Week six: 3.13-27 Paul contrasts Abraham's promise to the law

Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.

Last study we saw that we were tied completely to the law if we were to try to keep any of it. Verse twelve was quite clear on the subject.

Rom. 10.5 Adds to this thought. "For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them."

The Romans text is a reference to Lev. 18.5 "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD."

In this study we see that Christ freed us from all those bonds and ties.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:

The term redeemed has many thoughts. It can mean to buy with ones own belongings something from another for ones own use. It can be translated ransom - a price paid to another to gain something back from domination.

In this context it relates to Christ buying us back or paying the price to free us from the domination of the law. Before, the law and it kept, was our only possible salvation, now that Christ has fulfilled that law, and given his life as atonement, we are free from the laws dominion and rule over us.

The fact that this redemption is in an aorist tense means that it was done at a point in time, that it is no longer going on. There is no further redemption being provided on a continuing basis, there is no cross on a continuing basis and there is no need for offering Christ on a continuing basis. It was done in the past, on the cross and it remains done for all time.

The verb "is written" is a perfect tense, something that was written in the past, something that remains written even now, and something that will always be written into the future to a time of completion. Rather well describes the eternality of the Word of God doesn't it.

The passage referred to is Deut. 21.23 "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God ;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance."

The "us" to some commentators relates specifically to the Jews in Paul's audience as well as himself, however it also extends to the gentiles in that, a way had to be made for the gentiles to be blessed through Abraham. We will see a little more on this in the next verse and find that this idea of "us" is not necessarily true.

Christ being made a curse speaks to the substitutionary aspect of the atonement, He was cursed for us - we need not suffer death as did Christ since He already suffered and paid the price.

A couple of verses in Deuteronomy picture this portion of Christ's ministry to us on the cross.

This passage pictured what He would go through hundreds of years before the fact. Deut. 21:23 "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance."

The second passage relates to the curse upon any that does not follow the entire law. Deut. 27:26 "Cursed [be] he that confirmeth not [all] the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen."

Just a little freebie here, the first Deuteronomy passage is a great illustration of how the Old Testament helps us know and interpret the New Testament. Many are the passages of the Old that open the secrets of the New.

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.

Here we see Paul including himself in the collective "we" of the Gentiles, whereas, he included himself in the collective "us" in the previous verse speaking of Jews. It was mentioned that the "us" in the previous verse related specifically to Jews, but I don't think that case can be made since this observation seems to indicate he is speaking of all elect generically rather than to groups within the files of the elect.

There is a note of interest here in that Paul pictures Christ's death as being for the Gentiles alone. Now, was there no need for Christ to die for the Jews - of course he needed to die for the Jews as well as the Gentiles. I think he is here just speaking directly to the people of interest at this point in time - the Gentiles that needed to understand that the death of Christ was sufficient for their salvation.

The promise of the Spirit comes from Christ and His work rather than from the promise to Abraham, thus again a thrust of the grace sword into the heart of the legal minded works-a-lot Jews.

The Spirit was promised in the following passages:

Joel 2.28, 29 "And it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit."

John 14.16-17 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

John 14.26-27 "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."

Lu. 24.49 "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

Acts 2.33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

Paul seems to tie verse fourteen to the falling of the Spirit at Pentecost and by way of round about says that this was related directly to the promise of God to Abraham.

What are some of the blessings that the Spirit gives to us? We have seen in the previous passages already that we have peace, knowledge and power. Are there other benefits to this blessing?

Yes, of course, let's just list a few:

Indwelling John 14.16-17

Peace: John 14.26-27

Power: Lu. 24.49

Knowledge: John 14.26-27

Remembrance: John 14.26-27

Learning: John 14.26-27

Gifting: I Cor. 12.1ff

Fruit: Gal. 5.22ff "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance"

Not to mention all the ramifications of Salvation: Baptism into the body of Christ, regeneration, justification, etc.

