Enslaved?

In Galatians 3:24-26 Paul wrote, “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” (ESV)

The word guardian is translated from the Greek word that literally translates to pedagogue, which was an entrusted slave used to look after children, but also expected to teach the child basic social skills not taught in school.

Think about this idea for a moment.  A father willingly gives his child to an entrusted slave (pedagogue).  The child, essentially a free human (non-slave), is under the authority of the slave.  That slave has the responsibility to teach the child socially acceptable behavior.  Lessons such as hygiene, grooming, appropriate dress, manners, respect for authority, nutrition, and any other skills necessary to fit in with society.  The father willingly has his child submit to a slave to be taught basic skills to live harmoniously within society. 

Does the father put the child under the authority of the slave, in order to actually turn the child into a slave?

Does the father put the child under the authority of the slave, only to expect that one day the slave will replace the role of the father?

When the father deems the child no longer needs to be under the submissive authority of the pedagogue, do you think the child is then told by the father to disregard all that was taught? 

These questions seem absurd to even consider.

The child is willingly placed under the authority of a slave to be taught.  The child learns to respect the slave and the authority given from the father.  Eventually the child begins to willingly follow these basic rules out of respect for his father, respect for the pedagogue (slave), and to live harmoniously in society.

Paul could not have chosen a better analogy to illustrate to the assembly then, and NOW, how to understand God’s word.   God gave us a pedagogue in written form.   God gave us these basic instructions for the purpose of instructing, not enslaving, us. Yet, we (man) have twisted the meaning of this instruction manual, convincing ourselves that it is designed to enslave us and since it isn’t required, then it is OK to pick and choose which instructions we want to follow or not.

Why in the world would we ever intentionally disregard God’s basic instruction manual for living?  He created us.  Don’t you think he knows what is best for our diet?  Don’t you think he knows what’s best for our bodies, our health, our hearts, our relationship, etc?  Why would we NOT follow this basic instruction manual?  Not seeking justification, salvation, or redemption, but from a place of love and respect for The Creator of this manual.

Since God began to reveal this to me about 6 months ago, I have struggled with how to walk the walk and not just talk the talk (or write the blog).  I have come to realize that there are really only 3 significant issues that most Christians do not like: Sabbath, diet, and the holy days (feasts). 

I would challenge anyone to not ask “Why would you follow that law when we don’t have to anymore?”

Instead, ask, “If you really love Him, why wouldn’t you follow these basic instructions that He gave us to help us?”

I am choosing to follow.  I am choosing to learn how to obey and what to obey.  I am choosing because I’ve realize two significant things. 

   1)      Throughout the Old and New Testament we are told if we love Him we will obey Him.

   2)      Why wouldn’t I follow the instructions given by the one who created me? 

Find scriptural evidence that is contrary.

o   John 14:15 - “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

o   Matthew 5:19 - “Therefore whoever relaxes  one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least  in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great  in the kingdom of heaven.”

o   John 14:23-24 - Jesus answered him,  “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and  we will come to him and  make our home with him.  Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.”

o   Matthew 19:17 - And he said to him,  “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.  If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

o   Romans 7:12 - So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

o   Galatians 3:21 – Is the law contrary to the promises of God? Certainly Not!

o   Romans 3:31 - Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

The only time in scripture is God’s law spoken negatively is when in reference to those attempting to use the law for justification or salvation, and even then it isn’t the law that is being put down it is the misuse of the law. 

There are plenty of references that, if taken at face value without research, appear to be anti-law.  See my studies about Works of the Law (Part 1 & Part 2) to better understand my point.

Secondly, just use some logic.  Can you imagine being a farmer and not following the basic guidelines and instructions for the equipment you use?  Would you even consider saying something like, “Well, I don’t have to follow the instructions, so why should I?”  How quickly could you break something or get hurt?  If you did not follow planting instructions how would your crops turn out?

