Thursday, November 01, 2007

Pulpit Crime Prevention

If you were to ask me when I have grown the most in my faith I would have to say it has been when something in Scripture has confused or troubled me. The other student pastor, as well as our senior pastor would probably say the same. In these times we are forced to study God’s Word all the more fervently and it has made us better disciples.
Paul, Chris, and I have been in one of those times lately as we’ve been studying Galatians. We decided that Galatians was the perfect book to precede our study of Revelation. It has been an incredibly beneficial study for us personally as we have struggled our way through a very deep letter.
The purpose of this particular post is to provide a forum over the next couple of weeks as Paul and I prepare to preach our way through the later half of Galatians 3 into the first part of chapter 4. This is all really Paul’s fault. He always seems able to ask the questions that we never think of and throw us into an exegetical crisis.
The following is probably going to seem rather incoherent due to the fact that I can barely express what is plaguing us about the latter half of chapter 3, but, this is less about articulating our confusion and more about spilling our thoughts and getting input from those of you who feel you are able to contribute to the conversation.
So here we go…

Galatians 3:15-26

First, let me start with what we’ve all pretty much agreed on. Paul is directly referring to the covenant made with Abraham and how Christ was always the intended fulfillment of it.
He is the seed of promise according to verse 16.
The promise indicates justification (v. 24).
The promise applies to Christ as the literal seed of Abraham (v. 16).
We are heirs of that promise, adopted by God, through our faith in Christ (v. 25,26).

Further, a lot of the obvious objections to Paul’s assertions are answered within the text, all having to do with law. V. 17 begins with an implied objection, “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. (18) For if inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by a promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.”

Paul continues with the most obvious objection – What was the point of the law?

Once again, here’s where we agree.
The law was never intended to impute righteousness (v. 21).
It was established to reveal our sinfulness and inability to please God (v. 19).
It served to point us to Christ (23, 24).

From this we believe we can preach effectively and consistently without committing any pulpit crimes. We also feel however, that we could understand more. This is because we continue to have a lot of questions about what this passage implies about God’s covenantal interaction with his people.

I think our confusion lies in the nature of the covenant made at Sinai and what blessing through obedience and cursing from disobedience truly mean and to what they are referring. What is the nature of this covenant? Is it a covenant of works? If so, how is it not contrary (as Paul says in Galatians) to the covenant made with Abraham?

Is there an evident distinction here between a “Capital C” covenant, as with Abraham, making the Sinai covenant a “little c” covenant?
Did the original audience understand anything of the covenant’s nature the way Paul did?
Does the law serve not as a covenant which maintains their relationship with God – but serves the three fold purpose of distinguishing Israel from the rest of the nations, reveal God’s law, and reveal that man is incapable of satisfying it?
How do any of these purposes serve Israel in the Old Testament? Is that even a good question?

This doesn’t even really begin to demonstrate how many different rabbit trails we’ve followed during our office time together – but it’ a start. So, I invite you to study Galatians 3 with us this week and contribute to the conversation if you think you can be helpful.
God bless!
Cory Kitch
Student Pastor CVCC

4 comments:

Unknown said...

I found this helpful and interesting...
http://www.mctsowensboro.org/blog/?p=125

Howard Fisher said...

I am beginning to think the Sinai Covenant was meant to be subservient as James Allen suggested in the e-mail I sent.

But I really think Waldron's understanding of Romans 5 really gives great insight into Paul's thinking in Galatians 3. But again, I just don't know if that is the answer the the question that I can't put my finger on either!!!!
Am I just forcing Romans 5 into Gal 3?

I'll keep chewing on it though.

I really wish I had a bigger library! Now where would I put all of those books?

:-)

Howard Fisher said...

I was listening to one commentator who likened the "schoolmaster to the idea of a legal guardian. For example, I recently made a will stating that my children would inherit all of my possessions, but that would not take place until the appropriate age. I had to appoint the legal guardian (I couldn't get you married soon enough ;-) ) to oversee that my children would be taken care of until the proper time.

The Law was also to oversee the children until the time Christ came and His people received the Promised Holy Spirit. So in fact, the law acts a guardian.

Gill says in his commentary:

"the law performed this office of a schoolmaster until the coming of Christ; which shows that till that time the church was in its minority, that the Jews were but children in knowledge and understanding, and therefore stood in need, and were under the care of a schoolmaster, the law, by which the whole Mosaic administration is designed."

He then describes what the Law does and concludes...

"Moreover, the law being called a schoolmaster, shows that the use of it was but temporary, and its duration but for a time; children are not always to be under, nor designed to be always under a schoolmaster, no longer than till they are come to a proper age for greater business and higher exercises of life; so the law was to continue, and did continue, to be of this use and service to the Jewish church during its minority, until Christ came, the substance of all it taught and directed to: both the Jerusalem Targum and that of Jonathan ben Uzziel, on Num_11:12 use the very Greek word the apostle does here, concerning Moses, rendering the words, as a "pedagogue" or "schoolmaster" bears a sucking child into the land, &c."

God Bless

Paul said...

J. Edwards book "History of Redemption" has been very helpful for me. Here is a quote to tease you.

"But sometimes the work of redemption is taken more largely, as including all that God accomplishes tending to this end; not only the purchase itself, but also all God’s works that were properly preparatory to the purchase, and accomplishing the success of it. So that the whole dispensation, as it includes the preparation and purchase, the application and success of Christ’s redemption, is here called the work of redemption. All that Christ does in this great affair as Mediator, in any of his offices, either of prophet, priest, or king; either when he was in this world, in his human nature, or before, or since. And it includes not only what Christ the Mediator has done, but also what the Father, or the Holy Ghost, have done, as united or confederated in this design of redeeming sinful men; or, in one word, all that is wrought in execution of the external covenant of redemption. This is what I call the work of redemption in the doctrine; for it is all but one work, one design. The various dispensations or works that belong to it, are but the several parts of one scheme. It is but one design that is formed, to which all the offices of Christ directly tend, and in which all the persons of the Trinity conspire. All the various dispensations that belong to it are united; and the several wheels are one machine, to answer one end, and produce one effect."