And again we see the same emphasis on faith that we have seen before. Faith alone can bring us to salvation, and it is that same faith that Abraham had when he believed God in the beginning - faith in the Word of God.

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.

This covenant was "confirmed" - the verb is in the perfect tense - something that will be carried forward "as is" till completion yet future. The question is what covenant we are talking about. Is it the covenant with Abraham, the covenant of the coming Spirit or what?

The context is clear that this is related to the promise to Abraham that has been fulfilled by Christ - the blessing of Gentiles.

It is of note to me that the passage seems to be telling us that the blessing of all nations is done, is set and nothing more is to come. Not that future generations of Gentiles won't have access to salvation, but that there are no other conditions to be met, in other words, there is no way that the Gentiles are to benefit from the promise of the Land or any other promise other than salvation.

There is the question of Paul's terminology. Most scholars make great mention, when studying the Old Testament, of the fact that this covenant with Abraham was God's covenant with Abraham, not Abraham's covenant with God. How does this relate to our passage, or does it?

First of all, yes, this is God's covenant, He made the promise, and it is on Him to see to its fulfillment, not Abraham. Having said that, it is a covenant WITH a man, the man Abraham. It is a covenant with man, thus Paul's terminology only calls to the thought that God made the promise to a man, and that there is no man that can disannul it - in short, this passage backs up the thought that God has the responsibility to fulfill it and that no man, no matter how powerful and smart can do anything to stop God from doing His promised work.

The phrase "if it be" is in brackets meaning that it is not in the original, only added for understanding. I might add that it is to be understood as "if and assumed so" rather than "maybe it will and maybe it won't" - a much different view. The American Standard Version states "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto."

Paul, when he speaks "after the manner of men" is simply saying, from man's point of view - a covenant once ratified (by God) is not made void or changed by man. Again, how arrogant for a man to assume that he can make void or change the covenant that God has set into motion.

I might clarify my own statement - Paul specifically says no man will ADD to the covenant - and we see another clear, concise lunge to the heart of the Judaizers teaching. Paul isn't even nice about his little comments here and there that had to inflame the false teachers. No wonder he had so much trouble with them, they must have hated his every word.

At the same time, how sad to see that truth brings hatred from the false teacher. Often this is the case in reality.

Heb. 9.17 gives a little insight to the thought of a covenant or testament. "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

Kind of relates to why Christ had to die - the covenant was dependant on God and his Word and really His death to put the covenant into effect. This is the seeming conclusion to this passage. A good deal of study could be done on this subject if one had the desire to dig deeper.

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.

(Some passages of interest in the Old Testament are in Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 24:7.)

The Net Bible translates the verse as follows: "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. Scripture does not say, "and to the descendants," referring to many, but " and to your descendant ," referring to one, who is Christ." This makes it easier to see what Paul is saying, not that the King James doesn't give this same thought, it just is not as easily seen by some readers - in my opinion of course.

The Net Bible lists the following passages to show that the singular was the terminology that God used when He spoke to Abraham and indeed they do show this. Gen. 12.7; 13.15; 17.7; 24.7.

This verse is a part of the next verses and all present an argument to the Judaizers which again prove them to be false teachers. My how uncomfortable they must have been when this letter was read.

I must also wonder if some of them didn't see the pure logic and correctness of Paul's arguments and repent of their false doctrine. They would have to have been quite hardened to the Spirit to reject what Paul was saying.

So, was the promise for or to Christ might be the question that is raised. Since many preachers tell us that all nations will be blessed by the promise to Abraham, and this passage states that the seed is Christ, then was the blessing Christ that was to the nation or was Christ to be blessed because he was Abraham’s seed?

We need to link to this passage the information given in Gen. 17.4 "As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations." He would father nations. This is mentioned in other Genesis texts as well. Add to this, Gen. 18.17 "And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; 18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?" and we see clearly that the nations would be blessed through Abraham, but that the seed was Christ. I think some preachers probably are a little sloppy in their use of these passages - myself included. The seed of Abraham is blessed, but the seed proper is more to the point, Christ.