God’s guidebook, the Torah, is no different.  I am a complete infant in trying to understand from the correct perspective.  I feel like a toddler trying to decipher and understand what is meant and how much information there is, but I’m trying.  I'm not dismissive.  I spend dedicated time almost daily trying to better understand, through prayer and reading.  I am learning new stuff all of the time, and working to apply it to my life. 

I do this not because I am required to for my salvation, but because I want to out of reverence for the one who not only created me, but created the instruction manual for my life.  Who am I to consider that I am smart enough to pick and choose which rules in the instruction manual are good enough to follow and which ones are not important?

I love God but more so, I love how He loves me.  I love how He accepts me as I am and is guiding me to be closer to Him.  I love that He gave me instructions for a better life, better health, better relationships, and to better know Him.

Shabbat Shalom 

Adopted Sons and Heirs - Lesson 8

Galatians 3:24 – 4:7

Paul continues to use the analogy of the pedagogue into chapter 4 of Galatians.  Remember that a pedagogue (guardian) is a slave in charge of a child.  The child is free, essentially, and the heir to the owner of the slave.  Consider that a “free” child is under the care and direction of a slave, until the time that the father determines the child is capable.

·         Summary from lesson 7 regarding the word guardian, tutor, or schoolmaster (v3:24-25)

o   Greek word – Pedagogue:  A slave, typically older and proven to be trustworthy, that had the responsibility of caring for children. 

o   Paul used a pedagogue as an analogy for the law (Torah), which fits so well because within the law are not only common legal issues such as do not lie, commit adultery, or murder, but also hygiene guidelines, health and nutrition, how to treat employees, slaves, and neighbors.  It was full manual on how to organize a community, including social interaction, manners, hygiene, etc. 

o   Paul then finishes that part of the analogy by essentially saying the guardian (pedagogue) has “handed us off” to the teacher (Christ) as a pedagogue would have relinquished responsibility to the teacher.

o   To fully understand Paul’s analogy though, would that child then disregard everything the pedagogue taught?  Would the teacher tell the child to disregard everything the pedagogue taught?  Of course not!  As Christ did not ask us to disregard the law, but to obey. 

o   Paul’s point is not to disregard the law, but to put it in its proper place.  It is NOT designed as justification or salvation.

·         v4:1-2 – Paul continues his analogy of the pedagogue, by pointing out the irony that a free child, an heir, is essentially under the authority of the slave. 

·         V4:3-6 – The direct comparison to believers.   

o   We are the children.  God is the father.  God provided us with a set of instructions to guide us and teach us how to live as a community.  Unfortunately men had turned that into a legalistic form of justification with God, which it was never intended to be. 

o   God provided us with Jesus, the messiah, “freeing” us from the slavery of the law. 

o   However, remember, as a child the pedagogue teaches all social skills needed.  When becoming an adult, those skills are not disregarded, but followed willingly.

·         v5-7 – We are adopted sons and heirs

o   Romans 11:17 – we are grafted in.  Critical to remember that we are the adopted sons.  We, as Gentiles are the grafted in, adopted sons and daughters of Israel.  Not the replacement.

o   Romans 8:12-17 – Heirs and adopted sons

o   v7 – We are HEIRS?!?  Heirs to what? 

§  Remember the context of this whole segment and letter.  Just a few verses earlier in chapter 3, Paul is discussing the promise of inheritance to Abraham.

§  We, as believing Gentiles, and adopted sons and heirs, in are going to share in the inheritance promised to His chosen people.

§  Ephesians 3:6 – “Gentiles are fellow heirs…”

§  The depth of this promise and inheritance is probably a study all by itself.

The Law Was Our Guardian

As I was studying Galatians, I found myself fixed on Chapter 3:24-25 "So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.  But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian"

I was intrigued by the term guardian, which is also translated as tutor or schoolmaster. For whatever reason, I just got stuck on the term.

