Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson XXXVIII)

As we know, Luke the physician, who wrote his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, spent quite a bit of time with the Apostle Paul.  It would be reasonable to believe that Luke shared these words Jesus spoke after His resurrection with Paul: “While I was with you before my death, I told you that everything written about Me in the Torah, and the Prophets, and in the Psalms, must be fulfilled.”

Paul begins by noting that the Mosaic Law does provide a vital service. First of all, he wants the reader to know that the Law God gave through Moses was not connected to the covenant made to Abraham. Therefore, the carrying out of the promises in the covenant was not contingent upon carrying out Mosaic Law. God did not want His children living and acting like the godless heathens in the world. He wanted them to be noticed because of their higher level of morality, honesty, and justice. But most of all, He wanted them to be His image and voice and arms and legs in the world, to carry out His goodness and kindness and love.  He wanted all they did to honor and glorify Him as the God above all gods. God knew His children still struggled with a corrupt nature inherited from Adam’s fall. So, He needed an external solution until He could provide an internal resolution for the curse of sin.

So, God authorized the implementation of Mosaic Law to show mankind his sinfulness and his need for salvation; for man to know that the only thing that stood between him and certain death was the mercy of God. But the Mosaic Law was only a temporary fix until a permanent remedy came through the Messiah. Once that happened, then the Mosaic Law would no longer be needed because their faith in the Messiah and following Him would make the Mosaic Law unnecessary.

The keeping of the Mosaic Law was not designed to make mankind comfortable in their sin, but keep them yearning for the Messiah to come and set them free from the slavery of sin. Mosaic Law served the purpose of helping train mankind to serve God through their flesh until they could serve God through their spirit. For once the Messiah came, there was nothing for anyone to gain no matter how long they followed Mosaic Law, but would, in fact, profit more because the Messiah came to fulfill all those sacrifices, and serving Him made it unnecessary to practice all the ceremonial laws and rituals as forms of worship in self-righteousness.

Paul is not attempting to do away with the need and necessity for guidance, instruction, motivation, teaching, commitment, dedication, and surrender to the will of God and His Word, in order to be a more useful and efficient believer; how would anyone know what sin was unless God showed them?  Why would mankind fear the punishment for sin unless God told him? But Paul wants the Judaizers and Galatian converts to know that none of these things are to be interpreted as necessary for obtaining or sustaining the free gift of salvation by faith in the Anointed One to fulfill God’s promise to Abraham. I wonder if Jesus’ words, “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls”[1] crossed Paul’s mind? There was a large yoke that harnessed two oxen together, but the word Jesus used was that of a “shoulder yoke,” – often used for carrying water buckets, indicating that with His help we are to do what pleases Him because it’s easy to put on and what the Anointed One gives us to carry, is light.

Needless to say, Paul’s comparison of Mosaic Law and the promise now gets somewhat more complicated to understand, but he feels it’s necessary in order for the Judaizers and Gentiles to comprehend why one cannot be mistaken for the other. We don’t know if the message Stephen delivered before the Sanhedrin prior to his stoning came to Paul’s attention, but the quote here of how Mosaic Law was given through angels sounds very close.[2] Jewish tradition accepted the deliverance of Mosaic Law as being accompanied by angels[3]

Paul also wanted to show the difference between the promise given to Abraham, and the Law given to Moses. In Moses’ case, he served as a mediator between God and the people; so, God delivered the Law to Moses and told him to enforce it by passing it on to the people of Israel. In Abraham’s case, God did not need a mediator because it only involved the two of them. It sounds a lot like how a married couple delivers their vows to each other. They don’t send their vows to each other through a mediator. No! They exchange their vows directly with each other.

Paul is far from condoning any elimination of the Mosaic Law with respect to its use in giving guidance, direction, instruction, conviction, understanding sin and its effects. However, he was upset that the Judaizers were misleading the Gentile believers, making them believe that the keeping of the ceremonial laws and rituals were part of God’s promise given to Abraham. Can you imagine the pressure this put on the new converts to Christianity throughout the Galatian churches, especially the Gentiles? What joy was there in being rescued from slavery to the rituals and regulations of heathenism, only to be tied again to the rituals and regulations of Judaism? It no doubt gave Paul many sleepless nights wondering why they were so willing to throw away the freedom they received through the Anointed One for such nonsense.

While serving as a regional mission’s superintendent in Asia, I remember getting a call from Southern India telling me that a group of ministers there were unhappy because they felt that since they represented smaller churches, they were being discriminated against by ministers representing larger churches in the same organization. I went to India to try and resolve the issue and was almost arrested for greeting the convention of over 20,000 believers because the minority group informed the police that I was not given the proper visa allowing me to preach. The minority group refused to accept me as a mediator because they believed I would rule in favor of the majority group.

Eventually, the two groups wound up in court, each claiming to be the authorized representatives of the organization. The Hindu judge finally called both groups in and said to them: “I’m a Hindu, you are Christians. I’ve been told that Christians are supposed to be loving and caring and kind to each other. But here you are in court suing each other over who should be in leadership. How do you expect me, a Hindu, to become a Christian, when I see you treating each other this way?” The two sides were so embarrassed they settled the matter out of court.

In 1970 Bill Gaither wrote a song that remains popular to this day. The lyrics are as follows: “I’m so glad I’m a part of the Family of God; I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His Blood; joint-heirs with Jesus as we travel this sod, for I’m part of the family, the Family of God… From the door of an orphanage to the house of the King, No longer an outcast, a new song I sing; from rags unto riches, from the weak to the strong, I’m not worthy to be here, but praise God! I belong! I’m so glad I’m a part of the Family of God; I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His Blood; joint-heirs with Jesus as we travel this sod, for I’m part of the family, The Family of God.” That’s the kind of song Paul wanted the Gentiles and Jewish believers in Galatia to sing.

Sometimes disagreements and discord inside a congregation can spill out into the open and the whole town ends up knowing about the conflict. Also, families that profess and are known to be good church-going, Bible-believing, people, sometimes show their carnal nature in disputes and feuds that gets the whole neighborhood to talking. And even though divorce is not popular among evangelical or Pentecostal believers, it nevertheless happens. But the harsh language and hateful attitude expressed sometimes makes even unbelievers who divorce, look like saints. Then again, whole denominations and churches split because they couldn’t agree on some doctrine or required way of living the holy life. Ask yourself, what does this say to the world? Does this enforce or hinder our witness to the world as recipients of the love of God? Would this make them wonder, why do you want me to become like you? No wonder Jesus told His disciples that the world would know they are His because they love one another.[4]

John Calvin enters into a discussion about the Anointed One as our Mediator. He says that when he takes a closer look at the subject, he spots marked differences between Jews and Gentiles. The first question is this: Is He the mediator between each of us individually before God, or is He the Mediator of all mankind of which we are but one part? No, says Calvin, the Anointed One is not the Mediator of each person. There is such a diversity of character and conditions among humankind, that Jesus sought a covenant with the Father for all those He represented. That the new and everlasting covenant He testified to during the Last Supper.[5] Just like Moses was not the mediator between each Israelite and God but between the Children of Israel as a whole. Had the Anointed One become a Mediator, the diversities of peoples would require a covenant between each man and woman with God based on their character and personality. Even with human logic that should be easy to discern.

So says Calvin, it is now clear. As the Anointed One formerly reconciled God to the Jews in making a covenant, so he is now the Mediator of the Gentiles. The Jews differ widely from the Gentiles; for circumcision and ceremonies erected “the middle wall of partition between them.”[6] The Jews were already close to God while the Gentiles were far, far away.[7] Yet God remained consistent with Himself. This becomes evident when the Anointed One brings those who formerly differed among themselves to one God, and makes them unite in one body. God is one because He always continues to be like Himself, it is with unvarying regularity that He maintains an unalterable purpose that caused Him to devise the plan of salvation.[8]

Verse twenty here puzzled many Bible scholars over the centuries. In fact, Charles Ellicott (1819-1905) says that there were as many as 430 different interpretations during his time. Almost all of them agree that a mediator is the one who stands in between two individuals or groups. In fact, there can be multiple factions on either side who may also need a mediator to settle their difference. The job of the mediator is to bring the two sides together to sign an agreement or contract agreeable to both.

Matthew Poole (1624-1679), an early Presbyterian minister in England notes that Moses was a mediator because he stood in between God and the children of Israel. That’s why Moses was given the Law so that he could go down the mountain and get the Israelites to agree that it was what they needed and they would follow it to the letter. As we know, the Israelites accepted God’s contract, but few, if any, ever lived up to their part of the agreement.

[1] Matthew 11:29

[2] Acts of the Apostles 7:53

[3] See Deuteronomy 33:2

[4] John 13:34-35

[5] Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24

[6] Ephesians 2:14

[7] Ibid. 2:13

[8] John Calvin: Biblical Cabinet, op. cit., loc, cit., pp. 83-84

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson XXXVII)

Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) enlightens us on what Paul was driving at when he asks in verse nineteen, why was the Law even given? Clearly, says Paul, it was given because of sin. And furthermore, it was an interim solution to be utilized until the Messiah came. Hovey notes that the Greek preposition charin translated as “because of” signifies, primarily, “for the sake of.” In Thayer’s Greek Lexicon it explains the phrase as, “for the sake of,” and “for this cause,” meaning, “transgressions” – that is, not to encourage or promote sinful behavior, but to show the true character of wrongdoing, and thereby increase a person’s consciousness of sin in order to create the desire for redemption. This interpretation is very much in harmony with the language of Paul in Romans,[1] and by his discussion, which follows in the next few verses.