Abraham, by the way means "father of a multitude." You and I are a part of a multitude of spiritual kids. Actually the term "seed" is the word sperma which literally relates to the seed that is placed in the ground in the hope of germination and a plant to follow, and as has been indicated previously is in the singular.

One might wonder if the "seed" thought of the promise wasn't related to the fact that the Jewish law required brothers to raise up seed for a dead brother that had not. This might well relate to the thought of spilling seed on the ground being wrong. These laws related to the possibilities of the line to the "seed" Christ.

Let's read this argument in its completeness: 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise. 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.

The promise was first, and then came the law, so how can the law be part of the promise - the promise is the source of salvation, not the law. A very simple logical argument against the teaching of the Judaizers that wanted to make the law a part of salvation.

I don't know how much clearer Paul could have made it. This is almost a picture drawn with words to refute the intellectual musings of the false teachers.

We might, in our smugness, suggest that this sort of thing can't happen today - we are too smart to allow ourselves to be drawn into such false teaching yet, just this past Sunday we were visiting an independent, fundamental church and sat through a video presentation that was taking dowry passages from the Old Testament and relating them to how a man should approach a woman today before marriage.

Yes, there might be some application from the feelings, the respect and the approach for today, but to directly start applying such passages to today’s youth is nothing less than Judaizing - telling them they have to court as the law tells them to court. Not a far jump to the relating of law to salvation if you are this close all ready.

Just a side note, the term "He" does not appear in the original. It is assumed from the verb. The Net Bible translates this as "Scripture does not" and their footnote states that this is an alternative translation to assuming "He" in the passage. Whether it is God or Scripture the result is the same, for if it is Scripture it is from God - His Word and He said it, and if it is God, then His word is in complete agreement. It was God that spoke it in the first place anyway.

Just some other thoughts on the passage, the verb "confirmed" is in a perfect tense - something that has happened, but the action is ongoing into the future to a completion. It is confirmed by God, so we have something that is kind of like guaranteed I would think.

In verse eighteen the verb "gave" is also a perfect tense.

20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.

The term mediator relates to one that comes between two to bring peace. Much as a legal mediator does today. In the spiritual realm there is a rift between God and man, and Christ the mediator is the only one that can mend that rift. The term also can be translated arbitrator. It is someone that brings peace and restores friendship.

Just what is the meaning of the verse? Some suggest that the King James addition for understanding may be incorrect when it puts "[a mediator]" in the verse. Without it we read "Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one." This seems clear to me - a mediator does not work well, if at all if he is working with one person. You can't mediate without two parties. You can't restore something between one.

Not having checked commentaries I have to wonder if the passage is just disclosing that there was division within the God head in the area of the promise - in that it was yet to be completed, and Christ was the one, the mediator that brought peace within the trinity - God is one, but there are three.

Another reference for further study: I Tim. 2.5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

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.

That is quite a thought - had any law been able to give man salvation God would have moved in that direction, Christ would not have had to die. Indeed, the whole sacrificial system would have never come to pass, for a law could have been given to bring us home to Him that created us. God would not have had to kill animals for skins for Adam and Eve when they sinned.

Just a side track, the animals had to be killed to provide covering for Adam and Eve, due to their sin. Indeed, this pictures beautifully the "covering" of sin for the Old Testament saints until their sins could be removed by the Lamb of God. Also what a wonderful picture of the difference between the Old Testament saint pre-Christ and the New Testament saint post-Christ. Sins of the Old were covered until washed away at the cross, while the New Testament believer's sins are removed immediately.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

All are under sin because of the Law - it revealed the requirements, and we all fail. The promise was given to those that believe. Believe what? God and what He said, as we have said before. Belief is the only way to God, not following any law of any sort.

The term faith and the term believe are very closely related - one is "pistis" and the other "pistueo," both relating to commitment to something. Belief being the knowledge, while faith being the action of trusting in that knowledge that is believed.

