WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
Okay, before we begin, I taught last week that it goes against a just God to have punished his own Son (or anyone, for that matter, for something he didn’t commit.
I suggested that Jesus was not guilty of sin nor was He sinful and therefore God could not have poured out his wrath on Him because in so doing he would have been unjust.
I suggested that in no way was Jesus sinful, but that he paid the penalty of our sin – and that he did so without becoming our sin, needing to repent, or having guilt.
Patrick asked the question, in light of one of Martin Luther’s quotes (which I refuted as true) which said that Jesus became the most vile sinner on the face of the earth.
It was also in the face of the passage here in Galatians 3 that says
Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
The question Patrick wanted to know was what then, does 2nd Corinthians 5:21 mean when Paul said:
“For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
There are some passages that orbit around the question and at and lend to the overall view we might walk away with once they are considered:
Isaiah 53:5-6 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
For us , for our, upon him, upon him. Not in him. On him.
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
1st Peter 2:22 doesn’t really speak to the question directly but it reminds us that Jesus . . . Peter says: “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
And then John wrote in 1st John 3:5:
“And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”
So what about this single passage that seems to suggest that “Jesus became sin.”
I consulted Greek expert Robertson who writes the following:
“Him who knew no sin (ton mê gnonta hamartian).”
Robertson adds
“(this is a . . .) “Definite claim by Paul that Jesus did not commit sin, nor had any personal acquaintance (mê gnonta, second aorist active participle of ginôskô) with it.”
So, “For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
The Line “He (God) made Him (Jesus) to be sin (hamartian epoiêsen) is improper – why
the words “to be” are NOT in the Greek.
“Sin” here is the substantive, not the verb. So the better way to read this is God “treated as sin” the one “who knew no sin.”
Add in to the mix that Hebrews 12:3 says:
“ . . . Consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.”
Which means Jesus “endured” the presence of sin placed upon him which was in CONTRADITION to himself – His sinless self, and I think I continue on my suggestions of last week.
Finally, 2nd Corinthians 5:21 in light of some of the other versions which we will read, I think Daveed’s point comes through because “made sin” verses “to be made a sinner”are two very different things.
For this reason the Oracle translation writes:
2Co 5:21 (Oracl) For he has made him, who knew no sin, a sin-offering for us; that we might become the justified of God, by him.
I think this is most consistent translation from the Greek and sings with the best harmony of the other passages that describe our Lord and the goodness and justice of our God.
So, we left off last week talking about how faith is not of the law and then at verse 14 Paul gave us the reason for Jesus giving Himself over to the cross was (verse 14)
“that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Let continue on with our text for today as Paul writes at verse 15 a somewhat difficult verse:
Galatians 3:16-19
April 28th 2019
Milk
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
I want to cover this verse before we move on.
When Paul says, “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men,” he is saying, “I am going to draw an illustration from what actually occurs among men – this is not heavenly – it is a simple illustration.” And he says:
When a contract or agreement is made by men involving obligations and promises, once it is established no one can add to it or take from it.
It will remain as it was originally made.
The point seems to be, “and if this is the way it is with men, so it is with God. He made a solemn promise to Abraham. That promise pertained to his posterity. A blessing was connected with that promise, and the basis for the promise was faith. Period.
Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness.
The Law came 400 years later. It cannot have a influence over this covenant made to Abraham, the father of the faith.
Again, since it was established through Abraham in this way, nothing could come along later and change it.
That includes the law. The factor was FAITH . . . Abraham believed and it was counted as Righteousness by God.
The Law could not come along 400 years later and God would then count adherence to it as righteousness. He already established that he would justify human beings by faith!
And so, in the face of His Son, justification continues to now come by and through faith.
Looking to Jesus – his birth, his life, his death, His resurrection and saying in the heart – I trust that what He did is sufficient to justify and reconcile me before the living God makes the faithful a child of Abraham.
I want to point something important out here – which is not very important to those who have received Christ by faith but it is nevertheless important when it comes to the Christian life of peace.
The battle many Meanvangelicals make against Mormons and others is often based on Ontology (or make up) of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit.
But the pre-existent make-up of Jesus plays a very, very small role in the justification of a person before God.
The focal point of our faith – of the Good News – is whether Jesus was born (or a virgin) lived a perfect life, suffered for sin on the cross, died and resurrected on the third day.
Does a person place their faith in these things about HIM.
There is NOTHING in the Good News about a perfect understanding about his ontology or make-up (beat) . . . and if God can save a thief on a cross with his limited knowledge of even the mortal facts about Jesus, He can and will certainly save a person who believes on the essentials of his life EVEN if he has the details about his make-up wrong.
I say this because Meanvangelicals have made ONTOLOGY more important than SOTERIOLOGY (or the manner in which a person is justified before God) and THIS is the vital point in all theological debates.
Not dogma about his premortal existence, relationship to the Father or other mysterious matters.