In his video series on Fire on the Mountain, Ray Vanderlaan took time to explain the cultural relevance of the word "banner" in Exodus 17:15 "The Lord is My Banner" and knowing the history and use of the word banner enhances the meaning of the whole phrase.

So, I did a little digging on the word guardian and here's what I found.

According to http://biblehub.com/text/galatians/3-24.htm the original Greek word is paidagōgos.

My next stop was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy

Greek: paidagōgos  | English: Pedagogue or Pedagogy  |  "to lead the child"

“The word pedagogue actually relates to the slave who escorts Roman children to school."

"The pedagogue's job is usually distinguished from a teacher's by primarily focusing on teaching children life-preparing knowledge such as social skills and cultural norms, etc. There is also a very big focus on care and well-being of the child. Many pedagogical institutions also practice social inclusion. The pedagogue's work also consists of supporting the child in their mental and social development.”

As soon as I read this meaning I felt like I knew exactly what Paul was trying to explain and was amazed at the depth of meaning hidden within the analogy.

Paul used a very common picture that everyone, at that time, would be familiar with.  Many children were under the care of a pedagogue.  The pedagogue was responsible for teaching manners, social skills, etiquette, and ensuring that the children got to school on time, thus handing off the children to the teacher.

Think about the picture Paul painted.  He related the Torah to a pedagogue.  The Torah provided instructions for how to define community, how to treat each other, social interaction, manners, employment, eating habits, hygiene, etc.  The analogy is completed by understanding the Torah’s purpose was to point us (or hand us off) to the teacher (Christ).

After the pedagogue escorted children to the teacher, do you think the teacher told the child to forget everything taught by the pedagogue?  That is absurd to even consider. It is just as absurd to consider that Paul was teaching to disregard everything taught in the Torah just because he is teaching salvation is based on faith.  Absurd.

Like a pedagogue that teaches manners and social skills, the Torah is filled with instructions on how to treat your family, neighbors, slaves, employees, foreigners, animals, food, hygiene, a calendar, worship, purity, forgiveness, and instructions on appointed times God set aside to meet with us in celebration and remembrance (also called The Feasts).  These instructions are given with the promise that, if followed, great blessing will be given.  If not followed, there are curses attached, not to mention the absence of blessings.  Personally, I would even consider the absence of blessings to be a curse in itself.

I think we treat this promise of blessing the same way many of us treat our health and nutrition today.   We know that eating and exercising correctly, we will live healthier and feel better.  Many of us do not follow the basic nutrition and fitness “rules” and end up overweight.  We are tired, sick, and unhealthy.  We spend extra money on doctor visits and medication to fight cholesterol, diabetes, joint pain, and a myriad of other health challenges, all caused because of unhealthy living.   If we just followed the “rules” we would reap the reward.  Do we blame the doctor, fitness trainer, or nutritionist for having rules to follow?  Doesn't that seem silly?

I believe God’s Torah follows the same principal.  The covenant He made, if followed, offered numerous blessings.  If not followed, curses would fall upon us.  The negative connotation from the Torah (law) came from man trying to redefine the Torah as a means to righteousness and salvation, thus imprisoning man in a life of constant failure instead of freeing man to a life of blessings. 

The Torah was given as a way to create an organized community for around 3 million people that were not part of any other organized community.  3 million people without a government, king, ruler, or formal set of laws to guide them.  Most of those 3 million people had spent their entire lives as slaves in Egypt.  Their daily life was one of fearful submission until the great exodus occurred and they were saved from slavery.  Now, wandering the desert, they have no formal organized government or community.  God provided that in the form of the Torah.  In this Torah were laws, hygiene, health, nutrition, how to treat employees, how to treat slaves, how to treat bosses or masters, how to treat foreigners, etc.  The basics of how to live in an organized community without chaos and anarchy.  God took responsibility to teach 3 million people and growing, how to form a single functioning community.