This passage ought to make the strong Calvinist squirm, since belief seems to be a pre-requisite for the faith. Many of them hold that the faith is given so that we can believe. Others get around this little problem buy saying that God regenerates the lost person so that they can believe and receive faith. A good way to explain things, but they only have one passage to base pre-salvation regeneration on, and that is that John The Baptist was regenerated in His mother’s womb - and the fact that there is no indication of regeneration in this passage isn't a problem to them - what they assume is truth and that is that (for them :-)

The Net Bible reflects a newer line of thought about "faith of Jesus Christ" that relates the faith to Christ Himself, rather than our faith in Him. "But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone * under sin so that the promise could be given because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to those who believe." The Net Bible note suggests that most modern Greek scholars follow this line of thought.

Some related verses: Ro 8:2-4; Ro 3:11-19; 11:32.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

This suggests clearly that the faith of verse twenty-two is related to Christ, not us.

Now, this passage has some import that I have never heard before - I have always been taught that it speaks simply that we were bound to obey the law. This passage seems to say much more to me. Before faith came, some suggesting this be Christ while others see it simply as faith/belief, we were kept or held guard, or imprisoned under the law. The term used relates to being under guard or the thought of a city under siege - the city dwellers are kept from escape. Shut up in prison until faith should be revealed. Again, some see faith as Christ, others as faith fulfilled coming.

Now, the thought of being imprisoned under law seems to relate to much more than just being bound to the law to obey it, to me it suggests that until Christ came, the believer was literally imprisoned spiritually. This is true, in that they could not have been regenerated until Christ came to do the cross work. The reformed abhor this thought, but it is the logical conclusion - how can regeneration ever occur until Christ has done all that is required for regeneration and redemption.

I do not suggest, as some have intimated, that the Old Testament saint was not saved and on his way to glory, but I am saying that they could not get there until the work of the Cross was done. It is illogical to put the cart before the horse. I have suggested that even God can't deficit spend - He cannot override the requirements His own decree set forth. It is the cross of Christ that brings salvations possibility and nothing else. It, of course, was from the foundation of the world, but God, when he created set His decree within a framework of time and limited Himself to that medium.

How can He provide something that He has not supplied? He can't. The Old Testament saint was bound for heaven as sure as I, but based on the coming "faith" or work of Christ. (See my work on regeneration for more on this line of thinking.)

Finally, to the point - the Old Testament saint was in bondage until Christ was come. This is what Sheol and Luke sixteen is about. The saints of old were contained in Sheol until they could be liberated and set free by their coming savior.

Oh, what a truth - and the reformed folks I have spoken with on the subject just bristle and foam over such thinking - how clear it is to me from this passage as well as others.

The term "kept" has the thought of kept by a garrison, or kept under guard - be kept from moving freely where you will. The Old Testament saint was not free spiritually; they were very limited in their position before God, until Christ came and made provision for all of us.

This was a keeping of their soul as well as their mind and will, this is also why the Old Testament saints were such sinners, they did not have the Holy Spirit to convict and guide them, they were very limited in their ability to do right - the law was their prison.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

This term schoolmaster is also translated instructor in the Bible. It really just pictures the fact that anyone attempting to obey the law found how inadequate to the task they were - in short they knew they needed another way for they could not do it. The law informs them that Christ is needed.

The term is used of Roman slaves that were entrusted with the bringing up of boys in that culture. The boy was taught and mentored in all sorts of ways to bring him to manhood. The boy could not leave the house without his schoolmaster.

Again, Paul emphasizes the fact that it is not the law that can justify, but rather Christ by faith.

There are some today, mostly in the independent Baptist circles from my observation that are saying you can't properly teach the gospel until you teach the law. This passage is partial basis for this teaching. I would agree to the fact that we need to get them lost - help them understand their position before God - but I don't think we are required to teach the law. If you want to show the law (how impossible it is to keep) yes, go ahead, this will show them their lostness as well, but I personally feel that they only need to know they are lost and that Christ is the only answer available now or in the future.