For those who have received him by faith, and what he did while mortal, let’s pray that his identity will be reveled to us all by the Spirit.
But along the way, let’s realize (in peace, and love, and hope) that it is faith on his birth, life, death and resurrection that justified all before the living God.
Okay . . . so then he says . . .
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. What promise? It’s in Genesis 22:17-18 where we read:
“In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”
Paul points out that the word seed here, is not plural! And of course since Abraham only had one son of the promise (Isaac) we automatically think that is the singular seed that is being referred to here.
Is that the case? Not according to Paul. What Paul says is:
“He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
So, another way to read the promise to Abraham from Paul’s perspective, would be this:
“In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed (Christ) as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and in thy seed (who is Christ) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”
He does not use the plural term, as if the promise extended to many persons; but he speaks in the singular number, as if but one was intended; and that one must be the Messiah.
The singular of seed in the Greek is sperma, the plural is spermata, and if we were going to look at the offspring of Abraham and pick the one sperma that would bless all the nations of the earth it would have to be the Messiah and not Isaac – Isaac only blessed the Nations of Israel.
Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, I believe, takes some liberty here, perhaps by the influence of the Holy Spirit, and gives us the New Covenant interpretation of God’s words to Abraham rather than the material interpretation which speaks, I believe, to his son of Promise, Isaac.
Reading this passage produces some automatic difficulty. Let me explain why:
The promise referred to in Genesis seems to have related to the posterity of Abraham at large, without any particular reference to an individual. It appears to most reasonable speak to his seed (his descendants) which means to all his seed or posterity.
This would be the fair and natural interpretation, should it be read by hundreds or thousands of persons who had never heard of the interpretation here put upon it by Paul.
Paul’s argument seems to proceed on the supposition that the word “seed,” sperma (otherwise posterity) cannot refer to more than one person; if it had, says he, it would have been in the plural number.
But to be honest the fact of the matter is,
the word is often used to denote posterity at large and to refer to descendants without limitation – I mean the word posterity is singular but means the plural most often.
All we need to do is to look at Tromm’s Concordance on the Septuagint, or Schmids’ on the New Testament and there is ample evidences of this.
Frankly, only here in Galatians are we presented with this exception.
I have to be honest – I think we have here evidence of the liberty and lengths Paul was willing to go to preach Christ.
I am not saying that his interpretation fails – because I do see who, through Abraham’s seed, would TRULY bless all the families of all nations.
So he has the liberty to make this argument.
Quite frankly, I appreciate the fact that we have an example of Paul freely using passages with tremendous liberality because honestly, this one is really hard to justify in a straight up examination of the text.
So what this looks like is that Paul is resorting to a bit of a play on words here – for arguments sake.
I think his play works is viable – but I’m not so sure his use of the passage in Genesis was the intended meaning when God gave the promise back in that day – of course He knew it would be used this way, and rightly so, but perhaps that is the beauty of the Living Word – it has applications that exist outside of the original intent.
So, at verse 17-18 Paul says:
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it (the inheritance) to Abraham by promise.
The promise God made to Abraham was confirmed before the giving of the law. It was a solemn promise which God made to him “in Christ.”
In other words, Paul maintains here (and I agree with him) that the promise ultimately was with respect to the Messiah – a covenant relating to him as a promised that he should descend from Abraham and bless the world.
The Paul speaks of “the law,” which was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai e- it was given four hundred and thirty years after God made his promise to Abraham.
By the way the number of years was a close estimation and not an exact figure – from what I can tell.
So if that promise of Genesis 12:3-4 was made when Abraham was seventy-five years old, out to the time to the birth of Isaac (when Abraham was a hundred years old) we have twenty-five years, (based on Genesis 21:5).
Isaac was sixty when Jacob was born (Genesis 25:26).
Jacob went into Egypt when he was one hundred and thirty years old (Genesis 47:9)
According to the Septuagint of Exodus 12:40) the Israelites sojourned there,
two hundred and fifteen years and that gives us the figure Paul uses – which was probably the accepted calculation in his day.
We can’t be sure the calculations are exact but his argument remains the same, whether the law was given four hundred and thirty years after the promise or another length of time, the argument is, that a law given after the solemn promise had been made and therefore it could not make the promise void. (Verse 18)
18 For if the inheritance be (could be or come) of (or by) the law, it (the inheritance) is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
This is restated in Romans 4:14 when Paul wrote:
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
But Paul reponds here to this though by saying (again)
18 For if the inheritance be (could be or come) of (or by) the law, it (the inheritance) is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise!
This last line:
“But God gave it to Abraham by promise!” settles the point Paul is attempting to make:
The blessing of inheritance to Abraham was made by a promise which was confirmed and ratified hundreds of years before the law was given therefore the giving of the Law could not mess with it at all.
Of course, if they were to be blessed in this way, then it was not to be by the observance of the law, and the law must have been given for a different purpose.
