Biblical Literacy and Galatians 3

[benherndon]

Well I am a 'product' of SDA teachings in the late 20s through the late 40s. Tulsa Jr Academy, Enterprise, Southern, Andrews and LLU. You can guess what I was taught. I've mentioined it several times. Salvation was by works, NOT faith. Faith came half-heartedly after the Ford crisis---speaking in general terms. As far as official beliefs are concerned they are limited to the "27" even today. Can't get them to go out on a limb beyond the "27". No church published paper, book or magazine will be allowed to 'talk for' the church. Its the '27' only far as I can tell.

Are you finished with Gal 3 and your comments about 'no longer under the supervision of the Law, tutor, schoolmaster, or whatever?' To me the point is clear? I think EGW has agreed with it being either or inclusively,'moral law', 'ceremonial' and 'both'! At least at that time she gave it some thought. Finally she said to quit talking about it and promptly bawled out the GC Pres for bringing it up again. I looked all this up once a few years ago.

If you are through with Gal 3, would you please take up the last half of Gal 4 and statistical display, or block diagram, it?

Ben

[there buster]

There's more to Galatians 3. I simply took up the schoolmaster issue early because you wanted it.

[benherndon]

Oh, thanks! Please go ahead with the rest of it! Ben

[there buster]

I reblocked the first several verses from the NIV.

Comparing the two, you'll see some changes. Most of those come from my renewed study.

1You foolish Galatians!

....^Who has bewitched you?

....|...vBefore your very eyes Jesus

....|Christ was clearly portrayed

....|................^as crucified.

....|2I would like to learn

....|.....^just one thing

....|.....|from you:

....|.......^Did you receive the Spirit

....|..........^by observing the law,

....|..........|or by believing what you heard?

....|3Are you so foolish?

....|After beginning

....|.......^ with the Spirit,

....|are you now trying to attain your goal

....|........^ by human effort?

....| 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—

....| if it really was for nothing?

....| 5Does God {give you his Spirit

............... {and work miracles among you

.................^because you observe the law,

.................|or because you believe what you heard?

6[You Galatians] Consider Abraham:

........^“He believed God,

........|and it was credited to him

........|............^as righteousness.”....

........| 7Understand, then,

........|.....^that those who believe

........|.....|are children of Abraham.

block diagram © 2005 by Ed Dickerson

What strikes me most about this passage is the contrast between the active "doing the law," and the passive "hearing."

The Judaizers apparently want everyone to become "children of Abraham," no doubt through circumcision among other things. And Paul emphasizes that you become a child of Abraham through what you receive and believe, not through any outward action.

[benherndon]

I'm waiting for the 'finish' of Gal 3 by your 'block diagram' method.

Far as I can see the Law is contrastd with Spirit in this verse much as in a similar way 'law' and Spirit is contrasted in 2Cor 3.

Ben

[benherndon]

Quoting: "..........[23] But before faith came,

...............we were kept under the law,

....................shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

...............[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. "

>>>>Do you not see a contrast here also?---"But before..." contrasts with "But after"?

Ben

[there buster]

Yeah, I'm really crazy this week. My youngest daughter's fiance flew in yesterday, and I was the only one to pick him up at the airport. I found out that I have a short deadline on an article for an overseas magazine. Tomorrow I have to take my future son-in-law to look for employment (8 mo from now, when he's discharged from the Marines). Anyway, my otherwise busy life has become insane. I'll be back to Gal 3 late tomorrow.

[there buster]

All right. I'm just not going to have the time to redo all of Galatians 3 in NIV or other modern translation. So, as clunky as it is, I'll have to use the KJV.

[:"blue"]

.....|[10] For as many as are of the works of the law

.....|.........^are under the curse:

.....|...........^..^for it is written,

.....|..............|....^Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things

.....|..............|.........^which are written in the book of the law

.....|..............|..............^to do them.

.....|..............|[11] But that no man is justified

.....|..............|.........................^by the law

.....|..............|.........................|in the sight of God,

.....|..............|............................^it is evident:

.....|..............|............................|for, The just shall live by faith.