The law was our schoolmaster or our teacher to bring us to Christ.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

In the classical use of the term, when the boy becomes a man there is no need for the schoolmaster. The one standing born again before the Master has no need of keeping the law, only serving his Savior.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

I say uuuuupppps. Faith brings us to Christ - baptism allows us to put on Christ. Hummm. I think we have a topic to discuss here.

Is baptism a requirement for salvation? We have covered this as false doctrine before, so of course baptism is not contingent on salvation. It is an important act of obedience, but it is post salvation - if it was part of salvation, it couldn't be an outward sign of inward change. Simple isn't it when you apply a little logic.

However, I doubt a baptismal regenerist would buy that simple logical explanation.

In verse twenty-six "ye are" is a present tense - something that is ongoing. In twenty-seven "baptized" and "have put on" are aorist tense - point in time. This does not seem to point out anything in particular other than once you are saved it is a continued classification/condition.

The question that needs to be answered is which baptism is being considered here? Is this speaking of water baptism, or is it speaking of Spirit baptism, or is it maybe - read that as "this is" - the baptism of the believer into the body of Christ.

The only time we are baptized "into" Christ is when we are baptized into the body of Christ. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Many misconstrue the baptism of the Holy Spirit as your baptism with the Spirit when you speak in tongues, but this is not a teaching that is in keeping with Scripture. This passage itself speaks directly to "into" Christ - nothing about the gifts in the context, nothing about salvation in mind, and nothing but the body of Christ can fit the context. (John the Baptist foretold this baptism - see the following for further study Matt. 3.11; Mk. 1:8; Lu. 3:16; Jo. 1:33.)

APPLICATION:

1. In verse fourteen it mentions that the gift of the Spirit was a direct result of the blessing via Abraham. Was this the only blessing? Was this THE blessing promised? Was the gift of the Spirit to the gentiles the blessing to all nations through Abraham, or was there some other part to this blessing?

Seems like the subject of a good study to me.

2. I have no doubt that some might use verse fifteen and following to suggest that Paul is talking to saved people and that he is speaking of a promise of the Spirit yet to come, as in you get saved, and THEN you will be promised the Spirit and you must groan and moan and seek and try to find and all those other antics that you must go through to "get" the Spirit.

Not so, Paul is merely saying that the promise is where it all began and by faith we gain salvation - the indwelling Spirit being the sign of said salvation. He is pointing out the absolute truth that salvation comes from faith and that the Spirit is our proof of said saving.

3. One might suggest that there is quite a contrast between two special benefits to our faith in Christ. Not only are we saved and all that entails, but we also receive the Spirit and all that entails.

We could go on about those two topics for quite some time. We have already listed a few of the benefits of the Spirit, let's just take a moment and list some of the benefits of salvation.

Regeneration

Justification

Redemption

Sonship

Heirship

Saved from eternal hell

Saved from our sinful nature

Freedom from the law

Freedom from a sinful life governed by our lost nature

Wow, what benefits we have in Christ!

4. Might I step into areas of thin ice? I know I am going to get very wet!

Years ago, and I might say most churches have wised up a lot since this time in church history, I was told by a church member of some actions that had gone on in his church.

He related that some long haired young men - now this is in the 70's when long hair meant all those things like peace nick, free love, irresponsibility, laziness, rebellion etc. - had been led to the Lord by some of his fellow church members. The long haired fellows were starting to attend church, when on the second or third Sunday the deacons of the church cornered the group and told them that they really needed to cut their hair - it really wasn't Christian to look that way.

Now, I must admit I was one of those that had a problem with hair, but early on, the Lord placed me in a working context with some long haired young men, and I found that they were quite likeable, quite bright and quite energetic. I found them to be courteous and hard workers. I would guess these deacons were unfamiliar with these men on a personal basis.

These deacons seem, in my mind, to have been trying to add to God's covenant just a very little law of appearance. I don't, for a moment, think these deacons would have verbalized the need to have short hair for salvation, but they seemed to be practicing that line of thought.

