The transition of terms between US President Bush and president elect Obama has an interesting ping pong of promises. Bush has to decide what he can do now that won’t be overturned in two months by Obama. A traditional end of term practice is Presidential pardons, where the president is allowed through executive orders to overturn convictions and offer pardons to convicted offenders. Conrad Black has personally appealed to Bush for one of these. Also in the words is the prospective bailout of the Auto makers. If one is granted now will it be overturned or vise versa.
Under attacks from the Judaizers, the Galatians were confronted with the prospect of their relationship with God changing due to a misunderstood introduction of law into their lives. They begin to question if Paul did not present the full picture of faith and if now everything must change with the introduction of law.
In Galatians 3:1–14 Paul proves from Old Testament Scripture that Abraham was justified by faith and not by law and that every other believer, whether ethnically a Jew or Gentile, is likewise saved only by faith, made effective by Christ’s taking sin’s curse upon Himself. First, he argued from experience-the experience the Galatians had when they received the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:1-5). Next he argued from Scripture-The Biblical record about Abraham, the man of faith (Gal. 3:6-14).
Now in verses 15-18 the apostle anticipates the probable argument his adversaries, the Judaizers, would likely make against what he has just proved. “Very well,” they would argue. “But granted that Abraham and his pre-Sinai descendants were saved by faith, it is obvious that when God gave the law to Moses, the basis of salvation changed. A new covenant was made and a new means of salvation was then established. After Moses, the basis of salvation became law in place of faith or at least as a necessary supplement to faith. The covenant with Moses annulled and supplanted the covenant with Abraham, a temporary measure God provided until He gave Moses the more perfect and complete covenant of law. Abraham and others who lived before the law saved by faith only because they did not have the law. Why else would God have given the Mosaic covenant of law?”
In understanding the relationship between the promises of God and His law, what does God expect us to do in order to receive His promises ? Which promises in Scripture are for us? Can circumstances change that cause God to change a promise?
In contrasting the covenants of promise and of law, Paul first shows the superiority of the one and then the inferiority of the other. In Galatians 3:15-18 four reasons are given for affirming the superiority of the covenant of promise: its 1) Confirmation, its 2) Christ-centeredness, its 3) Chronology, and its 4) Completeness.
1) ITS CONFIRMATION GALATIANS 3:15
Galatians 3:15 [15]To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. (ESV)
There is a delightful change of tone here. Paul now addressed the Galatians here as “brothers,” a term of endearment he had not used since 1:11, although it would occur again seven other times in the letter (4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18). Although the Galatians were confused, foolish, and bewitched, and although Paul felt betrayed, perplexed, and forlorn about them, still they were adelphoi, “brothers.” This term of relationship is especially appropriate at the beginning of a passage that will seek to answer the questions: “What makes a family a family? Who are the true children of Abraham, the heirs of the promise, and thus entitled to call one another brothers and sisters?” (George, T. (2001, c1994). Vol. 30: Galatians (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (244). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers).
Galatians 3:15–18 is an analogy between human and divine covenants and more technically what we have here is a similitudo or simile. A simile is a bit different from an example (exemplum), though it has a force or rhetorical effect very similar to an example (Inst. Or. 5.11.22). Basically the force of the argument is strengthened to the degree that the things being compared are equal or nearly so. This form of proof is less powerful than for example the appeal to the Galatians’ experience, not least because it involves an artificial, or humanly devised proof. Paul has presented his two divine proofs, one from supernatural experience and one from the sacred Scriptures, and now he will turn to more mundane, merely human arguments, or as Chrysostom put it, Paul now uses human examples. Paul is not signalling the weakness of the analogy, only the humanness of the argument (Witherington III, B. (1998). Grace in Galatia : A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (240). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
B.C. Before Christ)
First of all, the covenant of promise was superior because it was confirmed as irrevocable and unchangeable. This can be illustrated by reference to a human covenant. In terms of human relations, Paul says, even … a man-made covenant, … when it has been ratified, allows no one annuls it/sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Even human beings hold their covenants to be inviolable and unamendable. Once ratified, they are irrevocable and unchangeable.