.....|..............|[12] And the law is not of faith:

.....|..............| but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

[/]

....................|

{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:

...........|

...........|[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles

...........|........through Jesus Christ;

...........|that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

This section really boils down to two complementary propositions:

1)Even the Old Testament makes it clear that the Law condemns (curses) everyone, and that faith, not obedience, is the way of the just.

2)Christ provided the way out by accepting the curse of the Law, so that we, through faith, my receive the promise made to Abraham.

Summing up the verses so far.

1) The Galatians have been fooled into thinking that what they received by faith they must maintain by works.

2)The minute you switch to works, the law points out your failure and condemns you.

3) That's why Christ came to take that condemnation, so we could receive the promise of deliverance given to Abraham

[benherndon]

Why is being under the Law a curse?

If we are not under Law what part of the Law are we still under? and if that's confusing, why aren't we under the Law, still? And if we are not under the Law anymore, as Christians, why are we talking so much about one of the Laws that we MUST STILL be 'under' even after we are released from the Law? and if that's confusing---then I must still be a 'good SDA'---

Ben

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Why is being under the Law a curse?

If we are not under Law what part of the Law are we still under? and if that's confusing, why aren't we under the Law, still? And if we are not under the Law anymore, as Christians, why are we talking so much about one of the Laws that we MUST STILL be 'under' even after we are released from the Law? and if that's confusing---then I must still be a 'good SDA'---

---

I can't answer all of your questions, Ben, from this text. My purpose is not to defend or refute teachings of any denominatin, or any faction. My purpose here is to actually exegete, interpret, and apply the given passage.

[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.

.....[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.

...........|

...........|........v[17] And this I say,

...........|that the covenant,

.........................^.....that was confirmed before of God in Christ,

.........................|.|the law,

.........................|.v.....^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.

Paul opens this section by pointing out that, in human terms, after a contract is completed, it cannot be cancelled--both parties are obligated by it. (v. 15).

He then, as promised, makes a "lawyerly" distinction, that the origina contract was with Abraham and his "descendant" (literally "seed"), not with all of Abraham's descendants.

Since that contract was confirmed, nothing could make it void. (v. 16)

Now Paul closes the deal. With the contract already confirmed, no "johnny-come-lately," or more lawyerly "ex post facto" Law could change the contract's provisions. (v. 17)

Besides which, if the inheritance came as the result of the law, Paul argues, then it couldn't be as the result of the promise.

Intriguing. Paul is using a legalistic argument to defeat legalists. Cool!

[there buster]

.....[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.

...............[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.

This is one of those times when Paul is at his most convoluted. C. S. Lewis once wrote that he wondered why God had given so much light to someone "without the gift of clear exposition."

Part of this, as I touched on in another thread, is the fact that Paul was dictating--and therefore often thinking out loud. Any serious writer recognizes how many revisions go into what later appears effortloess prose. And as they say in journalism school, "There is no good writing. There is only good rewriting." Well, the epistles were largely dashed off, in response to some problem, without careful reorganization and editing.

On the upside, we get a candid view of the workings of Paul's mind. On the downside, we're getting "raw data," and have to do the best we can to understand it.

Here goes.

"So why do we have the law at all?" Paul asks.

"it was added because of the transgressions"

difficult clause.

added? added to what? To the promise, already mentioned.

It seems most likely to me that it means that the law came because the Israelites had lost the knowledge of God during the years of slavery--but that's my best guess, not a certainty. If anyone wants, I'll offer my theory a little later. Right now, I'm sticking to the literal, clear meaning.

"till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made;"

So it was added for a period of time, until the heir, or recipient, of the promise would come and collect? confirm? the promise itself.

The promise is explicitly identified as the promise to Abraham.

"and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

also obscure. Translations of this vary all over the lot.

There seem to be two points Paul wants to make.

1) That the law came indirectly, through a chain of communication. [God] -> angels -> mediator.