So, we can conclude, says Hovey, it was the mission of the Law to awaken in mankind the consciousness of sin, in order that they may feel the need of a Savior. Even among the Gentiles, it was understood that it is part of human nature to be upset with restraint, and we’re sure to covet what was forbidden. That’s why conscious transgression is increased by a clear revelation of the Law and at the same time, distinctly aware of its contrary self-will and inclination to do something illegal even when they know it’s wrong.[2] From this, we can draw many comparisons. For instance, for a person with a greedy appetite, their sheer gain in weight makes them cumbersome, so they find it harder and harder to stand up and walk will tell them they need to make a change. And the uncontrolled drinking of alcohol that leads to alcoholism and its effects, especially the pain of detoxification, sends a message to give it up. Even children who love to play in the dirt will, after a while, ask Mommy if they can take a bath.

George W. Clark (1831-1911) makes a point that receiving the indwelling Spirit through listening to the Word by faith, is just as real as receiving His gifts. Unfortunately, some individuals in his day were limiting the receiving of the Spirit to His gifts through the baptism of the Spirit. At the moment of regeneration and new birth, the Spirit took up residence in order that they may then live for Messiah with the Spirit’s inner presence. Some people today are still confused by this. As Clark sees it, hearing the Gospel is a passive act of faith while responding to what one hears is an active act of faith. So, unless the active act of faith takes place, then simply hearing the message is not enough. Likewise, there can be no active act of faith unless the message is heard.[3]

George B. Stevens (1854-1906) states that “The principle of the Gospel predates and triggers the Law.” In other words, the teachings in the Gospel were already written down in heaven before the Law was written on Mt. Horeb. That’s because in the promise God made to Abraham of the inheritance of Canaan for all his descendants, was made before the Law was given. And in that promise, the one to inherit that promise was the promised Seed who would be born in the genealogy of the Promised son, Isaac. And this Promised Seed was none other than the only Son of God who existed with the Father since eternity past. And since no covenant signed by the maker can be changed, that means that while the Jews looked for a Messiah outside the line of David, it was predetermined by the covenant that it would only be given to one of David’s descendants. That is the only way that the royal line could be passed on to the Messiah.[4]

Arno Gaebelein (1861-1945) asks that if the Law cannot give the Spirit of God, if it cannot give righteousness, if the Law bestows no blessings on mankind, but pronounces a curse upon them, if it cannot, in any way, affect the original grace-covenant made with Abraham, confirmed in Isaac, then the logical question certainly is “Why did God give the Law?”  This seems to be Paul’s question here in verse nineteen. The answer is “It was added because of disobedience.” It was not added that sin might be curbed, or a person might be saved by it, but that every person might be established as a transgressor and their hopeless and guilty condition fully visible. It was introduced as a teaching tool in between the original promise to Abraham and its fulfillment in the Anointed One, in order that the corrupt moral condition of mankind might be more clearly seen.[5] Therefore, it was a mere addition “till the seed (the Anointed One) should come, to whom the promise was made.” And the Law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Angels in glory were present at Sinai;[6] God did not fully reveal Himself in His glory to the Israelites and so a mediator was needed, that is, Moses.

Paul’s statement “a mediator is not one person” means that mediatorship necessitates two parties. So, there were God and Israel, Moses stood in between as the mediator. But in the promise, the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, God was the only one who spoke. Its fulfillment is not (as in the law-covenant) dependent upon a faithful God and Israel’s obedience, but on God’s faithfulness alone; all depended upon God Himself. The mediatorship of the Lord Jesus the Anointed One is a different matter and not in view here at all. But the Law is not against the promises of God. Man needed life; the Law could not give that, neither could it give righteousness. All – Jews and Gentiles – were shut up sin’s prison. Therefore, the promise God made to Abraham might only be fulfilled through faith in Jesus the Messiah who was the only one who could set them free.[7]

Don Garlington feels that all the Apostle Paul said so far about the Law being unnecessary to one’s faith in God and the Anointed One, it would seem normal to ask the same question, “What was the purpose of the Law to begin with? Why was it necessary if in the end, it doesn’t count one iota toward our salvation?” Paul’s answer, says Garlington, is this: “It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred came.” The disputed part of verse nineteen is the statement that the Law was added “because of sin,” says Garlington. Here are a variety of understandings: to restrain transgressions; to multiply transgressions or increase the awareness of sins, thus showing humanity’s need of a savior.[8] Didn’t they know they would turn sin into a transgression against God? The Law makes it very clear that every sin is a sin against God. But the Law was also given in a positive manner to provide a way of dealing with transgressions, namely, in the sacrificial system. All in all, the most satisfactory interpretation of why the Law was necessary is that it filled the void “until the Promised Seed should come,” and with the proposition in verse twenty-four below, the Law was a disciplinarian to bring a repentant Israel to the Anointed One.[9]

This search for a savior led many Israelis to become involved in idolatry. The Torah was given expressly to preserve them as a distinct and peculiar people. The effect of placing the people under the Law was to preserve the promise of mercy through the Messiah, of which they were the chosen to maintain this gift from God until it came to pass. We might say the same thing today about the second coming of the Anointed One. The Gospel was given to the Christian church to keep them faithful and carry enough oil to keep their lamps burning until they hear the trumpet sound and the words, “Behold, the Groom is on His way!”

Alfred E. Bouter contends that the Law was added only for a limited time, “until the Seed came.” Who is the Seed? the Anointed One is, as we have seen. The Law was fulfilled in the death of Jesus Messiah which completed the Law’s purpose because everything it demanded was fulfilled. Some more details are then given about the character of the Law in order for us to see the difference between it and the system of grace. Law was ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator. God gave the Law to angels which means they were mediators; then the angels gave it through the hand of Moses, and Moses became the mediator on behalf of the people. So, there was a great distance between God and the people.

That raises the question: “Is there a great distance between God and us under grace?” No, we are His sons and daughters, so very close to God. This shows a difference in character. Paul told Timothy: “For there are one God and one mediator between God and mankind, Messiah, Jesus.” That means, the next question is, “In what way did He become our mediator. Paul goes on to tell Timothy: “by giving Himself as a ransom for all people.”[10] This is difficult to understand, says Bouter, but in the end, it implies that it all depends on God. God worked with the Israelites through slaughtered animals alone. Everything depends on God. Now God works with Christians through the sacrifice called, “The Lamb of God.”[11] When we try on the basis of works of Law then it depends on us and as a consequence, it will never work, but when it depends on God alone He is faithful and then things are fulfilled through the Anointed One and His sacrifice on the cross. That’s why God raised Him from the grave to become our King.

3:20 That’s because a mediator is only needed when two people must reach an agreement. In Abraham’s case, God acted on His own behalf when He gave His promise to him.

We can see that as far back as the righteous man Job, people thought that a mediator was needed between mankind and God. Job once felt dismayed that on his own he couldn’t defend himself before God. He said, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I may answer Him, that we might go to trial together. There is no arbitrator to decide the case for us, someone with the authority to discipline both of us.”[12] But Paul sees another way of looking at it. He told young Timothy, “There is one God. There is one Man standing between God and men. That Man is the Anointed One Jesus.”[13]

But unlike Job’s conclusion, Jesus does not overrule His Father in Heaven. All those matters are already settled. As our Mediator, when we displease the Father, Jesus His Son stands willing to plead for grace and mercy on our behalf by holding out His nail-scarred hands. Then to send the Holy Spirit with the message, if you will just confess your sin, He is faithful and just to forgive you of your sin.[14] So it is not we who through tears and repentance, or many prayers and penance, earn God’s forgiveness. It is a gift that is always ready for those who are willing to see their need and humbly ask God if by His love, grace, and mercy He can forgive them.

[1] Romans 5:20; 7:7-9

[2] Hovey, Alvah: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 46–47

[3]George W. Clark: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 80

[4] George B. Stevens: Short Exposition of Galatians, op. cit., pp. 104-105

[5] See also Romans 3:20; 5:13, 20, 7:7-9

[6] Psalm 68:17

[7] Arno Gaebelein: The Annotated Bible, op. cit., p. 217

[8] See Romans 3:20; 4:15; 5:20

[9] Don Garlington: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 109-110

[10] 1 Timothy 2:5

[11] John 1:29, 36

[12] Job 9:32-35

[13] 1 Timothy 2:5

[14] 1 John 1:9

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson XXXVI)

Paul, like Jesus with the Jews, was feeling the same sense of rejection by the Galatians. All he preached to them was what he received by revelation from the Anointed One. So, if they wouldn’t believe and abide by the Gospel of the Anointed One, he stood little chance they would pay any attention to what he said. The sad thing was, they were now trusting again in the Law to put them in right standing with God. It didn’t work before and it wouldn’t work now.[1] They already knew that the Law was only relevant to those who live by its dictates. And anyone who lives by what the Law says will certainly know what sin is. That means, that everyone who judges themselves by the Law knows for sure that they stand guilty before God, not righteous before God. Therefore, it is impossible to get right with God through the Law. It shows how sinful we are, not how saintly we think we are.[2]

Then Paul makes another point when comparing Jesus, whom they trust through grace, and Moses, whom they trust through the Law. If they would not be able to accept the Torah, which they believed was delivered to Moses by angels, why should God expect them to accept the Word which was delivered in person by the Word Himself?[3] On one occasion when Moses was serving as a mediator, ADONAI told him, “Here is what you are to say to the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves saw that I spoke with you from heaven.’”[4] This was to confirm to the people that the Commandments Moses brought down from Mount Horeb in Sinai were from Him through Moses. Then again, God summoned Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders to come and worship Him from a distance. Only Moses was allowed to go up onto the mountain to meet with ADONAI. When God sent Moses back down the mountain, he told the group that stayed below worshiping what God said and the Laws that He gave them. When they told the people they all shouted with one voice, “We will do all that ADONAI said we should do.”[5]