It was man’s mentality that turned this community organization guide book into a form of laws to earn righteousness.  Man turned it into what it was never intended to be.  It was not salvation or a way to earn salvation.  It was a guidebook on how to live life, treat others, and survive as a nation.

Paul did not banish the Torah.  He was simply teaching to return it to its proper place that God intended from the beginning, and to point believers back to faith in God. 

As a teacher would never tell a child to forget or abandon everything the pedagogue taught, Jesus never told his followers to forget or abandon everything in the law.

A Promise Based on Faith - Lesson 7

In this passage Paul continues his reference to Genesis scripture references to support his theology that faith is the foundation.  He is careful to not denounce the covenant with God that included the law.  He simply puts the law covenant in its respective place.

In the last lesson, Galatians 3:1-9, Paul connects the promise of faith with the promise to Abraham, quoting Genesis that in Abraham, all nations will be blessed.  Because of Abraham’s faith (Gen 15:6) God counted him righteous.  Also in Genesis 22, Abraham showed faith by following through with God’s instruction to sacrifice Isaac.  Because of this faith (shown through willing obedience), God intervened and did not allow the sacrifice.

Galatians 3:15-29

·         v3:15-18 – Paul is making a point that God’s covenants do not replace or annul each other.

o   It is interesting that this issue, even though addressed by Paul over 2000 years ago, still seems to be a challenge for some today. 

o   Keep in mind that Paul has spend the last few paragraphs building a case that righteousness and justification are granted by faith, using God’s blessing on Abram that all the families of the earth will be blessed through Abram and that God counted Abram’s faith as righteousness (Gen 12:3 and Gen 15:6)

o   v16 – offspring vs. offsprings – OR – seed vs. seeds

§   Genesis 22:18 - “and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”

§   Genesis 26:4 -  “I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed”

o    The Hebrew root word for seed is zera.  Like the English equivalent, this word can be used for singular or plural, depending on how you use the word and in which context.  The two above verses use a unique variation of the root Hebrew word, which seems to only be used twice in all of Hebrew scriptures.

·         v17 & 18 – Back to the point he made in verse 15.  One covenant does not annul the previous covenant.  The covenant given to Abraham was not annulled by the covenant 430 years later given through Moses. 

o   God’s promise to Abraham was unconditional

§  Abraham did not participate in the ritual

§  Land, Uncountable descendants, chosen people, blessing to all nations

o   God’s promise through Moses was conditional

§  Multiple / countless blessings

§  Required obedience to the commands given

o   Jews, at the time, had tied inheritance and salvation to the Mosaic covenant (v18) and to works. Paul is connecting the blessing of God back to the original, unconditional covenant with Abraham. 

·         V19-23 – This is a critical argument that Paul is making.  Obviously he is laying the groundwork for those that would consider doing away with the law, or for those that would attempt to twist his words, claiming he was doing away with the law.

o   v19 – The connection of the offspring through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through to Jesus as the one offspring that would bless all nations. 

o   v20 – Jewish belief is that God is one in the singular only.  Trinity is not acceptable to traditional Judaism because the scriptures state that God is one and to have no other gods before Him.  Because of this very literal and strict belief, the terminology of a mediator or intermediary is delicate enough that Paul felt the need to clarify his intention by stating God is one.  Paul is pointing to Moses as an intermediary, which God worked through.

§  “put in place through angels” – also referenced in Acts 7:53 and Hebrews 2:2 – any thoughts on this?  I started to dig into this but it seems that it could a very deep study.

o   v21 – Two very distinct and critical points can be drawn from this verse.

§  Point 1 –Paul very clearly pointed out that the law is not contradictory to God’s promises.

§  Point 2 –The law is separate in the regard that the law was never intended to justify or save

§  God’s covenant through Abraham = “The Promise”

·         Unconditional promise of land, inheritance, and blessing

§  God’s covenant through Moses = “The Law”

·         Conditional covenant of blessings and curses if the law is obeyed.