I found as the long haired generation matured, that many of these people changed their appearance in their and God's own good time after they were saved.

The need of the Christian is to lead people to Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to do the convicting - he does a much better job of it. Yes, we should disciple - in one on one situations, not by a mob action cornering people in the church foyer on a Sunday morning.

5. Another point from verse fifteen. When God calls you to do something, when God gives his direction to a church, or when God leads a group to a certain purpose, where do MEN get off, changing God's mind and/or methods?

God is the one Person in the universe, in time, and in intellect that is capable of directing, leading, or calling as He sees fit. He is concise, He is clear, He is not swayed by public opinion and He is GOD, the one we are to FOLLOW.

How arrogant we are to try to say His way is not valid, how arrogant we are to try to add to His clear direction and how arrogant we are to set ourselves above and over Him that created us and saved our worthless souls - yet arrogant we often are. It is no wonder Satan thinks he can win us over, for we are often just like him - even in our saved, regenerated and on our way to heaven state we tend toward rebellion against Him.

I have run into men on internet boards that think that their particular education is the only valid one to be had. Anyone that didn't go to a school similar to theirs is deficient in some manner and God will never be able to use those that are so lowly. One man mentioned that God had lead him to a particular school and program, to which the brainiacs countered, that is a deficient education, why would God lead anyone to prepare improperly for the ministry.

They totally discounted the man's leading and tried to shame him into thinking that God couldn't have lead him into this substandard program, that he must have been listening to someone besides God.

Such arrogance will surely be met with reality one day and I doubt that I would like to be on the holier than thou men's side of things.

There is a growing attitude among Christians that if it isn't the best, in their eyes, then it cannot be Godly. If it is less than my standard then God cannot be in it. Yes, seek the education that God leads you to seek, but do not allow others to set the standard for you, allow God to set the standard.

6. Well one more application from verse fifteen. If God has a plan, and if Christ knows that plan, and Christ is the Head of His church - and all are true - and most evangelical churches would agree - SINCE these things are true, why is it that so many churches so seldom seek Christ's direction for His church? Why do so many churches bow to their pastor’s decision to lead HIS church in a particular direction? Why do so many churches seek programs and ploys to get people into the church, when Christ has given us direction to go out into the world to win them?

It seems we seldom seek His will, His direction, or His desire for our churches. He has all of these, if we will only seek Him out and ask what He would have us do.

Why, if these things are true, do we not seek Him at least at public prayer times to ask direction from Him that can and will give it?

7. I think this passage points up a very critical issue that many Christians fail to pick up on in their lives. Many doctrines are mentioned in this passage, and all those doctrines are interrelated. If you change one you affect all. This is true when you look at the whole of the Word.

A number of years ago we were asked to pastor a church. The men could not find a doctrinal statement nor constitution. They wanted to move forward without them with the understanding that they would be critical to my decision. They were sure that I would be in agreement and the man that recommended me to them was a trusted fundamentalist in my mind so we did not feel this was out of line.

At the final meeting the men asked me officially to become pastor and they handed me the documents. They wanted an answer so I told them I would be their pastor but it would be contingent on my agreement with the documents. All were in agreement and we parted.

When I arrived home I read the constitution first, which was quite general, quite weak, and quite inadequate, but I figured we cold work on it in the coming days. The final statement seemed to pop back into my mind several times. It ran something like "We will cooperate in ministry with any evangelical group."

I don't mind cooperation with people of like mind, but the term evangelical screamed for clarification since most charismatics would consider themselves evangelical. I would have a problem with a lot of other evangelicals as well.

I called one of the deacons and sure enough, they had charismatics in mind when they had adopted the statement. He went on to tell me that both documents were patterned after a charismatic movement church's documents. He further informed me that the church supported a charismatic missionary.

I told him we needed to talk. We drove out to his home and discussed the matter awhile. He could not see what the problem was. He did not agree with tongues, but felt that was not an issue. I asked him if he realized how many doctrines that one false teaching affected. He did not, so I informed him of some of the ramifications of holding to tongues.