British Bible and Hebraic scholar John Gill tells us that in a Jewish Targum[6] commentary on 1 Chronicles 29:11 YaHWeH came to Mount Sinai, and ADONAI was also present, and so the Jews say that ADONAI appeared on Mount Sinai in glory “with companies,” or “troops of angels,” to give the Law to His people. Thus, it may be said to have been “ordained” by them, inasmuch as it might be written and spoken by them, as the instruments and ministers of God. For although the tablets are said to be the work of God, and the writing of God, and written with the finger of God, and that He spoke all the words on it, yet this does not hinder the idea that there was a lot of work for the angels to do in getting and carving the tablets in the form they were, and in writing the Law upon them. That’s why it is said that angels were employed in giving the Law to Moses.[7] It is also suggested that it was reported by the witnesses on the mountainside below that the number of angels and power of their wings made the sound of thunder fill the air,[8] as well as in the lightning and the blowing of the trumpet, that grew louder and louder at that time.[9]

Now here we see the mystery revealed. When the Word Himself came and told the Jews that His Father in Heaven sent Him down to earth to share with them a new covenant easier than the old one because all they must do now was have faith that God will save them, but they outright rejected Him. Now this same incident was being repeated in Galatia. the Anointed One sent Paul to preach the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles, especially the Gentiles. And the Gentiles received the Good News openly and enthusiastically while the Jews said, “No thank you,” what Moses told us was enough. Once again ADONAI called Moses to meet with Him. For forty days and nights, Moses was in the presence of ADONAI and neither ate nor drank anything. After His baptism by John the Baptizer, Jesus went into the wilderness for forty days and nights without food or water. And when He was finished, He went out to call disciples to follow Him to learn all that the Father sent Him to teach them.[10]

The big difference, however, was that Moses informed them about all the sacrifices to be made over and over again as a way of repenting and making amends for all that they did wrong after breaking any one of these commandments, but Jesus said He was the sacrifice, and once His sacrifice was made no further sacrifices would be needed. That’s why the Apostle John could say with confidence that the Law and its requirements were given through Moses, but Grace and Truth came through Yeshua the Messiah.[11] And the first Christian martyr, Stephen, as he was being stoned with Saul of Tarsus looking on, holding the coats of the stone-throwers, heard him say that Moses himself said that God already chose his replacement, someone just like him to bring the living word to them.[12] So if the Jews accepted Moses, why couldn’t they accept the one Moses said would take his place?

Martin Luther makes a valid point here that we can apply to our day and age. He notes that the Jews believed that if they kept the Law to perfection they would be saved. But, when they heard that the Gospel proclaimed that the Anointed One came into the world to save sinners and not the righteous; when they heard that sinners were to enter the kingdom of heaven before the righteous, the Jews were very much upset. They murmured as some of those hired to work in a vineyard did when they saw receiving the same pay, they were getting. So, they exclaimed: “These latecomers worked only one hour, while we’ve been working hard all day under the hot sun, yet you put them on an equal footing with us!”[13]

They complained that the heathen who at one time worshiped idols now obtained grace without the drudgery of the Law that was theirs.[14] I’m afraid the same would be said today by some members of a church when a former homeless person or a released prisoner is suddenly given a position in the church that should only be given to long-term elders. I can hear it now: “I’ve paid my tithes faithfully for the last 35 years, and yet, I haven’t seen this person even put a dime in the offering plate. I’ve been faithful to the rules of this church all my life, and this individual doesn’t even know what the rules are!”

John Owen (1616-1683) takes what Paul says here in verse nineteen to mean that the Law was given to the assembly under the First Covenant by the hand of a mediator; that is, of Moses. It had an original power of obliging all mankind to obedience, from its first institution or prescription in our creation; which was never nor faded away. However, the Church was obliged to have respect for it, as it was given to them, “ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”[15] Based on that, many things hard and difficult did ensue, which we are now freed from. We are not obliged to observe the moral law itself, as given in the hand of that mediator, which gave it the formal reason of a covenant to that people and had other statutes and judgments inseparable from it. But the same law continues still in its original authority and power, which it had from the beginning, to oblige all indispensably to obedience.[16]

Joseph Benson (1749-1821), makes a good point here that we should all remember, and that is: since the inheritance God promised to Abraham was not by the Law, but by the promise, as a free gift, it must be asked: for what purpose the Law was given, or what significance did it have? It was added to restrain the Israelites from transgressions, particularly idolatry, and the vices connected with idolatry, the evil of which the Law pointed out to them by its prohibitions and curse. It is, therefore, clearly stated by the Law that idolatry, and all the abominations practiced by the Canaanites, and the other heathen nations who surrounded the Israelites, were forbidden in the Law, and enforced by the severest penalties.[17] Since we also are heirs of the same promise, then we too must turn away from the idolization of anyone or anything that would take God’s place in our lives. Be it a habit, a fascination, wealth, popularity, or some famous individual. Why should we risk losing a promise that will never fail and be there for eternity for something that will grow old, change, and become worthless?

Philip Schaff (1819-1893) notes that with what Paul said back in verse sixteen, it almost demanded an answer to the question of why was the Law needed at all? Since it did not affect the Gentile believers at all, then for what purpose did it serve even to the Jewish believers. Schaff paraphrases verse nineteen here to read: “It was superadded because of the transgressions.” Despite all that God did for them from the time of Abraham, including their being saved as a nation by Joseph’s position in Egypt, and then led out of bondage by Moses with the parting of the Red Sea, they still did not accept God’s gift of a Promised Land because they must fight for it. So, when the twelve spies returned from scouting out the land, they believed the ten who said it was impossible instead of believing Joshua and Caleb who said it was not only possible, but it was flowing with milk and honey.[18] So, until Messiah came, it was the Law who would serve as the schoolmaster and tutor.[19] [20]

So, God sent them a list of commandments to follow, and the first one was quite explicit: You will put no other gods ahead of Me. You will not make any carved images to represent anything in heaven or on earth, You will not worship them or serve them.[21] He is the only one they were to worship.[22] Jesus Himself emphasized this when He rebuked Satan who came to tempt Him in the wilderness.[23] The Israelites were off track, so God put them back on track because it was through them, the tribe of Judah, that the Messiah would come. And so, it is today that for His children God superadded the Final Covenant with the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Epistles to help guide them and keep them on the path of holiness until the Messiah returns to take them to His Promised Land.

[1] Romans 2:13

[2] Ibid. 3:19-20

[3] Acts of the Apostles 7:53. See Hebrews 2:2-5

[4] Exodus 20:22

[5] Ibid. 24:1-3

[6] A Targum is an explanation or interpretation of Scripture.

[7] Acts of the Apostles 7:53

[8] Hebrews 2:2

[9] Targum on 1 Chronicles 29:11

[10] Ibid. 34:27-28

[11] John 1:17

[12] Acts of the Apostles 7:38

[13] Matthew 20:9-12

[14] Martin Luther: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 80-81

[15] See Malachi 4:4

[16] John Owen: Christologia, p. 183

[17] Joseph Benson, On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.,

[18] Number 13-14

[19] See verse twenty-four

[20] Philip Schaff: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 321

[21] Exodus 20:1-5

[22] Deuteronomy 6:13

[23] Luke 4:8

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

 CHAPTER THREE (Lesson VI)

Philip Ryken mentioned that when people visit the Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia where he serves as senior pastor, they often wonder why there is no cross displayed in the sanctuary. In fact, Ryken feels that part of the church’s beauty is that there are no icons to distract the congregation from the worship of God. But in reality, says Ryken, every-time the Scriptures are opened and the Anointed One is preached, the message of the cross is lifted high for all to see. After all, this was John Calvin’s message to all those who desire to preach the Gospel: They must learn not only to give a sermon but carry a message that penetrates into the conscience of each listener. To do this, they must help the people to see the Anointed One crucified and that His blood still flows for the forgiveness of sin.[1] How unfortunate that in many churches there is a lighted cross behind the pulpit on the wall, but that’s the only time the people see the cross because it is seldom if ever, displayed out of the Scriptures.

A painting by the Flemish painter Jan August Hendrik Leys (1815–1869) illustrates what happens when Christians lose sight of the crucified Anointed One. The painting is called “Women Praying at a Crucifix near St. James in Antwerp.” The women themselves are portrayed with painstaking detail. Careful attention is paid to every fold in the fabric of their gowns. There is one thing missing from the painting, however, and that is the cross itself. Leys shows the women at worship, but not the Anointed One they came to adore. “So, what do we see?” asks the Dutch art critic Hans Rookmaaker (1922–1977). “People from a past period, full of faith, reverent, praying – but we do not see the object of faith, the crucified the Anointed One.[2]

I’m sure many evangelical believers would be opposed to having the crucifix on their church walls. They say that the cross is empty because the Anointed One died, was buried, and rose again. But what good does it do to preach a risen Savior if the people listening do not know under what circumstances He died? Paul told the Corinthians that he resolved to preach nothing else while he was with them except Jesus the Anointed One and Him crucified.[3]

Robert Gundry also expressed his opinion on what, “displaying the Anointed One crucified before the Galatians’ eyes” meant. The Galatians themselves did not see Jesus’ crucifixion. They didn’t take photographs in those days, and as far as we know, no artist was there to paint a picture. So, it’s not the actual crucifixion itself which they were able to witness. So, what was it?[4] It was the exhibition in words in Paul’s preaching that helped them see that crucifixion. Perhaps that’s why Paul speaks of their “hearing” of the Gospel instead of “seeing.”[5] This is another way of saying that Paul painted a word-picture of the Anointed One’s crucifixion that was so real that the Galatians were able to imagine it as being real in their minds.