·         Does not undo (or ratify) the previous covenant through Abraham

§  This is a tough concept to process for many.  Common teaching is that the law is contrary to God’s promise and that the law was done away with.  In fact, the law was not done away with, but has a very distinct purpose all on its own.

·         v24-25 – The law was our guardian  (tutor, schoolmaster)

o   Greek: paidagōgos  | English: Pedagogue or Pedagogy

§  The word comes from the Greek παιδαγωγέω (paidagōgeō); in which παῖς (país, genitive παιδός, paidos) means "child" and άγω (ágō) means "lead"; literally translated "to lead the child". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy)

§  “The word pedagogue actually relates to the slave who escorts Roman children to school….The pedagogue's job is usually distinguished from a teacher's by primarily focusing on teaching children life-preparing knowledge such as social skills and cultural norms, etc. There is also a very big focus on care and well-being of the child. Many pedagogical institutions also practice social inclusion. The pedagogue's work also consists of supporting the child in their mental and social development.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy)

§  Paul used a very common picture that everyone, at that time, would be familiar with.  Children would be under the care of a pedagogue.  The pedagogue would be responsible for teaching manners, social skills, etiquette, and ensuring that the children got to school on time, thus handing off the children to the teacher.

§  Think about the picture Paul painted.  He is relating the Torah to a pedagogue.  The Torah provided instructions for how to define community, how to treat each other, social interaction, manners, employment, eating habits, hygiene, etc. 

o   v25 completes the analogy “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian”

§  The analogy is completed by understanding the guardian’s (Torah or law) purpose was to hand us off (point us) to the teacher (Christ). 

§  When the pedagogue escorted children to the teacher, everything the pedagogue taught the children was not disregarded.  That is absurd to even consider.  Just as absurd as Jesus asking us to forget or disregard the teaching of God’s law.

As a lawyer would lay out their case before a jury, Paul has done the same here.  Paul uses direct scripture reference from the Old Testament to illuminate God’s original covenant, based on Abraham’s faith.   He then takes that scripture reference apart to prove his argument and set the foundation.  Like a brilliant teacher, he continues his argument by using common examples that were easy to picture for his readers.  Jesus taught in parables to illuminate his message to his followers.  Paul is really doing something similar here by using the analogy of a pedagogue, which would have been common in an area filled with Roman culture, like Galatia.

Paul spends a lot of time providing the groundwork that justification comes from faith, but makes the very specific point that the second covenant is not annulled and that the laws of Moses have their purpose. 

Seed not Seeds? Offspring not Offsprings?

Galatians 3:8

•             And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” (ESV)

At the surface this may seem like no big deal.  Until you start to read Genesis to find the exact reference that Paul was quoting.  It isn’t as though Paul wrote in his text “As it says in Genesis 22:18, Moses wrote…”  Chapters and verses were added only within the last 1,000 years. 

I would guess that Gen 12:3 is considered the most common reference because Paul is using this passage as an argument that the promise of blessing came before the covenant and before the requirement for circumcision.  Again, however, I have to wonder if, because the exact words he used are not the exact words of any one passage in Genesis, but instead close to many, perhaps he is not quoting as much as he is referencing an overall general meaning of several passages given in Genesis. 

Paul’s reference could be located in a few places in Genesis (12:3, 18:18, 22:18, 26:4).  My ESV bible and my wife’s NIV list 12:3 as the cross reference.  While Gen 12:3 is a possibility, I couldn’t help but wonder if Paul was quoting a different passage because of a point he makes just a few sentences later comparing the singular or plural use of the word seed or offspring.

Galatians 3:16

•             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. (KJV)

•             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)

I did not do a thorough count of how many times God used the word offspring when talking to Abraham, however, it is used several times.  The problem with the translation is that the Hebrew root word for seed is zera.  {A quick side note that I made myself chuckle at the pun of “root word for seed” – I’m thankful God gave me a sense of humor.}  The root word zera can be singular or plural, just like the English words seed or offspring.  When translating or reading, it is imperative to understand the context of the word.