And

2) There must be two parties, if a mediator is required.

God is only one of the parties.

"[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:"

So, are the law and the promises competitors, antagonists, opponents? The answer is one of the strongest forms of negation in the NT. A scholar friend of mine says the closest contemporary expression would be "Hell, no!" He tells me it is so adamant it is shocking.

So Paul launches into why the law and the promise are not opposites. But in a rather indirect way.

"for if there had been a law given

which could have given life,

verily righteousness should have been

by the law.'

Apparently, there is no competition because the law is powerless to give either life or righteousness. The construction here virtually makes "life" and "righteousness" synonyms.

And here comes another of Paul's elliptical points.

"[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."

Looking at this, I began to suspect a chiastic structure. That's where the passage divides in half, with the first part mirroring (in some way) the last; the second the next to last, and so on. "Chiasm" comes from the Greek letter "Chi," written "X"--thus the mirror image. In a chiasm the center is the focus.

This is running long. The rest of the analysis will have to be in a later post.

[there buster]

Let's see how that fits together.

(note, this is just the English translation, so its chiastic structure won't be perfect in any case.)

At first I noticed these parallels.

"[22] But the scripture hath concluded all under sin,

that the [:"blue"]promise [/]

by [:"red"]faith[/]

of Jesus Christ

might be given to them that believe.

[23] But before [:"red"]faith came,[/]

we were kept under the [:"blue"]law,[/]

shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed."

Then I checked the Greek and found that the word for "concluded" in v. 22 is the same root as "shut up" in v. 23.

(the Greek shows as Greek on my display)

συγκλείω

sugkleiō

soong-kli'-o

From G4862 and G2808; to shut together, that is, include or (figuratively) embrace in a common subjection to:—conclude, inclose, shut

That's especially helpful, since those are not natural English expressions, and not obviously parallel in English. So that gives us this:

"[22] But the scripture hath [:"orange"]concluded all under sin,[/]

that the [:"blue"]promise [/]

by [:"red"]faith[/]

of Jesus Christ

might be given to them that believe.

[23] But before [:"red"]faith came,[/]

we were kept under the [:"blue"]law,[/]

[:"orange"]shut up unto the faith[/] which should afterwards be revealed."

So we have these parallels:

[:"orange"]concluded all under sin,[/](A)

..............[:"blue"]promise [/]B

........................[:"red"]faith[/]C

........................[:"red"]faith came,[/]C'

..............[:"blue"]law,[/]B'

[:"orange"]shut up unto the faith[/]A'

You may note that A - A' and B - B' are antithetical or opposite parallels, while C - C' is simple parallel.

This mixture of simple and antithetical parallels in a chiasm is quite common.

That leaves the focus of the chiasm, the clause we left out

[:"orange"]concluded all under sin,[/](A)

..............[:"blue"]promise [/]B

........................[:"red"]faith[/]C

...................................>>>[:"purple"]might be given to them that believe.[/] D

........................[:"red"]faith came,[/]C'

..............[:"blue"]law,[/]B'

[:"orange"]shut up unto the faith[/]A'

To conclude this segment.

IF this passage is a chiasm, then Paul's main objective is to point out that salvation is a gift.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that this is a chiasm, but I believe I have produced not insignificant evidence for it. My Greek simply isn't strong enough for me to make an assertion. However, the Greek evidence (most of which I did not go into here) looks very strong to me, as well.

I'm personally about 70% confident of that interpretation.

For those interested in the Greek transliteration (I can't find one that will appear as Greek), here it is:

3:22 alla [:"orange"]sunekleisen h grafh ta panta upo amartian[/] ina h [:"blue"]epaggelia[/] ek [:"red"]pistews[/] ihsou cristou doqh [:"purple"]tois pisteuousin[/]

3:23 pro tou de elqein thn [:"red"]pistin[/] upo [:"blue"]nomon [/]efrouroumeqa [:"orange"]sugkleiomenoi eis thn mellousan pistin[/] apokalufqhnai

I'll finish ch. 3 later. Before I do, I'd be interested in serious and relevant input concerning these last two posts.