Don Garlington tells us in his commentary on Galatians that Dr. Ben Witherington of England notes that in first-century Mediterranean culture a “fool” was not simply a person of moral failures but one who disrespected social boundaries, with the effect that they brought shame upon themselves (the same is true today). By way of application, writes Witherington, “The issue here in part is a violation of community boundaries, and in Paul’s view, by entering the community bounded by the Mosaic Law was to exit the community bounded by allegiance to the Anointed One. In short, Paul sees apostasy looming on the horizon and he will marshal his arsenal of arguments to prevent it.”[6] So we see that Paul did not use this term without it having its full impact on those who existed in the south Galatians culture.

In the 11th century, a Benedictine monk named Benedict of Nursia who was born around 480 AD, was immortalized with a medal showing him holding up the cross the ward off evil spirits. In fact, Pope Leo IX (1102-1045) used such a medal. Since then, when someone does not carry a Benedict Medal around their neck, they just hold up their fingers to make a cross and hold it out in front of them. You’ve no doubt seen this done in movies or on television. In a way, that’s what Paul is asking the Galatians, why didn’t you hold up the cross in front of these false teachers in order to protect yourself against their evil motives and plans to strip away your faith and make you scared that without them you would die in your sins?

Dr. David A. Brondos, professor at the Augsburg Lutheran Seminary in Mexico City finds it easy to see why Paul was such an expert on the crucifixion of the Anointed One. He states that the Jews killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets,[7] although for different reasons. It is also clear that Paul was acquainted with the narratives of Jesus’ passion, because he recites the tradition about Jesus’ words and actions over the bread and cup at the Last Supper,[8] and mentions Judas Iscariot’s betrayal. Then, when writing to the Romans he quotes from Psalm 69:9 and refers to the abuse the Anointed One endured during His trial and crucifixion.[9] He also mentions Jesus’ burial and the testimonies of the many of Jesus’ first disciples concerning Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.[10] Not only that, but Paul affirms that Jesus “gave Himself up,”[11] and was “crucified in weakness” to prove that He was aware that Jesus went to His death passively and not trying to defend Himself or flee.[12] These and other passages show beyond doubt that Paul was very acquainted with the same traditions of Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection that we find in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.[13]

Duncan Heaster makes an interesting comment on what Paul was really trying to say to the Galatians about his making the Anointed One crucified very real to them, almost as though he painted a picture or carved a statue. He says: When Paul preached the Gospel to the Galatians, he was the embodiment of the crucified Anointed One. People should see in us, in our sufferings and “weakness,” something of the crucified Anointed One at the time of His death.[14] I’m not sure how the Apostle Paul would square this with what he said earlier in the letter: “I was put up on the cross to die with the Anointed One. Therefore, I no longer live. the Anointed One lives in me.”[15]

Messianic writer Thomas Lancaster doesn’t think that the sudden shift in the way the Galatians looked at their faith in light of the Law was overnight. When the Judaizer’s came in from Jerusalem, they somehow persuaded the Christians that Jews and Gentiles were all like, there was no difference between them. They all believed in God and accepted Yeshua as the Messiah. And since Yeshua said He did not come to abolish the Law but to make it complete, then it must contain some value and purpose for the Christian life. Lancaster says that this is how the Judaizers duped the gullible Galatians into adding some of the Law’s requirements to their faith. Perhaps it started with honoring the Sabbath and then abstaining from certain foods because they were not kosher. But apparently it reached the place where many of the Gentile men were not submitting to being circumcised in order to make them true children of the covenant.[16] This is often the same way many Christians are duped into taking up certain ancient rites and rituals in order to be a really happy and secure Christian.

Jewish Christian writer David Stern does not hold back in giving his understanding of what Paul says here in verse one. He calls them “stupid Galatians!” We will find that down in verse six Paul will display his amazement at their going astray, and in 4:19-20 express his pain and confusion over what to do with them. But here he seems exasperated. He tries to arouse the Galatians’ interest in learning what they need to do right with ridicule and shame. Yet, it was all done in the context of his loving them dearly. One piece of evidence for this is that he calls them “brothers,” a favorite term of endearment among the early believers. In fact, he calls them “brothers” no less than nine times in this letter.[17]

Andrew G. Roth in his Aramaic translation points out that here is a clear wordplay between galatya, “those who live in Galatia,” and galoot, “those who are exiles, the dispersed or captives.” Roth does not translate the phrase “You foolish Exiles,” but it is very obvious that Rabbi Paul is writing to both groups. Another key point lexically is that galatya is derived from the root gelah, which means “to reveal or uncover,”[18] and this includes direct manifestations of Elohiym. It is also the root from which we get the name of the place Galilee. Finally, even though the spelling between galatya and galoot is not exactly the same in Aramaic, the wordplay exists on an audible level. Such same sounding layers of cleverness are extremely common throughout the Aramaic New Testament and are one of the strongest pieces of evidence we have for declaring its originality and primacy.[19]

[1] Ryken, Philip Graham. On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle location 1514

[2] Ibid. Kindle Location 1665

[3] 1 Corinthians 2:2

[4] Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:17-25; 2:2

[5] Robert H. Gundry: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Location 540

[6] Don Garlington: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., 92

[7] 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15

[8] 1 Corinthians 11:23-24

[9] Romans 15:3

[10] 1 Corinthians 15:3-7

[11] Galatians 1:4

[12] 2 Corinthians 13:4

[13] David A. Brondos. Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2006, (Kindle Location 1014-1022). Kindle Edition.

[14] Duncan Heaster: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 1922

[15] Galatians 2:20

[16] D. Thomas Lancaster: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 110

[17] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, op. cit., (Kindle Location 15474)

[18] Genesis 9:21; 35:7

[19] Andrew G. Roth: Aramaic New Testament, op. cit., loc. cit.

Often, we know what we want to say, so we chose a word that seems most likely to convey our thoughts. However, sometimes, we pick the wrong word or use a word wrongly. Here are some examples.

Ironic:  Probably one of the most misused words in the English language, ironically, does not mean something funny or odd that happens or even an annoying coincidence. In literature, there are several different types of ironies. The most common definition of ironic actually means, “An occurrence that is the direct opposite of what you expected to happen.” For instance, if you were expecting snow, but it turned out to be a 75-degree day, that is ironic.

Peruse:  If you think you perused that magazine in the grocery store by flipping through its pages, or you perused your notes seconds before that exam, you didn’t. Perusing doesn’t mean to skim through a text, although that’s how most people use the word. It actually means, “To read something carefully and closely.”

Instant:  Thanks to instant coffee, instant pudding, instant oatmeal, and instant rice, you probably think the word instant means faster than fast. You’d be wrong about that. Instant means a specific moment in time so short that you cannot measure it in any way. It is a nanosecond frozen in time, such as a photograph.  Therefore, it is definitely shorter than the time it takes to make pudding.

Enormity:  Just because a word sounds like another word doesn’t mean they also mean the same thing. Enormity doesn’t mean enormous, even though they look the same. Enormity means a great evil or immoral act.  So, when you refer to the “enormity of it all,” you’re not citing its size, but its immense evil character.

Decimate:  If you think you decimated your friend in the game of Battleship, you would only be right if you destroyed just 10 percent of their ships. When you wipe out their entire fleet, you obliterate or exterminate. It’s a cool sounding word, but it only means 90% of what most people think it means.

Fortuitous:  This is another one of those sneaky words that sounds a little like another word.  In this case, “fortune.”  Instead of meaning gaining something by being in the right place at the right time, fortuitous means by pure chance. Word to the wise, something can be fortuitous and also be bad.  Running into your boss at a shopping mall when you called in sick that day might feel unlucky, but it by percentages of chance it was also fortuitous.

Plethora:  Thinking of that huge bowl filled with three full bags of Cool Ranch Doritos Chips as a plethora is right, but not because you have so much. Having a plethora of those delicious snack chips means that you have an excessive amount over and above what one person actually needs to eat.

Bemused:  Another word that traps people because it sounds like something else. Bemused doesn’t mean something that amuses you, even though both are nearly identical in appearance. Being bemused means, something puzzles or confuses you. You’re only bemused by a comedian if you don’t get his or her jokes.

Literally:  Like the word “ironic,” literally is a word misused by a lot of people. Using the word as an emphasis in a sentence is not correct unless what you are saying actually happened.  For instance, telling your friends that you laughed so hard you literally fell out of your chair is only embarrassing if you actually did fall.

Irregardless:  Irregardless doesn’t have an alternative definition because it doesn’t exist. It’s not an actual word. What you meant to say was, regardless. The two aren’t interchangeable because only one is found in the English language dictionary. To say, irregardless only proves that you really don’t know the English language very well, regardless of your claims.

Disinterested:  If something bores you or doesn’t keep your attention, you are uninterested. But when you are impartial, or you simply don’t care about a subject, then you are disinterested. On a blind date, you might be uninterested when he talks about his Lego collection, but you might be disinterested if one of your friends thinks he’s cute, especially if he’s already gone on and on about the Lego set.

Redundant:  This is one of those tricky words that we can easily get wrong. Redundant doesn’t mean repetitive. When something is redundant, it means you’ve already made that statement in another way earlier in the text. When it’s repetitive, you’re repeating yourself using the same words.

Misappropriately: As used when saying that someone acted misappropriately. There is no such word.  The actual term is acting inappropriately. To appropriate means to set apart for a specific use.  When that is done, then it is used appropriately. However, to take that which was set apart for a specific use and use it for something else is to misappropriate. We can see then how this word was coined.