While the Judaizers might go so far as to agree with Paul that Abraham was justified by his faith, they would then add that the coming of the law changed the basis for gaining salvation. Paul here wanted to clarify that nothing would change the promise that God made to Abraham. Hence, no one annuls it/sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
• His point was not that God couldn’t change his covenant with us, but that God didn’t ever change the covenant established between himself and us, as illustrated by his specific dealings with Abraham.
(Barton, B. B. (1994). Galatians. Life application Bible commentary (104). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.)
Even human covenants, once confirmed, are considered irrevocable and unchangeable, how much more a covenant made by an unchanging God (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17).
Central to this discussion is the concept of Diathçkç (covenant) which is a general term for a binding agreement.
• This word (Gr diathçkç) strictly speaking is not a contract between two parties (Gr synthçkç), but a binding will or testament instituted by the first party (KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (2386). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.)
It was often used to refer to wills or testaments, and in some Scripture passages the word is best translated with that meaning.
• A last will and testament expresses the desires and intent of but one party and may or may not involve other specific parties.
• A covenant, on the other hand, always involves two or more specific parties, although the terms may be stipulated and fulfilled by only one. In the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament translated in the third century B.C.) the term is consistently used of God’s covenants with His people-covenants that God alone initiated and established and that sometimes were conditional and sometimes not.
Last week we saw how Paul illustrated the concept of Justification by Faith alone through the person of Abraham. We looked at Genesis 15 how God promised numerous offspring to him and the promise of land.
Please turn back to Genesis 15
What we did not examine last week is how God ratified the covenant which is the reference we see here. Ratified/confirmed stated here in the Greek perfect tense means that the ratification is complete and in force. The matter stands settled (KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (2386). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.) In the context of a last will and Testament, the ratification would be at death. Once someone dies, the will cannot be changed.
God ratified/confirmed the covenant by a ceremony common to the ancient Near East. On the Lord’s instructions, Abram took a heifer, a female goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon, then cut them in half and laid the two sides of each animal opposite one another, with a path in between. Pick up the events at verse 15
Genesis 15:12-17 [12]As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. [13]Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. [14]But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. [15]As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. [16]And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." [17]When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. (ESV)
This event pictures some important events common in covenants. Ordinarily, both parties to a covenant would walk between the slain animals, whose blood would symbolically ratify the agreement. But in this case, God alone walked through, indicating that the covenant, though involving promises to Abraham and his descendants, was made by God with Himself. The covenant was unilateral and entirely unconditional, the only obligation being on God Himself.
Paul argued, “a man-made covenant, when ratified, cannot be annulled/set aside/ abrogated, or voided. Neither can it be added to. No new condition may be imposed, no codicil allowed. Since no one can alter, amplify, or annul a man’s testament after it has been duly executed, surely no one can add to God’s unconditional promise to Abraham, as the legalists were trying to do. God’s promise is not a matter of mutual arrangement and it remains inviolate (KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (2386). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.)
• Even God’s own covenant with Moses did not nullify or amend His covenant with Abraham, because God had made the former covenant permanent and unchangeable.”
Illustration: How Many Promises in the Bible?
Dr. Everek R. Storms of Ontario spent a vast amount of time studying the promises of Scripture. Writing in Contact Magazine, he said:
“The Holy Scriptures contain a grand total of 8,810 promises. How do I know? I counted them. Dr. Storms goes on to classify the promises found in Scripture into eight kinds:
• There are 7,487 promises from God to man (about 85 percent of all the Bible’s promises).
• There are 991 instances of one person making a promise to another person.
• There are 290 promises from man to God.
• There are promises made by the angels, most of them found in Luke.
• There are nine promises made by “that old liar, the devil.”
• Two promises are made by an evil spirit.
• Two are made by God the Father to God the Son.
(Everek R. Storms, Standing on the Promises, Contact, March 1978, 13–14.)
Quote: On God’s promises, C.H. Spurgeon said;
“God never gives his children a promise which he does not intend them to use. There are some promises in the Bible which I have never yet used, but I am well assured that there will come times of trial and trouble when I shall find that that poor despised promise, which I thought was never meant for me, will be the only one on which I can float”.—Charles Spurgeon (Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. 2, 404.)