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

I'll finish ch. 3 later. Before I do, I'd be interested in serious and relevant input concerning these last two posts.

---

>>>>Your last statement here may not be directed to me or it may. But, if so, and from your posts on other threads, you intimidate me a little, because you make me hesitant to discuss for fear you will consider it 'arguing' or insulting or whatever negativistic appearance it may have to your mind.

I accept that you wish to 'exegete, interpret, apply'---that is exactly what interests me. So I await your interpretation....and application.

So what does v. 25 mean to you as a member of the Adventist persuasion?---that's what I'm hoping to learn from you. I may or may not agree with it---but whatever, my agreements and my disagreements are always tentative! I seek to present Bible truth as I see it and I seek to defend it. I expect the same from others. So, I am not disturbed by reasoned disagreement given without rancor and sarcasm---I seriously consider it--it causes me to re-evaluate my previous tentative conclusion(s).

I've 'progressed'(?) beyond routine acceptance of my former SDA teachings which have been pretty much 'poured in cement' and are considered unassailable by the church authorities. I've studied the SOP and the Bible about equally now, so I'm ready to cautiously use some discernment of my own.

Ben

[there buster]

Now, here's something that argues slightly against the chiasm in the previous post.

Here's a different set of parallels

..........[23] But [:"blue"]before faith came,[/]

...............we [:"red"]were kept under the law,[/]

....................shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

...............[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster

....................to bring us unto Christ,

.........................that we might be justified by faith.

...............[25] But [:"blue"]after that faith is come,[/]

....................we [:"red"]are no longer under a schoolmaster.[/]

As I mentioned in an earlier post:

Quote:

---

The word in question is:

παιδαγωγός

paidagōgos

pahee-dag-o-gos' a boy leader, that is, a servant whose office it was to take the children to school; (by implication [figuratively] a tutor

[“paedagogue”]):—instructor, schoolmaster.

In fact, the paidagogos was more of a bodyguard than a tutor. It was that servant's job to get the son to school safely.

---

And that perfectly matches the context here. The law was a kind of bodyguard, to keep people from being victimized by the worst kinds of sin, until they could find the remedy for sin through faith in Christ.

Paul's picture is pretty clear, here.

Based on this passage, we can make several conclusions.

1)The law is a good thing

2)The law can, at best, protect us from the worst depravity.

3)If we use the law as a bridge to bring people to Christ, the law is serving it's proper function.

4)The law cannot save us.

5)Once we have come to Christ, the law has served its purpose.

[benherndon]

When it is proper perhaps you could elaborate on the application of item # 5 to usual SDA interpretation.

Ben

[there buster]

Quote:

---

usual SDA interpretation

---

Well, it all depends on where you go.

In the circles I travel in, that's what's taught. When I took NT courses in the Seminary, that's what I was taught.

Have I heard others teach otherwise? Certainly.

Mistaken teachings about the status of the Law abound. So I prefer to spend my time exposing what the Bible does say. My loyalty in these matters is to the text, because we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Opposing mistaken teachings is more than a full time job, so I just concentrate on fidelity to the text.

Frankly, much of the teaching in many of our churches, and even on CA, simply doesn't rise to the level of error. A lot of it would be comical if it weren't pathetic. Since all I have is a little flashlight, I try to shine it where it will do the most good.

Most people, even Christians, have so little regard for the Bible, that they don't bother to spend the time to find out what it actually says. For me, it's like watching people taking scissors to a priceless tapestry, so they can cut it up to make their own quilt. Somehow they think their design for a quilt is more important than the one who painted the tapestry.

