Sermon Tone Analysis

Our passage today is very short.

I know we’re used to seeing Justin and Brandon take large chunks of text for their sermons, but today, I want to focus on this tiny piece of the book of Galatians.

This particular passage - or rather, part of a passage - in my opinion, is tantamount to the key of the book of Galatians.

If we miss this passage, we miss everything else Paul is talking about - justification by faith, what that means for the Christian, why the Christian can have it and how it is obtained - the entire book hinges on these three verses.

As we will quickly see, Paul is concerned with the promises to Abraham.

Maybe I’m the only person who thought this growing up, when I went to church, and even as a teenager, when I placed my faith in Christ.

You go to church, and you sing songs like “Standing on the Promises”.

You hear people talk about the promises of God.

But there seems to be a disconnect between the talk of this, and some sort of general rule of thumb, where if Jesus said something positive that believers can take hold of, it obviously is a promise, and that’s what our faith should seek out.

Maybe I’m the only one who was always left going “what promises?”

But when we read the New Testament, the apostles seem to have a different understanding of what is meant by “promises”, and I think today’s passage is a prime example of this.

In our text today, Paul is seeking to address a particular concern.

Throughout the letter thus far, Paul has been dealing with two things: who inherits the promises of God? and who are the people of God?

In our text today, Paul is seeking to address the first of those two questions, and as we will see, those two questions are both answered in a very intricate, interdependent way throughout the next two chapters.

But in this text, Paul wants to begin to refocus his readers away from the traditional Jewish understanding of the purpose of the law, the means by which the promise is inherited, and who inherits the promise.

We saw, in our last couple passages, that Paul is showing us where he’s going with his ideas - to union with Christ.

But first we have to see why this is important.

What do we have to gain from union with Christ?

Paul starts out by reminding his readers that even a man made covenant is not added to or anulled after it has been made.

For a moment, I want to talk about what Paul is discussing when he says a “covenant” here.

Paul will go on to use some legal language, which has led a few translations, such as the CSB, and commentators to translate this word as “will” rather than “covenant”.

However, though this word could be translated as such in Greek, particularly in Roman contexts, in Biblical contexts, it nearly always means a “covenant”, not a “will”.

This is enforced by the idea that Paul is going to use the same word to identify the promise (the covenant with Abraham), which is not annulled by the law that came after it.

Furthermore, we need to discuss why it is important that Paul is describing a covenant here.

If Paul were merely describing a “will”, his description is actually false from what we know of the Greco-Roman world, and woudln’t make a cogent argument for his readers.

A will was meant to be able to be cancelled or changed and added to if needed.

A covenant however, is a more semitic idea.

A covenant, particularly in the times of Genesis, was typically made by two parties, as they would slaughter an animal, cut it in half, and walk between the pieces.

This was a depiction of what those engaging in the covenant conceded would happen to them if they were to fail in upholding their end of the covenant.

We see this exact image in .

We see Abraham cut up multiple animals, and lay them out.

This is a semitic idea, and it is an agreement that is unbreakable, and unchangeable.

This is what is known as a maledictory oath - the parties call irrevocable curses upon themselves if they break the agreement.

The semitic idea of covenant is not like the American Constitution.

Our constitution is set up with enduring principles, but it allows for the chance to be amended.

A covenant is not so!

So Paul reinforces with his readers that even when men make a covenant - it cannot be broken.

It is something that has curses for failure to uphold terms - you don’t merely cancel or change it.

But then we see something that may seem somewhat odd to us if we are unfamiliar with certain elements of the Torah.

Paul begins calling the covenant with Abraham the “promises”.

Why is this?

If a covenant has terms for both parties, how can this be a promise?

The Hebrew bible explicitly calls this a covenant.

Well, if we look back to the Abrahamic covenant, in , we see the animals cut up and laid out.

But who walks between the pieces?

Who calls curses upon themselves for failure?

Abraham certainly doesn’t walk between the pieces.