In affirming the superiority of the covenant of promise, we have seen 1) ITS CONFIRMATION GALATIANS 3:15 and now:
2) ITS CHRIST-CENTEREDNESS GALATIANS 3:16
Galatians 3:16 [16]Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. (ESV)
Second, Paul argues from the lesser figure of verse 15 to the greater figure of verse 16, that the covenant of promise was superior to the covenant of law because it was Christ-centered. The immutability, or unchangeableness of the covenant involving faith directly relates to God’s last and final covenant established through His Son, Jesus Christ. The covenant of law could not possibly have interrupted or modified the previous covenant of promise, because the first one not only was inviolable and permanent in itself but was inseparable from God’s supreme covenant, the New Covenant in the Messiah, the Christ.
Please turn to Genesis 22
Last week we saw that the New Covenant involved the permanent receiving of the promised Holy Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:14). Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writing of both Genesis and Galatians, Paul exegetes/explains the quoted Genesis passage.
After Abraham, based on God’s instruction, was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac,
Genesis 22:15-18 [15]And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven [16]and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17]I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, [18]and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." (ESV)
The term offspring/seed, Paul declares, is singular in Genesis 22:18. It was therefore not referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your offspring/seed.”
Both the Greek term sperma (offspring/seed) and the corresponding Hebrew term (zera˒) are like the English seed in that they can be either singular or plural. It is a collective noun. Apart from inspiration by the Holy Spirit, Paul could not have established such a crucial interpretation on the basis of grammar alone. Hebrew grammar, like Greek and English, allows, but does not necessitate, the singular.
In numerous Old Testament passages the term obviously applies to but one person. In Genesis 4:25 (“offspring”) it refers to Seth alone, in Genesis 21:13 (“descendant”) to Ishmael (see 16:11) alone, in 1 Samuel 1:11 (“son”) to Samuel alone, and in 2 Samuel 7:12 (“descendant”) to Solomon (see 12:24) alone. On the basis only of grammar and context, the meaning of seed in Genesis 22:18 could be either singular or plural. But in interpreting His own Word through the apostle, the Holy Spirit makes clear it is singular, referring … to one.
What we wee in Galatians, and Genesis 22, is an outworking of the Promise in Genesis 3.
Genesis 3:15 [15]I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
In Genesis 3, a clearly singular use of offspring/seed also refers to Christ. To the serpent in the Garden of Eden, God said, He [singular, referring to “her offspring/seed”] shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel”.
• The one and only heir of every promise of God is Christ. Every promise given in the covenant with Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ. Therefore the only way a person can participate in the promised blessings to Abraham is to be a fellow heir with Christ through faith in Him.
• Because they were made both to Abraham and his descendants, they did not become void when Abraham died, or when the law came.
Please turn to Romans 4
Whether before or after Christ came to earth, salvation has always been provided only through the perfect offering of Christ on the cross. Believers who lived before the cross and never knew any specifics about Jesus were nevertheless forgiven and made right with God by faith in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice, whereas believers who live after the cross are saved in looking back to it. When Christ shed His blood, it covered sins on both sides of the cross. The Old Covenant goes to the cross; the New Covenant comes from it. On the one hand faith pointed forward, whereas on the other it points back.
Romans 4:13-18 [13]For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. [14]For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. [15]For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. [16]That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, [17]as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations"--in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. [18]In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, "So shall your offspring be." (ESV)
There has never been nor can there ever be salvation apart from the finished work of Christ. The covenant with Abraham was fulfilled in the covenant of Jesus Christ, and therefore the covenant of law, whatever its character and purpose, did not abrogate or modify those two covenants.
• True sons of Abraham are not identified biologically, but Christologically. The covenant promise was really for Christ, and when we belong to Christ, the promise belongs to us. (Philip Graham Ryken: Galatians. Reformed Expository Commentary. P&R Press. 2005. p.124).
Illustration: How precious this relationship is. In describing the nature of a Christ-Centered covenant, Bruce Shelley in Christian Theology in Plain Language, writes:
In modern times we define a host of relations by contracts. These are usually for goods or services and for hard cash. The contract, formal or informal, helps to specify failure in these relationships.
The Lord did not establish a contract with Israel or with the church. He created a covenant. There is a difference.