So, it does count when we chose our words wisely. It often shows that not only do we know what we want to say, but we can essentially say what we know in a clear and precise way. Today we hear politicians use the phrase “misspoke.” It actually means to speak inaccurately, inappropriately, or too hastily. But in fact, they use it to cover up what they actually said that got them into trouble or brought them embarrassment. One thing for sure, never use it as an excuse with God, He knows every language because at the Tower of Babel He issued languages. He is, without doubt, our Divine Dictionary. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAGANS WEREN’T SO DUMB AFTER ALL

So often, we think of the Ten Commandments given to Moses around 1400 B.C. as the beginning of God’s involvement in teaching mankind how to live according to His edicts.  However, in a document called “The Babylonian Counsels of Wisdom,” which consisted of oral laws finally written down around 100 years earlier, we find some ancient teachings that serve as an example of the wisdom of the ages that preceded the writings of the Old Testament.  It is highly thought that these teachings were actually the “Instructions of Shuruppak,” which was an ancient Sumerian city situated about 35 miles south of Nippur on the banks of the Euphrates River at the site of modern Tel Fara in Iraq‘s Al-Qādisiyyah Governorate. This is the land where Abraham came from. These teachings include:

► Every day worship your god.

► Sacrifice and benediction are the proper accompaniment of incense burning.

► Present your free-will offering to your god, for this is proper toward the gods.

► Prayer, supplication, is done while prostrated.

► Bring Him a daily offering, and your reward will result in having full communion with your god.

► In your wisdom study, the tablet.

► Reverence begets favor, sacrifice prolongs life, and prayer atones for guilt.

► Do not utter libel, speak what is of good report.

► Do not say evil things, speak well of people.

► One who utters libel and speaks evil, men will confront him about his debit account to god.

► Beware of careless talk, guard your lips; do not utter solemn oaths while alone, for what you say in a moment will follow you afterward.

► Exert yourself to restrain your speech.

Other essential teachings in this codex are:

■   Avoidance of bad companions.

■   Improper speech.

■   Avoidance of altercations and pacification of enemies.

■   Kindness to those in need.

■   The duties and benefits of religious faith.

■   Inappropriate deception of friends.

The first question some people ask is whether or not the Law of Moses was a replication of these earlier codes and standards of conduct. The answer is no for two reasons: First, some of these virtues were given to Noah who passed them on to his generation and then on to their generations.[1] And second, there are no references to their having no other god before the Living God. That everything that follows is subject to God for judgment. Furthermore, the previous laws and codes were meant to teach people moral consciousness in order to save themselves from man’s punishment. But God’s Law was intended to show people how sinful they were and their need for someone to save them from God’s punishment.

Isn’t it sad that an ancient culture that some would call pagan had a better grasp of ethics and virtues than many modern-day societies that are called civilized?  That’s why the role of Christianity is becoming more and more critical and vital as a light of consciousness and conviction in today’s world. There is nothing about being old-fashioned in our attitudes and virtues that anyone should be ashamed of. Especially when we find their origin to be the Word of God, not some recent psychological or social conclusion. Don’t be ashamed to tell anyone who questions your righteous and holy standard of living, calling it out-of-date. Just tell them that they are based on God’s Word, and since your living God is not obsolete, neither are His rules – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1] Genesis 9:4-7

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson XXXV)

Wake up, you dunderhead Galatians! says Paul, nothing is more certain than this, salvation is a gift; God gave it freely, how can you now say it must be earned?  How can you make an altar call inviting sinners to come forward to receive the free gift of salvation through God’s generosity called “grace,” and then tell them they must prove themselves worthy of keeping such a gift by working for it to pay God back?  Believe it or not, just like the Judaizers in Paul’s day who demanded that the Gentile believers adopt the Jewish ceremonial laws and observe their religious rituals in order to qualify as members God’s spiritual family, there are cults and denominations today that require membership and obedience in order for them to guarantee God’s promise of eternal life.

I remember reading this illustration some years ago in a book by Stephen Covey: A wife found out that her husband was seeing another woman and confronted him. He confessed his unfaithfulness and asked her forgiveness. She wrote down a list of things she wanted him to do and promised that after he finished all of them, she would forgive him. The husband took the list and worked diligently to complete every task to perfection. When he finished the last required chore, he took the list to his wife and asked her to check everything out. She went over the list and inspected the evidence and handed the list back to him and said, “Okay, you’re forgiven.” The husband immediately tore up the list, and as he walked toward the front door said, “I don’t need for you to give me your forgiveness, I earned it!”

God created mankind in His image, but mankind became unfaithful. God does not say to people when they came to ask forgiveness, here’s a list of things I want you to do to prove yourself worthy of my forgiveness. Go do this and then come back and maybe I’ll forgive you. No, God loved the world so much that He gave His Son in order to freely offer forgiveness. When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, He did not give her a list of things to do in order to be forgiven. No, He told her she was already forgiven; now go with that assurance and don’t do this anymore.

So, it perplexes Paul as to why the Judaizers insist on earned forgiveness. If the Judaizers quote Moses; Paul quotes Abraham. If they quote Mosaic Law; he quotes God’s promise to Abraham. If they appeal to centuries of tradition and the proud history of Mosaic Law, he will appeal to the greater covenant with Abraham that’s centuries older. Mosaic Law appeals to human righteousness, the covenant appeals to God’s righteousness. Mosaic Law thunders “Do this! Do that!” God’s Grace pleads, “Receive this!  Receive that!”

Early church scholar Ambrosiaster gives an interesting insight into this dichotomy between Grace and Law when it came justification in standing right before God. He says that the Jews maintain two opposing doctrines. They insisted that in no way and by no argument can they be persuaded that the promise to Abraham was rendered void by the Law, and they are right. But in their shortsightedness, they maintain another contrary principle, thinking that justification could not come by Grace without the practice of the Law. They knew that Abraham, who is a type of justification, was justified through faith alone, without the practice of the Law. The heirs to the promise of Abraham are, therefore, those who are his successors in the adoption of the faith by which Abraham was blessed and justified. The testimony of the promise to Abraham is, therefore, called a covenant to signify that after His death there would be heirs to the promise who were made children of Abraham by Grace through faith.[1]

Matthew Henry follows up what he said about Paul’s intentions in verse one where he admonished the Galatians for not obeying the truth and endeavored to impress upon them how foolish they were being in turning to the rites, rituals, and regulations of the Law. Here, beginning in verses six through eighteen, he explains the doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the Law. This he does several ways.

Paul begins by using Abraham as an example of being found right in God’s eyes because of his faith, not his works. Yes, there were works, but works of faith not obligations to any law. Then Paul shows the Galatians why faith in the Gospel needs no help from precepts of the Law. The reason they were once lost was because of the Law, and the reason they were saved is because of the Gospel. In other words, the Gospel does what the Law cannot do. So why go back to the Law? And since there was no Final Covenant yet written for Paul to use, he uses the First Covenant and the Prophets to make his point.

This proved that the Gospel was not some new philosophy, but the fulfillment of all that the Law promised but could not produce.  All of this was to prove to the Galatians that God did not abandon His promises to Abraham or annul the Law given to Moses. Rather, to complete them in Jesus the Messiah. So why in heaven’s name were they forsaking Jesus in order to go back and cling to Abraham and Moses?[2] So we might ask ourselves today, why have so many who call themselves Christians still insist on practicing the rites, rituals, regulations of the Church in place of finding all of that taken care of by Jesus the one they worship and call their Lord and Savior? The church cannot save a person any more than the Law could save. It is faith in the Messiah, not faith in the Church, that God sees as a reason for anyone to be right in His eyes and qualified for full salvation.

3:19 So I ask you then, why was Mosaic Law given at all? I’ll tell you; it was given to help people learn what sin was. However, it was only destined to last until the child was born for whom the promise was given. Meanwhile, since Moses was the appointed mediator between God and His people, God arranged for angels to deliver His Law to Moses.

As Paul dictates this letter, he may be thinking they will certainly ask, does accepting God’s promise to Abraham eliminate any need of their obedience to the Law given to Moses? In other words, are believers in the Anointed One now lawless Christians? And, once you accept Jesus the Anointed One as your Savior, you need not worry about doing anything wrong because there are no laws to break; does that mean that once you’re saved you’re always saved; once in grace, always in grace; do you go from eternal insecurity under Mosaic Law, to eternal security under grace? Those are good questions that need to be answered.

The whole point the Apostle Paul is trying to get the Galatians to see is that while the Law was given to point the way to get to heaven, it could not get you to heaven. In the same manner, just listening to Jesus would not get you to heaven unless you begin to follow Him. When Jesus told the story of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man, both ended up in Hades but on opposite sides of a great divide. Since the rich man could get no relief from the tormenting flames, he begged Abraham to send someone to tell his brothers to change their ways so they would not wind up on his side of Hades but on the side where Lazarus was. But Abraham told him, if they are not willing to listen to what Moses and the early prophets said, they won’t listen to what anyone else says, even if that someone comes back from the dead to tell them.[3] It was Abraham’s way of saying that his brothers already received all the information they needed to get to the right place in paradise. But they haven’t listened so far, so what made the rich man think they would listen to anyone else.

Jesus certainly knew what He was talking about. After healing the crippled man at the Pool of Bethesda near one of Jerusalem’s gates, all He got was criticism from religious leaders because He healed the man on the Sabbath. But they would not listen to the healed man’s testimony nor Jesus’ explanation. When they wanted to know who gave Him the authority to do these things, they were shocked when He pointed toward heaven and said, “My Father sent me to do this.” And since they wouldn’t listen to Him, He was not surprised they didn’t listen to John the Baptizer either. John the Baptist was a burning and shining light. For a while they tolerated him, but his light was extinguished by King Herod. They were willing for a short while to be glad in this light.

Now, says Jesus, I’m giving you something greater than what John the Baptizer preached. I am doing the works my Father gave Me to do and they prove that the Father sent Me. But what did they know about His coming? They never heard His voice. But, says Paul, they didn’t recognize Him. They didn’t allow His Word to live in their hearts because they did not put your trust in the One who sent Him. In fact, Jesus said: You read the Holy Scriptures and that’s fine, but you mistakenly think that just by reading them you will receive eternal life. Those very same Scriptures tell about Me, said, Jesus. But you do not want to come to Me so you might enjoy life. No! I know all about you and there is no love of God in your hearts. I came in the name of My Father. You do not receive Me. But if another person were to come claiming to be the Messiah, will you receive him?