He still saw no problem with me being pastor of a church that saw no problem with the charismatic doctrines of the Spirit. I did, and informed him of my decline on their offer to pastor their church.

One simple doctrine can affect how you view so many other teachings.

Just another example lest you question this truth. If you accept the five points of Calvinism as taught today, you may also end up accepting covenant theology and ammillennialism. That is quite a bowl of cereal to swallow!

8. One thing Paul is not saying in this passage is that the law has nothing good in it for the New Testament believer. Most know the familiar passage II Tim. 3:16-17 "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." This passage requires that there is something in the law for our benefit - ALL "scripture is given" and this clearly includes the Old Testament for that is the only scripture that existed at the time.

Though we are not bound by the law, we are to view it as "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;" In fact we did this when we considered verse thirteen. We looked to the Old Testament for further teaching concerning the work of the cross and the curse of the law.

9. Constable suggests that Abraham had four different seeds.

He had, of course, his natural seed - his physical descendants: Genesis 12:1-3, 7 and many others. There is further what Constable calls "natural-spiritual seed" or the physical descendants that became believers: Isaiah 41:8; Romans 9:6, 8; Galatians 6:16. Further he had a spiritual seed that was made up of all Gentile believers: Galatians 3:6-9, 29. His final seed was the ultimate seed, Christ Himself: Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 2:16-17.

10. Some today take the thought that the law is profitable to us to mean that the law is a basis for the ruling of any nation - that the law is the frame work within which you can run a nation in the world. You might like to know that many of these people are attempting to set this up in America. You think we have trouble with the liberals, wait till some charismatics start wielding the law with a rod of iron.

Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North are some of the prominent reconstructionists. This line of doctrine is also called theonomy as well as Chalcedon school. This doctrine is more prevalent than you would think. It is gaining great strides in the charismatic movement, and by the way normally translates into Postmillennialism.

These folks would have the population of the United States believe that the Old Testament Law is the basis of the government, the basis of all law and an added part of their thinking is that this will bring the Lord back to set up his kingdom. Since man has been able to set up the law as the basis for society, then Christ can return. In case you did not catch that, we are the ones that will bring Christ back, not the plan of God.

11. Another truth that we might draw from this passage is an old truth, a glorious truth and a very comforting truth. Just imagine the changes in the world from Abraham's time to our own. Drastic changes. From riding on camels to RV's larger than camels, from cooking on an open fire to opening a pouch, and from the dusty roads of the desert to purified apartments of filtered and cooled air. Yet, God has not changed. He is the same identical God that was there with Abraham. He is here with us today in the same form and character. He not only hasn't changed, He, indeed, cannot change.

So, as Abraham trusted Him, so we can trust Him, with our lives, our salvation and our souls.

12. Is it the law that condemns us, is it the law that tells us we are sinners, is the law that which brings us to Christ? In a sense, yes it is, but in another sense it is not. It shows us what sinners we are, but how does it accomplish this? It accomplishes this by giving us the reality that this law is God's requirement for righteous life. It is HIS standard that we are failing. It is HIS requirements that we cannot meet. It is HIS righteousness that we cannot achieve by anything that we do.

In truth the law only shows us what we really are before Who and What God really is - holy, just, pure, righteous and all the other things that we are not. Only through Him can we gain any favor - not by following the law that we cannot keep.

13. Many, including the Jews, believe that the law was given via angels. I do not know what the Jews base their thinking on but others base their thoughts on comments by Stephen in the Book of Acts. Acts 7.38 "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" Acts 7.53 "Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it."

Verse nineteen may well add to that thought. The term ordained can be translated ordered or commanded, thus incorporating the angels into the mix in some manner.

So, work if you desire to work for Him, follow the PRINCIPLES that the law contains, but do not look to either for the basis of your salvation for if you do you will be sorely disappointed in your final destination when you pass from this life.