Contracts are broken when one of the parties fails to keep his promise. If, let us say, a patient fails to keep an appointment with a doctor, the doctor is not obligated to call the house and inquire, “Where were you? Why didn’t you show up for your appointment?” He simply goes on to his next patient and has his appointment-secretary take note of the patient who failed to keep the appointment. The patient may find it harder the next time to see the doctor. He broke an informal contract.
According to the Bible, however, the Lord asks: “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!” (Isa. 49:15).
The Bible indicates the covenant is more like the ties of a parent to her child than it is a doctor’s appointment. If a child fails to show up for dinner, the parent’s obligation, unlike the doctor’s, isn’t canceled. The parent finds out where the child is and makes sure he’s cared for. One member’s failure does not destroy the relationship. A covenant puts no conditions on faithfulness. It is the unconditional commitment to love and serve. (Larson, C. B. (2002). 750 engaging illustrations for preachers, teachers & writers. First work originally published: Illustrations for preaching and teaching. Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Books, 1993. 2nd work originally published: Contemporary illustrations for preachers, teachers, and writers. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1996. 3rd work originally published: Choice contemporary stories and illustrations. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1998. (95). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.)
In affirming the superiority of the covenant of promise, we have seen 1) ITS CONFIRMATION GALATIANS 3:15 2) ITS CHRIST-CENTEREDNESS GALATIANS 3:16 and now:
3) ITS CHRONOLOGY GALATIANS 3:17
Galatians 3:17 [17]This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. (ESV)
Third, the covenant of promise was superior to the covenant of law because of chronology. The Law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul/invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God. Because the covenant with Abraham was permanent and inviolate, no amount of time could annul/nullify the promise.
It can be confusing to determine how this 430 year period is calculated. It can be determined as from Israel’s sojourn in Egypt (cf. Ex 12:40) to the giving of the law at Sinai (ca. 1445 B.C.). The law actually came 645 years after the initial promise to Abraham (ca. 2090 B.C.; cf. Ge 12:4; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9), but the promise was repeated to Isaac (Ge 26:24) and later to Jacob (ca. 1928 B.C.; Ge 28:15). The last known reaffirmation of the Abrahamic Covenant to Jacob occurred in Ge 46:2–4 (ca. 1875 B.C.) just before he went to Egypt—430 years before the Mosaic law was given (MacArthur, J. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible : New American Standard Bible. (Ga 3:17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
• While there is debate about the exact period of these 430 years, the point is not when these years occured, but rather, just like circumcision, the law came “later” than God’s promise to Abraham. For four centuries God had been blessing Abraham and his descendants on the basis of their faith, not by the Mosaic law, for there was no law. When the law was given, it did not set aside the covenant previously established by God; neither did it do away with the promise (Barton, B. B. (1994). Galatians. Life application Bible commentary (106). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.)
Even the covenant with Abraham did not establish the principle of salvation by faith but only verified and typified it. From the time of Adam’s fall, faith had been the only means of man’s becoming right with God.
As for the promise that God gave as part of the covenant with Abraham and that He Himself had ratified (the verb is a perfect passive participle, pointing to the lasting authority of the ratification), the mere passage of time could have no effect on it all, much less annul/nullify it.
• God ratified the covenant officially (Ge 15:9–21), it had lasting authority so that nothing and no one could annul it. The Abrahamic Covenant was unilateral (God made the promise to Himself), eternal (it provided for everlasting blessing), irrevocable (it will never cease), finally, it was unconditional (in that it depended on God, not man) (MacArthur, J. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible : New American Standard Bible. (Ga 3:17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
• The Promise and the law are two separate, though complementary, arrangements. They operate on entirely different principles: faith and works. The promise is about what God will do, while the law is about what we must do. The difference between the promise and the law is evident from the vocabulary God used when he first gave them.