We see a smoking fire pot, and a flaming torch pass through.

Where else do we see these things?

These are similar to the form of the angel of Yahweh, who leads Israel out of Egypt.

So the Lord Himself takes full responsibility for the terms of the covenant - He will surely uphold it.

In this way, the covenant is a promise.

Whatever terms there were, they are all to be upheld by Yahweh, and none other will suffer if it is not upheld.

So Paul here tells us that the promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his offspring.

Now, here, some commentators have seemed to have a bit of confusion as to what Paul could be doing.

It is certain that in the Judaism of Paul’s day, that the “offspring” to which promises were made, was a corporate entity.

It was a singular noun that represented a group - not merely an individual.

But Paul tells his readers that it was made to “one”.

Some commentators want to make this “one family” or “one group”.

However, Paul is very specific - this does not refer to “many” but to “one” - and that one is Jesus Christ.

So Paul is laying out that the promises were made to Abraham and one offspring.

But what promises?

Many commentators, usually of a particular eschatological persuasion, want to make this a general promise of blessing - typically being identified as salvation in some respect.

But the first question we can ask is this - what was promised to Abraham?

Was general blessing ever promised to him and his offspring?

There were three things that were promised to Abraham - offspring, that he would be a blessing to the nations, and the land of Canaan.

But there is only one promise that is generically granted to his offspring (other promises are reiterated to his offspring, but only one promise is granted to his offspring along with him).

This is the land of Canaan.

Paul pulls a very particular phrase from the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

There are a number of times that New Testament authors will pull quotes from the Old Testament with varying forms from the Greek Old Testament.

But here, Paul pulls exact wording from a few passages in the Old Testament.

In Genesis, the phrase that Paul pulls here “and to your offspring”, is used in 13:15, 17:8, 24:7, 26:3, 28:4, 28:13, 35:12, and 48:4.

What is even more informing, is that this phrase, exactly as Paul has used it, occurs in only one other place in the Old Testament, in the book of Numbers, where the Israelites are told that the Old Covenant was for them and their offspring - obviously not what Paul has in mind here.

But every other occurrence of this phrase, has as its referent, the promise of land to Abraham.

Now at this point, some commentators, even those rejecting a particular eschatological camp, will say “Nope.

Paul’s using allegory here, because this doesn’t make any sense.

Why would he say that God promised Jesus the land of Canaan?”

But, I want to refocus our understanding of that for a minute, just as the authors of the New Testament do.

Remember when Justin and Brandon started in on Genesis and Revelation?

What was one of the themes that they wanted to really pull out in that series?

The idea that the glory of the Lord would fill the earth.

I think we see Paul moving in on this idea right here.

Here’s what I mean.

If we look through the New Testament, we see a few places where the idea of the “land” is expanded.

In the Sermon on the Mount, we see Jesus say “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

Now, the word for “earth” here, is actually the same word in the Greek that is used for “land”, as in “land of Israel”.

Earth is not a faulty translation, if you understand what the New Testament authors are getting at.

But Jesus takes that saying from - which is a Psalm that has, as its core focus, the type of person who will inherit the land of Israel.

We also see Paul pull from the Ten Commandments, when he tells his readers at Ephesus, that they should honor their parents, because this command has a promise - that you may dwell long in the land, and prosper.

This is the same promise attached to it when it was given to Israel - that those who honor their parents would live long in the land of Israel.

Our english translations say “earth”, but again, its the same word for “land”, it gets its meaning from context, which I would say, given that these two are pulled from sources talking about the land of Israel, should be translated land.

Unless, we could find a reason that the authors would mean “earth”.

I want to focus on one passages here, though more could be used.

This is a parallel passage to what we’re looking at today, in .

Paul says

This is a parallel passage in Romans to what we are looking at today in Galatians.

But notice the curious change of terms that Paul uses here.

What was Abraham and his (singular) offspring promised?

Here, Paul says that he would be heir of the world.

This is a different term than what we’ve been looking at.