Then Jesus goes on to tell them that they were too busy trying to build a reputation that will cause others to look at you as being someone great. In fact, you love patting each other on the back and giving each other awards. You show no interest in receiving the honor that comes from the only true God. Do not think that I like telling My Father you are guilty? No! Moses already declared that you are guilty through the Law, the very one you trusted in to get you God’s approval. If you believed what Moses told you, you would believe Me. For Moses wrote about Me. So, if you don’t believe what he said, how could I expect you to believe what I say?[4]

[1] Edwards, M. J. (Ed.). On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 45

[2] Matthew Henry: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Luke 16;31

[4] John 5:1-47

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson XXXIV)

As mentioned earlier in comments on verse fifteen, Martin Luther uses an illustration to make his point here on becoming a joint-heir with the Anointed One by faith, not by works. He tells of a very wealthy landowner who adopts a young lad he did not know as his son. Keep in mind, he does not owe this to the boy. After some time, he appoints the young fellow as heir to his entire fortune. Several years later, the old man asks the lad to do something for him. And the young man does it. Now, can that adopted son then go around and bragging that he deserved the inheritance by doing what the old man asked him to do? Absolutely not! Therefore, how can anybody say that righteousness is obtained by obedience to the Law when the Law was given four hundred and thirty years after God’s promise of the blessings to Abraham and to all the world through his descendants?[1] In other words, doing good things for our Heavenly Father who adopted us is done out of thankfulness and gratitude, not to pressure Him to share His wealth with us.

Adam Clarke reveals an interesting idea in order to gain insight from a different angle into what Paul is saying here. Instead of reading verse seventeen this way, “…the covenant that was confirmed before of God in the Anointed One” (KJV) could be read as, “…the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christians.” Clarke explains that the promise of justification was made to believers in union with the Anointed One Jesus, who are the spiritual seed of the Anointed One, just as they are children of Abraham by the similarities of their faith. Abraham believed in God, and it was credited to him for justification; the Gentiles believed in the Anointed One and received the same justification.

Therefore, by using the word “Christian” instead of the Anointed One seems natural because you can’t possess one without the other. The promise of salvation must necessarily be to them who believe in the Anointed One, for He is the promised seed,[2] through whom every blessing is received; and through His spiritual seed – true Christians, the victories won by the cross are daily spreading over the face of the earth. The present unparalleled distribution of the sacred scriptures, in all the known languages of the universe, is full proof that all the nations of the earth will be blessed through them, if nothing gets added or taken away from that received from the Holy Spirit through the Anointed One.[3]

John Brown (1784-1858) points out that the word “covenant” used here in verse fifteen, and in other places, must not always be understood based solely upon its English meaning. He points out that making a covenant in his day meant “coming to an agreement” or “the result of bargaining” for the moment. That’s how it is used here in verse fifteen. But that’s not how we should take it throughout the Scriptures, either in the First Covenant or Final Covenant. He suggests that we understand the Greek noun diathēkē that is translated as “covenant,” meaning to “agree to make a compact or settlement” that cannot be altered or changed either by the signers or their descendants. That is the way it is used here in verse seventeen.[4]

By Paul saying that the covenant that was made between God and Abraham, and confirmed as valid before God in the Anointed One, Walter Adeney (1849-1920) believes we should understand that this means the covenant of grace was meant to be eternal. It goes without saying that once a truth is proven to be true, it will remain true for eternity. For instance, the theory of gravity is a proven fact, and that will remain so forever. Gravity was even detected on the moon and planet Mars. In like manner, a declaration of God will be eternal. God is not always changing His mind like an unstable, unpredictable tyrant. He is changelessness itself. What He wills now He wills forever. Also, a pledge of God’s honor is eternal. It is an infinite condescension of love and mercy in recognition of our weakness that God makes such a promise. We ought to be able to rely on His love and goodness alone. But since He mercifully came down to earth in order to encourage us in our poor faith by promise and pledge. Once this is realized, we all can appreciate His blessed assurance to us of His changeless grace.[5]

3:18 Can following the Law give us the blessing God promised? If we could receive it by following the Law, then it would not be God’s promise that brings it to us. But God freely gave His blessings to Abraham through the promise He made.

The Complete Jewish Bible renders this verse as follows: “For if the inheritance could come from the legal part of the Torah, it no longer comes from a promise.” In other words, as a son, if your father promised you a car when you graduated from High School or College, why go out and try to buy one on credit? If your dad was known for keeping his promises, then buying a car with your own money would make his promise unnecessary. So, when graduation day came, your father might say to you, looks like I don’t need to give you a car, you already own one. As a consequence, he gives it to your sister. Now she’s driving a car even nicer than yours and does not owe a dime since it was a gift. Meanwhile, you are trying your best to keep your car payments up to date, and it seems to get harder and harder every month.

In the same way, everything God gave to Abraham came by way of a promise. Now, if God could predict to Abram how many years Jacob and his sons and daughters and their sons and daughters would end up in Egypt 190-200 years ahead of time, don’t you think that when the Israelites were told that this happened just the way God said it would, that they could trust Him to be accurate in every prediction? The same with the coming of the Messiah. That’s why Paul uses this promise to Abraham to tell the Romans that Abraham was given a promise because he trusted in God. In like manner, God’s promise is given to us because we put our trust in Him. We can be sure of it. It is because of His loving-favor to us. It is for all the family of Abraham. It is for those who put their trust in God, as Abraham did. In this way, Abraham is the father of all believers, Jews, and Gentiles.[6] Therefore, as God’s children, we will receive everything He promised. We will share with the Anointed One all the things God gave to Him. But we must share His suffering if we are to share His shining-greatness.[7] So why would the Galatians give all this up on the speculation that maybe they were fully qualified by obeying the Anointed One, and this could happen by adding obedience to the Law?

So, when the Psalmist said, O children of His servant Abraham, O sons of Jacob, His chosen ones! He is the Lord our God. He decides what is for everyone on earth, that literally is a message to all of Israel, and spiritually to all who come to believe in the Anointed One.[8] And toward the end of the First Covenant period, the prophet Micah extolled God by asking, Who is a God like You, Who forgives sin and the wrong-doing of Your chosen people who are left? You will be true to Jacob and show loving-kindness to Abraham, as You promised our fathers in days long ago.[9] If God was willing to keep a promise to the children of Israel just because of Abraham’s obedience, wouldn’t He be just as likely to keep His promise to all believers because of Jesus’ obedience? So why should the Galatians go back to leaning on the promise God gave to Abraham when they already leaned on the promise God made to His Son. Was Abraham more important to God, or was Jesus? The point is, that everything God promised to Abraham was now available only through His Son.

To show how the Jews apparently understood all of this, Rabbi Avraham Saba comments on what he sees in Genesis 12:2-3. He notes the three promises of God to Abram: I will make you a great nation; I will bring blessings to you; and, I will make your name great, so you will be a blessing to others. For Rabbi Saba, all three of these promises depended upon three demands God required Abram to do in verse one: Leave your homeland; leave your father’s house and relatives and go to the land I will show you. That makes sense, for why would God promise Abram all these honorable things if Abram did nothing to show he deserved them? Rabbi Saba says these promises were an encouragement for Abram to move from where he was well-known as part of a prominent family, to a place where he would be treated as a stranger and be socially isolated from those already living there. But, not to fear, he would overcome all of that to be the founder of a great nation, with riches and an international reputation.[10]

While all of this seems logical, there is one thing that Paul knew that the Judaizers and misled Galatians were missing. All that God promised Abram appears to be a reward, something earned, and something Abram worked hard for, even suffered for. Paul is saying that what God planned to do for Abram was a gift. It wouldn’t be done only after Abram proved himself worthy. Abram took these promises as a gift when he willingly did what God asked him to do.

So again, how could these Judaizers ever convinced any Galatian that God would annul His last will and testament with Abraham, by requiring a new set of laws written that did not alter or change His promise to Abraham in the first place, nor have anything to do with it in the future? That’s ridiculous! Who would believe that? No wonder he calls the Galatians who believed such nonsense, bewitched fools.

Paul sees some light at the end of the tunnel, however, and summarizes what he was attempting to say all along.  His comparison of our inheritance coming by way of a promise instead of by way of the Mosaic Law reaches its conclusion.  How can you make someone a promise and then tell them they have to earn it?  After all, God’s plan of salvation through the Anointed One is received by grace, not by one’s own efforts; therefore, these two can never be made to reconcile and coexist together.  If by grace, God made a promise of eternal life, then those under Mosaic Law cannot demand it.

On the other hand, if it can be acquired by following Mosaic Law, then it is no longer a promise given by grace.  The bottom line here is either you trust God to keep His promise that He took out and paid for an eternal life insurance policy on you, or you don’t!  If you don’t, then try to buy it by making daily payments keeping all the rituals and regulations under Mosaic Law.  But Paul is the bearer of bad news for you, that eternal death insurance company called “God’s Law,” went out of business over 2,000 years ago. In its place, we now have the eternal life insurance company called “God’s Grace.”