There is one more thing to consider when digging for scripture references that I had never encountered until this week with this particular word and phrase.  The term that Jesus used in Matthew 5:18, “jot and tittle” actually has meaning in the written Hebrew language.  A tittle is actually the small dots and tick marks, or hanging marks that are used when writing in Hebrew.  Jot is actually the Hebrew letter yodh, which, when written is the smallest physical letter.

When using BibleHub (http://www.biblehub.com) to review the differences between the Hebrew words for seed, these two instances stuck out to me. 

בְזַרְעֲךָ֔ – Gen 22:18 – “and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”

בְזַרְעֲךָ֔ – Gen 26:4 – “I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed”

If you carefully analyze the writing, including the “tittles” and marks around this Hebrew word, wə•zar•‘ă•ḵā this version of the word is only used twice in all scripture, which I copied above.  (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/vezaracha_2233.htm)  Interestingly, BibleHub has it listed three times, however, upon careful analysis of the Hebrew writing shows that the word used in Genesis 17:9 { וְזַרְעֲךָ֥ } it is apparent that the writing of the word is different than the other two occurances.

I have two main points, which if you’re still reading, I commend you because for most, this would be considered ridiculously meticulous and unnecessary when studying the Bible.

My first point is that I find it thoroughly interesting that this version of the Hebrew word seed or offspring is only used twice, and both times in reference to blessing all the nations of the earth. 

My second point is that I also find it very interesting that Paul meticulously points out the difference between the singular use of the word seed during his discussion of the promise. 

Could Paul have been pointing to these two unique uses of the word when he was comparing the use of the word seed vs seeds? Is the meaning within the unique visual "tittles" used when the Hebrew word was written?  I do not know nearly enough about the Hebrew language to even feel concrete in my answer, however, I don't think the scriptures are full of coincidences.  I believe every tiny mark has a very specific and deeply profound meaning.  Only One knows all, and He gives us understanding along the way.

Faith from the beginning - Lesson 6

Contrary to what some believers think, Paul was not given new information from God.  The revelation he was given only illuminated what already existed in scripture.  Paul quoted scripture from the Old Testament when presenting his argument.  In Acts 9:22 it is written, “Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.” Luke chose the word proving very intentionally.   The wording is such to explain that Paul was proving through evidence.  The only evidence available at that time was the TaNaKh (Old Testament).  Paul used evidence illuminated to him in the only scripture that existed.  It is important to remember this fundamental point when reading Paul’s letters.  It has been commonly mistaken that Paul created new theology, started a new religion, or abandoned the Old Testament.  This is false.  He clearly quoted and interpreted existing scripture to show where they had gone wrong and how to correct the mistakes they had made.  Paul preached the importance of faith before works not faith instead of works.  He fought against the same thing that Jesus did.  Men had adopted the idea that one could earn their way to righteousness and had added too many additional traditions and man made laws, treated them as equal to or more important than God's laws.  This is the very definition of legalism. 

If I had to guess, these are probably the same arguments, scriptures, and logic he used when presenting his vision and teaching to the beit din referred to in beginning of Galatians 2 and then again to the Jerusalem council in the Acts 15. 

·         v3:1 – bewitched and portrayed

o   Bewitched = deceived

§   “that you should not obey the truth” is the Greek but NIV, NASB, ESV, and many others remove this phrase (http://biblehub.com/text/galatians/3-1.htm).  NKJV and KJV includes it.

§  Although it does not change the overall meaning, subtly it almost seems as though it lessens the impact of Paul’s phrasing

o   “before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified”

§  The phrasing is confusing, but it seems he is simply reiterating that they have been taught, with proof through scripture, that Jesus is the Messiah.

