even uses “seed” in its plural sense in Galatians 3:29, when he says the Galatians are all “Abraham’s seed.” How do we make sense of this then?
1) Combined with other promises made in Scripture – to Moses, to David, to the prophets, as well as Abraham – we see that Jesus is the epitome, the ultimate fulfillment of this promise. The focus needs to be on Jesus here, and not on ourselves.
2) Paul says the emphasis needs to be on “one person – Christ.” Again, the emphasis on everything in this book is RELATIONSHIP. Its not what you do, or what you know, its WHO you know. A personal, intimate relationship with Jesus is the key.
3) By placing the focus on the singular, on Jesus alone as the source of salvation, and taking the emphasis off of a plurality of people – the nation – ethnic issues become irrelevant. If God meant a singular meaning – one seed – when he made the promise, and through that one seed would bless the whole earth, then the need to be part of Abraham’s blood line is removed. Tie this back to the argument Paul made in Galatians 3:6-9, and we put this notion completely to death. Culture, national origin, ethnicity, social status, custom, even denomination or the concept of “good taste” are absolutely meaningless (see Galatians 3:28). It is only in the singular “seed” – only in Jesus – that we have access to God and completeness.
4) In keeping with the “legal” concept of a last will and testament (introduced in Galatians 3:15) Paul would have expected his audience to understand that under the customs of that time, a last will and testament would often stipulate that property be left first to one heir, and then to another after the first heir’s death. (Indeed, this is a common estate planning tool today!). In keeping with the legal theme, its logical to move to the concept of a promise meant for a singular “seed” – one person, who dies, and then the promise is left to someone else. So the concept is understandable from a strictly legal perspective – Christ was the heir of the promise. He died, and we all became heirs. (Using a “legal” argument also helped strengthen Paul’s premise in the eyes of people who relied on "the law").
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 15
Galatians 3:15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
“Brothers” Interesting – what a shift since 3:1, where Paul referred to the Galatians as “foolish.” Here, he addresses them with warmth and familiarity. Again, its all about RELATIONSHIP – and an intimate relationship, to boot. As an aside, I also see Paul warming up to his audience as he works his way through these arguments. Paul is upset with the Galatian Christians, but he won’t let that get in the way of him helping them, or caring for them. He really is a true example of a “spiritual father.” Next, Paul begins to set up his next theological point.
“no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established” The Greek word translated here as “covenant” was a term commonly used for a last will and testament -- the very same concept we use in modern times for estate planning. Paul’s Greek-speaking audience would have made this connection. But thanks to the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (the Greek translation widely in use at the time Galatians was written), this same word was used to refer to the Old Testament Covenant. Thus, Greek speaking Jews, or Jews trying to explain matters of faith to Greek speaking people, would have used this same word to refer to God’s covenant with His people. Why is this significant? Because under the Greek legal system, and to a large extent under Jewish legal custom (see Deuteronomy 21:15-17 for a potential precursor), a last will (i.e. an "estate plan"), once properly sealed and deposited with the proper legal authorities, was irrevocable and unchangeable. (This was not true under Roman law, by the way). Thus, new conditions could not be added, heirs could not be changed. If a new will was introduced that conflicted with the first will, it was rejected. The focus of the Jews in Paul’s day (and even today) was on the Sinai Covenant with Moses. They saw God’s promise to Abraham as a foreshadowing of the latter, or, a mirror of it – the Jews of that time believed that Abraham practiced the law of Moses even thou it had not yet been received in written form. This of course, was not true. But it was firmly ingrained in the Jewish mindset. Paul is going to use this “covenant” as a “last will” comparison. (This also applies to this concept as we look at the irrevocability and unchangeability of God’s Word) This helps refute the heresy.
“Brothers” Interesting – what a shift since 3:1, where Paul referred to the Galatians as “foolish.” Here, he addresses them with warmth and familiarity. Again, its all about RELATIONSHIP – and an intimate relationship, to boot. As an aside, I also see Paul warming up to his audience as he works his way through these arguments. Paul is upset with the Galatian Christians, but he won’t let that get in the way of him helping them, or caring for them. He really is a true example of a “spiritual father.” Next, Paul begins to set up his next theological point.
“no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established” The Greek word translated here as “covenant” was a term commonly used for a last will and testament -- the very same concept we use in modern times for estate planning. Paul’s Greek-speaking audience would have made this connection. But thanks to the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (the Greek translation widely in use at the time Galatians was written), this same word was used to refer to the Old Testament Covenant. Thus, Greek speaking Jews, or Jews trying to explain matters of faith to Greek speaking people, would have used this same word to refer to God’s covenant with His people. Why is this significant? Because under the Greek legal system, and to a large extent under Jewish legal custom (see Deuteronomy 21:15-17 for a potential precursor), a last will (i.e. an "estate plan"), once properly sealed and deposited with the proper legal authorities, was irrevocable and unchangeable. (This was not true under Roman law, by the way). Thus, new conditions could not be added, heirs could not be changed. If a new will was introduced that conflicted with the first will, it was rejected. The focus of the Jews in Paul’s day (and even today) was on the Sinai Covenant with Moses. They saw God’s promise to Abraham as a foreshadowing of the latter, or, a mirror of it – the Jews of that time believed that Abraham practiced the law of Moses even thou it had not yet been received in written form. This of course, was not true. But it was firmly ingrained in the Jewish mindset. Paul is going to use this “covenant” as a “last will” comparison. (This also applies to this concept as we look at the irrevocability and unchangeability of God’s Word) This helps refute the heresy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