And he now enters into what that purpose was for God giving the Law in the first place. Which is something a number of believers don’t understand. Ready? Let’s read to the end of the chapter where Paul lays out some real wisdom, saying:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Full Compare GBN ACC Barnes
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Alright, back to verse 19 (which is all we have time for today):
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Paul begins by asking the question: “Wherefore then serveth the law?” In other word, what does or did the Law serve to do if now it only serves to make us sinners and bring us to death?”
Why was the dang thing given at all? I was asked this question just last week!
I mean God gave it, right? What for? Why are there so many wonderful exhibitions of the Divine in its presence and why is the scripture so full of its importance? I mean read Psalm 119 and EVERY SINGLE verse (and it’s the longest Psalm) extols the Law!
Has or did God change?
Why were there so many injunctions to obey the Law and now Paul seems to say run as far away from it as possible?
Was it worthless? Was it evil and if so, how was God the author of it?
To all this (and more) the apostle replies that the law was not useless, but that it was given by God for great and important purposes, and especially for purposes closely connected with the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and the work of Jesus Christ as the Mediator between God and Man.
And so where Paul rhetorically asks:
“Wherefore then serveth the law?” He answers his own question by saying:
“It (the Law) was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
It was added? Added to what? The Law was added to all the previous promises God had made to Abraham. We might see it as an additional arrangement, on the part of God, for some really important purposes.
Paul has made it clear that the addendum of the Law could not change the promise given to Abraham, but it was used to secure and safeguard the Nation until the promised Messiah would be introduced – which, at that point, he was able to fulfill it, and therefore put it down completely.
So, Paul said that the Law was “added” “because of transgressions.”
Now we have some choices on how to read this phrase. The Law was added because of the transgressions of the COI? Or the law was added as a means to show the true nature of transgressions and therefore the only solution to sin and transgression.
First of all the law was not added to present or reveal a means of justification.
The writer of Hebrews makes it plain that the blood of bulls and goats cannot propitiate sin.
So I would suggest, in light of what Paul will say in the next verses, that the Law was added as a means to show the true nature of sinful man and therefore the true nature of justification before God.
To put it another way, the Law
showed what God requires, and what is merely the duty of human beings before him. The duty of creations before the Creator.
There is no merit in obeying the Law – obeying it amounts to what a human being should do as the basic in light of God who has bestowed life upon them.
So, the Law was not a system of gaining points, it was a system of just doing what was necessary as a human being.
And yet none, due to the carnal nature of Man have ever complied to its most basic tenets – summarized in the ten commandments.
Remember, to break one part of it you are guilty of breaking all of it.
So, tell one lie and you have broken what is expected of you because the Law is the straight rule of what is “right” and when rejected, what is wrong.
Therefore, the Law shows us the nature and extent of our sinful natures by illustrating how far we as humans depart from the basics of human behavior.
The law also shows the just penalty for breaking it, in the eyes of God – which shocks and astounds us.
The law is arranged to produce conviction for sin and by it we see how evil our transgressions are:
That’s why Paul wrote
Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Its why he said
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Its why he continued writing and said:
Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
The law also proves its own inability to justify and save men so it is therefore seen as a preparatory arrangement to lead men to the cross of the Redeemer.
That’s why we will read:
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
But at the same time,
We can see that the law was given (to the Jews) with reference to transgressions, in order to keep men from transgression. It was designed to restrain and control them by its threatened penalties.
When Paul says that the law was given on account of transgressions I think it is safe to say that that this was a main purpose of the law.
But along the way, like most things of God, it appears to accomplish many other important things – perhaps the most important thing is that in the face of the Law human beings are brought to Christ out of necessity.
Paul adds here that “It (the Law) was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now, there is a debate among believers today.
Was all of the Law fulfilled in Christ or is some of it still binding?
I would strongly suggest that the whole of the Law, every whit of it, was fulfilled.
Remember, the law was not given to Gentiles so to even suggest that it is still binding is foolish.
But I want to wrap today up by pointing something radical out to you all.
Do you ever wonder why there was such a rift between the Jewish converts to Christianity and the Gentiles?
Do you ever wonder why Peter and James and John (at times) (and frankly even Paul) appear to preach and teach what sounds like a very strident legalistic approach to the believers in that day?
I suggest to you that it was strident in that day, and that the demands upon the Bride were very different from the demands upon believers today?
Why is this so?
I think Jesus tells us why. When Jesus was alive and teaching the Sermon on the Mount he said the following to them/then:
Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
You see, the line, “until heaven and earth PASS AWAY (which is language to describe the end of that age under the Law which would happen ONLY when he returned in 70 AD as promised) “one jot or one tittle will in no wise pass from the law until ALL be fulfilled.”
So to the bride church of that day it was incumbent on them to continue in the Law until that heaven and that earth would pass away and only then could or would the Law in its entirely be fulfilled.
Jesus made this point very clear in the sermon on the mount.
We will finish this verse up next week before moving on.
Questions/ Answers
PRAYER