§  Similar to Acts 9:22 that Paul was “proving Jesus was the Christ.”

·         v3:2 -5 – Back to the fundamental point

o   Romans 9:30-32 – Faith first was always the goal.

o   Similar to verse 2:16 – Paul’s broken record approach makes it obvious, to us and hopefully those reading, that faith has to come first.

o   v3:4 – suffer many things in vain.

§  Referring back to the culture, it was required in any Roman territory to be part of their god and idol worship daily.  Ray VanderLaan, in his study guide, In the Dust of the Rabbi explains the Roman/Greek culture in that day as a very religious culture.  Religious in the sense that each community had a central god, another god for the marketplace, and probably several idols in their temple to represent the different gods they believe for healing, harvest, farming, fertility, rain, sun, etc.  This polytheist (multiple god) religion was not optional for citizens.  You had to participate, or the other citizens feared you would anger the gods for ignoring them. 

§  Jewish citizens had immunity, under Roman authority, so long as the local synagogue would offer a sacrifice to the God of Abraham daily in the name of the village.  This kept the political peace and gave Jews freedom to worship their God. 

§  The problem for non-converted Gentiles (Godfearers) was without official Jewish status or recognition from the local synagogue; they more than likely struggled every day trying to avoid idol worship.  I’m sure they would have to justify they were worshiping with the Jews, but not converted to Jewish.

§  I believe that Paul is referencing this day to day suffering they go through.  The persecution of their day.  He is just reminding them, “Why did you go through that only to give in to those that are pressuring you, knowing it won’t help your salvation?”

·         v3:6-14 –Paul is providing the scriptural proof text for his argument that faith is the key.  This would have most likely been the same scriptural references he gave the beit din in Gal 2:2 and again probably to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

o   In verse 6, Paul is quoting Genesis 15:6 “and he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”

§  God provided an unconditional covenant with Abram.  Abram did not even participate in the covenant ritual, as God put him to sleep.  God promised the land and promised more descendants than stars in the sky.

§  There was no action required by Abram.  Only to have faith in God. 

§  It was at least 13 years later before the conditional covenant sign of circumcision was added.  (Gen 16:16 – Gen 17:1)

o   In verse 7 and 8 Paul is quoting from Genesis 12:3 “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” 

o   Both of the passages that Paul references are examples of God making a promise first, and asking for action second.  Not the other way around.

§  Abram had to trust God first, then “go from your country…” (Gen 12:1)

§  Abram had no children at an old age, yet believed God that he would, and that belief was counted as righteousness. (Gen 15:6)

o   v3:10 –Deut 27:26 or Deut 28:15.  To be justified by the law, one must obey all of the laws.

o   v3:11 – Habikuk 2:4

o   v3:12 – Paul wrote, “the law is not of faith” then quotes Leviticus 18:5

§  Obeying the law is an objective based on physical works

§  Faith is an objective based on the heart

o   v3:13 – Deuteronomy 21:22-23

§  Obviously, Paul is not saying that Jesus himself was cursed

§  Jesus took on the curse of our guilt even though he was innocent.

o   Another valuable verse that Paul did not use is Hosea 6:6 (not to put words in Paul’s mouth, but to recognize there are other lessons in the Old Testament that support his teaching.)

§  Hosea and his wife are supposed to be an analogy of God and His people

§  Hosea’s wife, like Israel, would be faithful, then leave, yet God directed Hosea to forgive her and be faithful to her, in the same way that God remains faithful to Israel.

§  Faith was always God’s intent.  Righteousness based on obedience was man’s way of creating a tangible objective.

It is imperative to keep in mind that Paul did not introduce new information.  Paul used Old Testament scripture as the foundation for his argument.  God gave the foundation from the very beginning that faith was key.  When evaluating Paul (or any apostolic writing) there is always a thread leading from the Old Testament (TaNaKh).  The apostles, and Jesus for that matter, did not have the New Testament, so all of their teaching was directly from the TaNaKh.  