[benherndon]

I agree----most of the time when somebody tells you they've just heard a great sermon and in response you ask,"Oh, that's nice. What did the preacher say?" The usual response is, "Oh, I was afraid you'd ask that!" LOL

Being true to the Bible text may differ somewhat between people--while both believe they are being true to the text. However, this principle is what drove me to abandon the 'authority' of the SOP and limit my 'authority' to the Bible alone. And, I want to warn anybody who so does, may well have to face a weakening of their blind belief in some precious SDA teachings of the past. Not to say that SDAs are wrong on everything they teach for indeed, they are NOT! But sometimes the 'emPHAsis' gets on the wrong 'syLLAble'! Know what I mean?

What's not discussed much publicly in our church is that a whole lot of the youger crowd leave the church and even God, in frustration due to improper application of much of its literature. That is why I get on the broken record of saying, Its "Pastoral", not "Prophetic" in authority!

Ben

Ben

[there buster]

I planted a church to help keep young people in the church. But they care much less about mistaken teaching than they do about cramped thinking and legalism.

As far as Pastoral rather than Prophetic, I don't see those two as opposites.

For me the question is, "Authoritative for whom, and under what circumstances?"

I think we're agreed on one of the egregious misuses of EGW--to interpret the Bible. I used to get a perverse kick out of a recurring announcement in a church bulletin:

"The Ladies Bible Study Group will meet xxxxxxxxxxxx. The passage will be chapter 3 of the Desire of Ages."

Now, I yield to no one in my admiration for the Desire of Ages-- but it cannot be construed as Bible study!

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

For me, it's like watching people taking scissors to a priceless tapestry, so they can cut it up to make their own quilt. Somehow they think their design for a quilt is more important than the one who painted the tapestry.

---

What a good way of saying it!!

[wicklunds]

Ed,

I was wondering why you like to use the block diagrams in your exegetical exercises. Does it help you be a more sound theologian? I am a student of SDA ministry and have been turned off to this method. Help me understand why it is a viable tool. Thanks.

[benherndon]

Did you, Ed, ever meet and talk personally with Eld. Fred Veltman who reviewed D of A for Pres Neal Wilson?

[there buster]

Turned off? How so?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Did you, Ed, ever meet and talk personally with Eld. Fred Veltman who reviewed D of A for Pres Neal Wilson?

---

No.

[there buster]

It took me a while, but I finally found a way to keep the spaces but make them invisible.

Here are the last few verses.

[26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

[:"#EAEAFF"].....[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ

[:"#EAEAFF"]...............have put on Christ.

[:"#EAEAFF"]..........[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek,

[:"#EAEAFF"]..........there is neither bond nor free,

[:"#EAEAFF"]..........there is neither male nor female:

[:"#EAEAFF"].....for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

[29] And if ye be Christ's,

[:"#EAEAFF"].........then are ye Abraham's seed,

[:"#EAEAFF"].........and heirs according to the promise.

This really doesn't require explanation. Those who receive the promise are the children of Abraham, to whom the promise was given.

Verse 28 is one of the most magnificent declarations of the universal value of human beings ever written. We're still trying to understand it.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I was wondering why you like to use the block diagrams in your exegetical exercises. Does it help you be a more sound theologian?

---

I came across the block diagram or syntactical display in Toward an Exegetical Theology by Walter Kaiser. Immediately I saw how it can clarify difficult passages.

No method is foolproof, of course. But done properly, the block diagram forces the exegete to face the hard issues in the text, make choices about its organization, and explain those choices. It often surfaces difficulties that might be glossed over. Perhaps most importantly, it helps distinguish between those issues we do understand, and those we do not. Sometimes the most important thing a Bible student can say is, "I don't know."

It is best done in the original languages, of course. I have seen a dissertation which essentially block diagrammed the entire book of Revelation in Greek.

However, it is quite useful even in English. Does it help? Yes, but only help. It is, in essence, a form of discipline. Every serious student needs insight, based on wide study of the Bible; illumination of the Holy Spirit; and humility, among other things.

Galatians 3, because of its more direct nature, yields less to this technique than some other passages.

2 Cor 3 was pretty rewarding in that regard.

And, as I keep emphasizing, it is only one tool. It is so visible that people recognize it easily. Others are not so obvious, even when I point them out.