• When He made the promise to Abraham, God said. “I will, I will, I will.” But in the law of Moses God said, “You must, You must, You must.” (Philip Graham Ryken: Galatians. Reformed Expository Commentary. P&R Press. 2005. p.125)
Quote: John Stott said: “The promise sets froth a religion of God-God’s plan, God’s grace, and God’s initiate. But the law sets forth a religion of man-man’s duty, man’s works, and man’s responsibility. The promise (standing for the grace of God) had only to be believed. But the law (Standing for the works of men) had to be obeyed. (John R.W. Stott, The Message of Galatians. Downers Grove, IL. IVP. 1968. p. 86-87)
Quote: The Value of God’s Promises
We never face any life-situation for which God has not supplied specific promises that give us mercy and grace to help in time of need. The old Puritan Thomas Watson put it very quaintly in a sermon to his little congregation in England on Sunday, August 17, 1662: Trade much in the promises. The promises are great supports to faith. Faith lives in a promise, as the fish lives in the water. The promises are both comforting and quickening, … (by) faith (on the ) promises (we receive) strength and (are) revived. The promises of God are (flotation devices) to keep us from sinking when we come to the waters of affliction. O! trade much in the promises; there is no condition that you can be in, but you have a promise.( Morgan, R. J. (2000). Nelson’s complete book of stories, illustrations, and quotes (electronic ed.) (646). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
Quote: J. I. Packer comes round to the same point in his book Knowing God: In the days when the Bible was universally acknowledged in the churches as “God’s Word written,” it was clearly understood that the promises recorded in Scripture were the proper, God-given basis for all our life of faith, and that the way to strengthen one’s faith was to focus it upon particular promises that spoke to one’s condition.( J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 103.)
In affirming the superiority of the covenant of promise, we have seen 1) ITS CONFIRMATION GALATIANS 3:15 2) ITS CHRIST-CENTEREDNESS GALATIANS 3:16 3) ITS CHRONOLOGY GALATIANS 3:17 and finally:
4) ITS COMPLETENESS GALATIANS 3:18
Galatians 3:18 [18]For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. (ESV)
Paul’s first major argument or proof has now come full circle. Paul began by discussing the gracious gift of God to the Galatians in the form of the Spirit in 3:1–5 and he concludes this first main argument by speaking of the initial gracious gift of a status and a promise to Abraham which was to be the source of that later ‘Spiritual’ blessing to the Gentiles. Paul has given here a strong rationale for rejecting the appeals of the agitators for the Galatians to submit to the Law, for he has appealed to the Galatians’ experience, to Scripture, and to human reason and reflection using an analogy between human and divine covenants.
Paul has contended that the Galatians already have (through Abraham), promise, Christ, the Spirit—in short the status and the spiritual benefits they need. Submitting to the Law would be neither necessary nor beneficial in such a situation (Witherington III, B. (1998). Grace in Galatia : A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (246). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.)
Seen here, the covenant of promise is superior to the covenant of law because it is more complete. The inheritance introduced here is the blessing promised by God and ratified to him and to his “seed” by means of an unconditional covenant (George, T. (2001, c1994). Vol. 30: Galatians (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (249). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.)
Paul’s point is that an inheritance … comes by/based on law depends on man’s performance, whereas the one gave/granted … to Abraham by a promise depends on God’s power. The term gave/granted translates the perfect tense of charizomai (to give graciously) and points to the permanent character of the inheritance. The principles behind the two types of inheritance are incompatible.
• One is by God’s law and man’s works and the other by God’s grace and man’s faith. Not only that, but the abilities to fulfill the covenants are of an infinitely different order.
• Human beings cannot succeed in perfectly keeping the law, and God cannot fail in perfectly keeping the promise. Because the covenant of promise is complete, the covenant of law can in no way improve or change it.
Please turn to Hebrews 6
By definition, an inheritance is not earned but simply received, and to work for that which is already guaranteed is foolish and unnecessary. Trying to earn the inheritance God promises through faith in His Son is much worse than foolish. To add works of the law to faith in God’s promise is to as we have seen in Galatians 2:21
Galatians 2:21 [21]I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (ESV)
Hebrews 6:11-18 [11]And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, [12]so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. [13]For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, [14]saying, "Surely I will bless you and multiply you." [15]And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. [16]For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. [17]So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, [18]so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. (ESV)
In Christ we have tremendous promises. When we understand the unchangeable character of God’s purpose and that it is impossible for God to lie, we are greatly encouraged to hold fast to the hope set before us.
(Format Note: Outline and some base commentary from: MacArthur, J. (1996, c1987). Galatians. Includes indexes. (81). Chicago: Moody Press.)