Works of the law - continued

Anyone that has studied the bible probably has had those moments where after you think you are "done" with a passage, more thoughts come to mind, or a different perspective crosses your mind.  After my last post about works of the law, I just kept feeling like my thoughts were incomplete or that perhaps I was not fully grasping Paul's point.  I couldn't quite put a finger on that nagging feeling.  I prayed, contemplated, re-read the lesson about works of the law.  It took a few days, but this morning when I was starting a new lesson, it dawned on me.  

I heard a couple of concepts this week that prompted these additional thoughts.  I heard a pastor comment that he felt the term works of the law meant circumcision or the signs of God's covenant with Israel.  He felt that works of the law was Paul's way of saying "convert to Judaism."  This message was recorded several years ago, so I'm not sure if this still his opinion or not.  

In addition I also watched a video by Ray Vanderlaan.  He was leading a biblical history hike to illustrated the story of Exodus when Moses lead some out of Egypt.  The resounding message I heard is that faith had to come first.  The people had to have faith to follow God.  God tested that faith by having them take action.  This does not mean that action, or works, is what God is seeking.  God used action to test faith.  I don't believe this is any different today.

As I referred to earlier, the phrase works of the law is considered by some to be used in the same way as circumcision.  The term circumcision is usually used as shorthand to mean legally and physically convert to Judaism.  While I agree that the term circumcision is used as shorthand in this way, I’m not convinced this is what Paul means every time he uses the term works of the law, under the law, law, works, etc.  My argument is fairly simple.  Paul never taught to not obey the Torah (law).  For that matter he specifically said not to throw out the law (Rom 3:31), and that the law is not contrary to God’s promise (Gal 3:21).  So if Paul does not teach against the Torah, then why would he use such harsh language against circumcision?  If one reads all of the laws written in the Torah closely, there are provisions for non-Jews, sojourners that live among the Jews.  That is a different study all together.  The essential foundation for understanding these commandments is that it was a provisional covenant between God and the people with Moses.  God part of the covenant was that He would be their God, they would be His chosen people, He would protect them, and He would provide them land (severely paraphrased).  The people’s part of the covenant was to obey. 

This is not intended to be a massive fork into another study.  This is intended just to point out where my interpretation is coming from.  Paul made it clear had no intentions of teaching against this.  He proved it in Acts when taking the vow under James’ instruction. 

There are very specific provisions within the Torah for non-Jews (sojourners). 

Here are just three examples:

o   “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.  You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the  Lord  your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34)

o   “And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the  Lord , he shall do as you do.  For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the  Lord .  One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.” (Numbers 15:14-16)

o   “Therefore keep the words of this covenant and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do.    “You are standing today all of you before the  Lord  your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel,  your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water,  so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the  Lord  your God, which the  Lord  your God is making with you today,  that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.  It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant,  but with whoever is standing here with us today before the  Lord  our God, and with whoever is not here with us today.”  (Deuteronomy 29:9-15)

My point is, I believe Paul is simply saying two things. 

1)      When he writes “works of the law”, as translated into traditions of the elders that has been turned into law are not the same as God’s commands.

2)      Faith must come before obedience to the commands of the covenant.  Abraham showed faith first.  Moses showed faith first.  The Hebrews that left Egypt showed faith first.   Obedience to the Torah (law or commands) follows faith.  (Same message from James)

I believe Paul is NOT saying

1)      Circumcision or following the Torah (law) is wrong

2)      Gentiles cannot follow the Torah (law).

I will end by reminding any readers, and myself, that I am learning and these are just my thoughts, based on how I feel I have been lead through the scripture and other supporting information, such as the Dead Sea Scroll document that used the term works of the law.  I pray that God provides me with wisdom and humility.  Wisdom to understand God's scriptures.  Humility to always remember that it is not on my own that I learn, and humility to be willing to admit if I am wrong.