[1] Martin Luther: On Galatians, op. cit., loc, cit., p. 79

[2] Genesis 3:15

[3] Adam Clarke: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[4] John Brown: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 140-141

[5] Walter Adeney: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[6] Romans 4:16

[7] Ibid. 8:17

[8] Psalm 105:6

[9] Micah 7:18, 20

[10] Tzror Hamor: op. cit., Vol. 1, Genesis 12:2, p. 182

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson XXXIII)

In George W. Clark’s (1831-1911) comments here on verse sixteen, when delineating between the use of the Hebrew noun zera` as a single seed or multiple seeds, in light of Paul’s definition of the Greek noun sperma (“seed”) as meaning “seed” not “seeds.” From what Rendall says, we might see this word used to denote the many “seeds” taken from an apple or orange, or we can envision it as referring to the one “seed” we take from a peach or prune. Yes, this promise of God to Abraham of inheriting the Land of Canaan was intended for all his “seeds” through Isaac, but among all those seeds there would be one “seed” to whom this promise would go to Him and from then on only those “seeds” found in Him would be considered the children of God, and that includes those seeds from Abraham.[1]

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) makes a good point when in one of his sermons he said: Knowing what we need, the next business is to find out if the Lord promised us this particular blessing, for then we can go to God with the utmost confidence, and look for the fulfillment of His word. For this very purpose, we should diligently search the Scriptures, looking for cases involving other believers who are like ourselves and endeavoring to find that particular gift by divine grace, which is suitable to ourselves in our present circumstances. The more exact the agreement of the promise to the need, the greater the assurance it will yield. In this school, the believer will learn the value of complete verbal inspiration; for in their own instance, they may have to dwell upon so slight a matter as a plural or singular noun, as Paul did when quoting the promise made to Abraham here in verse sixteen.[2]

Augustus H. Strong (1836-1921), touches on the Final Covenant writers in their use of the phrase, “It is written,” or, “the Scriptures says,” or, “does not say,” as Paul does here in verse sixteen. For Strong, the adoption of Jewish methods of reasoning would not indicate an error on the part of the Scripture writers, but rather an acceptance of the method as applied to that particular case. Here it is convincingly suggested that the very form of the expression found in Genesis 22:18, which denotes unity, was selected by the Holy Spirit as significant of one person, the Anointed One, who was the true seed of Abraham and in whom all nations were to be blessed. So, Paul basing his argument on the form of a single word, in this case, is correct, although the Rabbis often put more emphasis on singular nouns than the Holy Spirit ever intended.[3]

English clergyman Cyril W. Emmet (1875-1924), shares an interesting thought concerning Paul’s idea of God’s covenant, or last will and testament, with Abraham in verse fifteen. When the Apostle says in verse seventeen that the covenant was confirmed by God in the Anointed One, it is another way of saying that the death of the testator stands confirmed. But here’s the problem, God is the testator, and He does not die. The covenant stated that all God promised Abraham and his descendants would be given to them if that happened. However, Paul says the promise was not to everyone, but to just one, the Promised Seed. So, it was then that Promised Seed, the Messiah, who was the heir of the promise would die, then it would include all those who became the spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham through Him that would become heirs and joint-heirs of the promise. This could never happen if the Promised heir did not come to earth and died to make that possible.[4] However, keep in mind, the human part of the Anointed One died and was put into the tomb, but the divine part came out alive.

Grant Osborne makes an important point here in verse sixteen. The emphasis in this verse is the seed of Abraham. The phrase “Abraham and his seed” stems from Genesis 13:15; 15:18; and 17:8, where the Promise Land guarantees can be found. In Genesis, the “seed” is a collective singular noun referring to Abraham’s innumerable offspring, but Paul uses rabbinic logic to argue that “seed” is a singular noun. Such an argument was fairly common in Jewish interpretation. This prepares Paul’s readers for 3:29 (“If you belong to the Anointed One, then you are Abraham’s seed”). It was common in Judaism to refer to the Messiah as “the seed of David”[5], so Paul is using common Jewish forms of Scriptural interpretation to make his point that all of the Abrahamic promises are fulfilled in the Anointed One.

Osborne also points out that Paul, more than once, spoke of the promises God made in His covenant with Abraham. But here in 3:2–5, 14 it was the Spirit who was the promise of the Abrahamic covenant; his point here focuses on the primary commitment, namely the gift of the Anointed One. Multiple promises flowed from the Abrahamic covenant: innumerable descendants that would become a great nation, the inheritance of the land, and the blessing of the Gentiles. All the nations were intended to share in those blessings, but they were especially given to “Abraham’s seed.” When linked with verse fifteen above, the emphasis is on the irrevocable nature of these promises. The covenant God made is guaranteeing these blessings, and they will not be revoked. The one making and fulfilling the promise is the God who never changes, and so the promise is connected to faith in God rather than to human works.

To sum it up, Osborne says that the main point made in this verse is that all of these promises to Abraham were fulfilled in Jesus the Anointed One and channeled through Him to those who by faith are united “in the Anointed One” and thus became the new seed of Abraham. Several interpreters noted that this sums up the basic narrative of Scripture itself: The promises to Abraham resound throughout the history of Israel, from the patriarchs to Moses to David and the prophets, as the successive stages of the people of God remain an integral part of Abraham’s family and the divine promises for his seed. These all narrow down to the seed of David, as fulfilled in the son of David. Jesus is both the son of Abraham and the son of David, the “seed” in whom, as the Son of God, all the promises are realized in the spiritual family of God – the Church[6]

Andrew G. Roth also shares some insight on Paul’s wording here in verse sixteen. In a stunning bit of Aramaic cleverness, Paul here actually lines up two Aramaic (words in a row, aytmelekh, and molkana, (Combined in Greek as epaggelia – “promises” – KJV) that both mean “promise.” This double meaning lines up in a way that heightens the intensity, much in the way we might say in English, “he was a man’s man.” Here we see something more like, “and we have a promise on top of a promise.” There is also another wordplay in that both words also contain the root of the word “king” in them.[7]

3:17 Here is what I am trying to say: The contract God made with Abraham could not be arbitrarily canceled 430 years later when God gave Moses the Law. Had God done so, He would have broken His promise.

The covenant, pledge, agreement, and alliance Paul is talking about here is the one mentioned in the Torah.[8] And centuries later, when Zacharias, the father of John the Baptizer, rejoiced over the birth of his son, in his song of thanksgiving, he mentioned this same covenant as though it was signed only yesterday.[9] And later, Jesus confirmed this agreement with Abraham and said it was about Him.[10] We can see in the Hebrew noun bĕriyth that is translated as “covenant” (KJV) in Genesis 15:18 that it means something “between two people.” It is illustrated earlier in that same chapter by what God told Abraham to do before the covenant was made. After it got dark, a burning pot with smoke billowing up from it passed between these parts of animals. The Lord then made an agreement with Abram on that day.[11]

So just as the Lord’s presence that looked like a smoldering pot filled with smoke passed between the halves of the animals, God was saying that one side represented Abram’s sacrifice and the other side God’s sacrifice. Later we know, that this was reenacted when God told Abram to take his only son and sacrifice him on Mount Moriah, where the Temple would one day stand, to prove his obedience to God’s will, so it was that God sent His only Son to be sacrificed on Mount Calvary, where the cross would be planted, to show His obedience to God’s will. Why not let both be sacrificed on the same hill? Because Jesus’ sacrifice was not a replication of Isaac’s sacrifice. Rather, Isaac’s sacrifice was a prefigure of the future crucifixion of the Anointed One. Isaac did not die, but Jesus did. In Isaac’s case, the blood of a ram was substituted for Isaac’s blood, but it did not possess the power to forgive, only to make amends. But the blood of the Lamb of God was shed, and the power in that blood was strong enough to forgive all sins. The Law was the governing factor in the blood of the ram, but Grace is the governing factor in the blood of the Lamb.

Furthermore, a myriad of debates existed between Jews and other Jews, Jews and Christians, Christians, and other Christians about how to account for the 430 years mentioned here in verse sixteen. For instance, Rabbi Abraham Zacuto (1452-1514) compiled from numerous different sources their efforts to try and account for these 430 years mentioned by God to Abram.[12] Some try to reckon it from the birth of certain prestigious Israelite leaders, and others add up all the generations and then subtract some to arrive at the 430-year mark. Well-known Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who lived in Israel during the time of the Anointed One, offered his equation: The Children of Israel left Egypt in the month Xanthippe,[13] on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after their forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but only two hundred and fifteen years after Jacob moved into Egypt. It was the eightieth year of the age of Moses, and of that of Aaron plus three more. They also carried out the bones of Joseph with them, as he charged his sons to do.[14]

Likewise, it is safe to say that from the time of Jesus’ ascension into heaven, generation after generation has vainly tried to predict His promised return. Just during my lifetime, Rudolf Steiner predicted our Lord’s return between 1930-1939; Herbert W. Armstrong said it would happen in 1935, then in 1943, then in 1972, and then in 1976; Benjamin Crème placed the Lord’s return on June 21, 1982; Edgar C. Whisenant in 1988; Harold Camping on September 6, 1994; Jerry Falwell said between 1999-2009; Ed Dobson and Timothy Dwight IV predicted it in the year 2000, and James Harmston said it would occur on June 6, 2000. Then, Harold Camping jumped in again with a prophecy of March 21, 2011, then changed it to October 21, 2011. Ronald Weinland put the date at September 29, 2011, then May 27, 2012, and then May 18, 2013. Jack Van Impe 2012; Mark Biltz September 28, 2015; and Ronald Weinland again June 9, 2019. As Jesus said, “only the Father knows,” because with Him time does not exist.

[1] George W. Clark: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 87

[2] Charles Spurgeon: According to Promise, Sermon “Searching out the Promise”

[3] August H. Strong: Systematic Theology, Vol. 1,  Part 3, Ch. 3, Objections to the Doctrine of Inspiration, pp. 425-426

[4] Cyril W. Emmet: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 33

[5] 2 Samuel 7:12

[6] Osborne, G. R. On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 99–100

[7] Andrew G. Roth: Aramaic Translation, op. cit., loc. cit.

[8] Genesis 15:18. See 17:7-8, 19

[9] Luke 1:72

[10] John 8:56-58

[11] Genesis 15:9-18

[12] Zacuto (1452-1514), Abraham b. Samuel. The Book of Lineage (pp. 33-35). Zacuto Foundation. Kindle Edition.

[13] Xanthicus is the name of the sixth month of the Macedonian calendar of the Seleucid Syrians. It corresponds with Nisan in the Jewish calendar or April in the Gregorian calendar. See 2 Maccabees 11:30, 33, 38

[14] Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Bk. 2, Ch. 15, sect. 2

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson XXXII)

If you are a serious Bible student and read various commentaries, you’ll know that Paul’s argument is subject to many tests of interpretation and clarification. But keep this thought in mind. Abraham fathered two sons, but the promise only went through Isaac, not Ishmael. Isaac fathered two sons, but the promise only went through Jacob, not Esau. Jacob fathered twelve sons, but Judah was chosen as the tribe to produce the promised Seed. Paul wanted to make the point that in the past, God focused on individuals to ensure His promise to Abraham stayed alive. Therefore, when you read the genealogy of Jesus listed in Matthew, Chapter one, you can see how, out of many, the spiritual Seed of Abraham, through whom the promise would be fulfilled, is Jesus of Nazareth the Anointed One.  And now, Jesus’ spiritual brothers and sisters are being sent out as spiritual lights and sanctified salt into the world; so that through them the faithfulness of Abraham and the faithfulness of the Anointed One, all the nations of the earth are blessed.

Paul might want this question asked today of you and other Christians you may know: did you save yourselves? Did you die on the cross for your own salvation? Was it your blood that was shed for the cleansing of your own sin? Did God appoint you as your own savior?  No! No! No! No! God said, I will send you a Savior, and you must believe that He fulfilled all My requirements in Mosaic Law. So, by accepting His work on your behalf, I will save you from certain annihilation. And since the Anointed One is the Seed spoken of by God to Abraham, then how can the Judaizers claim the promises for themselves only or those Gentiles who become like them. Does this still sound complicated? It appears the Apostle Paul thought so himself, so he’s trying once again to make this clear to the Galatians.

We don’t know how much influence Greek thinking impacted Jewish thought, but we find a similar topic being discussed in one of Plato’s Dialogues entitled “Euthyphro.”  Socrates and Euthyphro are having an argument over the virtue of being devoted. In the dialogue, we find this exchange: SOCRATES: “I want you to tell me what part living right or dedication play in justice, so I can tell Meletus not to do me an injustice, or indict me for not being a good enough person. In the past, you gave me such great instructions on the nature of living right and dedication, and their opposites.” EUTHYPHRO: “Living right or dedication…hum? Socrates, the way I see it, there is a part of justice which applies to what the gods require, as there is the other part of justice that applies to what men require.” So even the Greeks believed in good works to please their gods so that their gods would do something to please them.

How acquainted Paul was of these writings can only be judged by the fact that he grew up and was educated in an area of the world where Greek writings were often debated and discussed. Paul finds himself in a similar argument with the Judaizers. They felt that dedication was the good deeds on man’s part that pleased God, which He then equated to them as righteousness and thereby justified their salvation. But Paul tries to get them to see that it was the good work the Anointed One did on the cross that pleased God, which God then equated to Him as righteousness and thereby would justify salvation to any who believed in Him.

So, Paul wonders why the Judaizers were willing to take what God accepts as the only thing worthy of salvation and amend it with something that only leads to extinction and force it on the Gentiles?  If you really want to please God then accept those, He chose through Abraham, to be equal with you in His sight.  Don’t make them feel inferior by telling them to add these acts of dedication in religious rituals and regulations so they will be on your level.

Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428 AD) notes that the words “and to his offspring” are found to be strictly fulfilled in the Anointed One in the clearest sense, since He is Abraham’s offspring by nature, as are all those who derive their stock from that source. We who believe in Him are, therefore, enrolled as spiritual children of Abraham and thereby receive His fellowship in the blessing. The result is that what appears to be said to one can, in fact, be understood as belonging to many, insofar as all who derive from that source through the Anointed One are spiritual children of Abraham. This promise is completely fulfilled in the Anointed One in the light of actual events.[1]

Then Theodoret of Cyrus (393-466 AD) makes a good point here on how a contract cannot be changed by just one signee, both must agree to any changes. And that’s why God’s promise to Abraham is called a “Covenant.” Therefore, it too cannot permit any additions, subtractions or erasures through the imposition of the Mosaic Law since God’s promise was given a long time before the Law arrived. Now the promise was that the God of all would bless the nations through the promised offspring of Abraham. And this promised offspring is the Anointed One the Lord since the promise found its destination in Him through the cross and His resurrection. But all the others, such as Moses, Samuel, Elijah, and, in a word, all who traced their descent from Israel, were called his offspring according to nature, but this genetic fact is not what brought the fountain of blessings to the nations. The fact even those who trace their race to Abraham does not mean that they are rightly called his offspring. But the Anointed One does give the privilege to all those who believe in Him as the promised son of Abraham, the Messiah. Only through Him, the Promised One will God bestow His blessing on the nations.[2]

Reformer John Calvin wonders why the Israelites did not see the obvious truth about the Anointed One in their own Scriptures. As Calvin sees it, God never offered grace and mercy and salvation and eternal life to His ancient people, nor did He give them any hope of grace without a Mediator. There is no reason to look for this in the myriad sacrifices made to Him because God required them so that His people were plainly and openly taught that salvation was not to be found anywhere but in the atonement which the Messiah alone could complete. That’s why the blessed and joyful state of the Church was always founded in the person of the Anointed One, the Lamb of God. That’s what Paul is driving at here in verse sixteen. For although God embraced all the descendants of Abraham in His covenant, yet Paul properly argues that Jesus the Anointed One was truly the Promised Seed in which all the nations of the earth were to be blessed with the knowledge of Him and His plan of salvation.

Although it is not expressed in very distinct terms in the Torah, it does, however, appear that it was common knowledge among the godly. For before a king was appointed over the Israelites, Hannah, the mother of Samuel, describing the happiness of the righteous, includes this in her prayer, “Adonai will strengthen His king and enhance the power of His anointed.”[3] And later on in that same chapter, God speaks to Hannah’s son, Samuel, and tells him, “I will raise up for myself a faithful priest who will do what I want and what I intend. I will make his family faithful, and he will serve in the presence of my anointed one forever.”[4] But here is why this verse is taken as a prelude to the coming of the Messiah. In the end, we read these words that this Anointed One would serve, “forever.”

And Calvin also thinks that this anointed one would be King David, a man after God’s own heart. But what about serving God forever? This is found in God’s promise that all future kings of Judah would come from the line of David. That’s why it was so important that Jesus could trace his lineage back to King David. Calvin goes on to point out that because of this, the righteous were exhorted to reverence Him, and that they should “Kiss the Son.[5]” Corresponding to this is the passage in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus states that the Son can do nothing by Himself. He does what He sees the Father doing; in other words, He was sent to carry out His Father’s will, not His own. Then come these sobering words from the mouth of Jesus: “The Father does not say who is guilty. He gives this to the Son to do. He does this so that all people will honor the Son as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father Who sent Him.” So, this anointed one spoken of to Samuel was in the line of successors to King David, and that’s where it stops because the Anointed One will serve forever. It can’t get much clearer than that.[6]

Philip Schaff (1819-1893) feels that here in verse sixteen, Paul introduces a new idea that the covenant of promise was not made with Abram only, but with all of his descendants which centers in the coming of Messiah to finish what God started with Abram and extended with Moses. That means, some believed that the giving of the Law was the fulfillment of that covenant between God and Abram, that was only the second step in the process. God wanted to make sure that the convent could not be abolished by the Law. So, the keywords here are: Now to Abraham, and his seed were the promises made. Not to seeds, but to one Seed, and that Seed is Messiah, Jesus the Son of God.[7]

Therefore, the inheritance that God vowed to give His children through Abraham would have their own Promised Land. Of course, this referred to the land of Canaan. But in a deeper sense, it refers to the Kingdom of God as promised to the Seed – the Messiah. And, of course, those who become part of the kingdom are then joint-heirs with Him. That’s why, when Jesus left this earth to go back into heaven to be at the right hand of the Father, no doubt the disciples were sad to see Him go, but He left them with this Promise: There are many rooms in my Father’s house. I would not tell you this if it wasn’t true. I am going there to prepare a place for you. After I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back. Then I will take you with me so that you can be where I am.[8] It is with this same hope that we, to this day and those yet in the future, will close their eyes in peace as they await His return.

English clergyman Emilius Bayley (1823-1917), later known as Reverend Sir John Laurie, spoke on how the curse of the Law was finally removed. He illustrates it by noting that all are born under the Law, and are bound to observe it. But all have broken it, and their guilt remains. There is no question of mercy here. Law, viewed in and of itself, knows no mercy. It pronounces a person righteous only on condition of perfect obedience. The chain is severed, though only one link is broken. Bayley then points out that the telephone cable, which joined two continents together in his day, fails to convey the electric current if but a single flaw exists in it. Every other part may be perfect, but one fault mars the whole. So, it is with the Law. That’s why all are under condemnation.[9] Bayley then goes on to say that the Anointed One came to replace that missing link, and that severed part of the cable. His outstretched arms on the cross, connected them again so that all the Law required was fulfilled in Him and do what the Law could not do without Him, it was now capable of connecting lost mankind with God whose greatest desire was to save them and make eternal life their gift from Him.

[1] Theodore of Mopsuestia: On Galatians, op. cit., Edwards, M. J. (Ed.). p. 44

[2] Edwards, M. J. (Ed.). Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 44)..

[3] 1 Samuel 2:10 – Complete Jewish Bible

[4] Ibid. 2:35

[5] Psalm 2:12

[6] John Calvin, Institutes, Vol. 2, Ch. 6, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 360-361

[7] Philip Schaff: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 320

[8] John 14:2-3

[9] The Biblical Illustrator: op. cit., Vol. 48, (Kindle Location 7324)