Sermon Tone Analysis

Promises are interesting things.

They are only as reliable as is the person who makes the promise.

Because of our frail human nature all of us are apt to neglect a promise that has been made from time to time.

That is in part due to the fact that there are so many things in this world that are out of our control — things which affect our promises.

For instance we might make a promise to a child to go the park for a picnic on a certain day, only to have to break that promise because of the nasty weather.

Sometimes, in order to be sure to keep a promise we set the standard so low that it is nearly impossible not to keep it.

Once I knew a person who made the promise to read at least one verse out of the Bible every day...

Others will not make any promise.

Therefore they cannot be held accountable for breaking a promise.

Solomon counseled as much when he wrote that it was better not to make a vow at all than to make a vow and then not keep it.

For humans promises are always suspect.

But not for God.

God is always faithful to His word.

Paul wrote:

The writer of Hebrews wrote:

Though we cannot fully rely on the promises made by man, we can fully rely on the promises of God because the character of God is such that He cannot fail to keep His promises.

One of the promises God has made to His children is to forgive their sin.

John tells us:

Today, as we consider our text in , we will look at a promise that God made long ago to Abraham.

The Jews, it would seem (as well as the Judaizers) believed that the Abrahamic covenant, which is repeated over and over again in , was negated or nullified by the Mosaic covenant.

But Paul argues that their thinking is flawed.

The main point of our passage this morning is that promise of God is irrevocable

As we consider our text this morning we will look at the human example, the Christ-centered parenthesis, and the chronological priority of the promise of God to Abraham.

Let’s read our text together — Galatians 3:15-18.

THE HUMAN EXAMPLE

Some years ago a woman died and left all her property to a Christian university.

Her children were unaware of this, and so when the contents of her last will and testament were revealed they were enraged.

They contested the will in probate court.

Their argument was that the will stated that her “worldly goods” were “bequeathed” to this university, and they reasoned that this meant her “personal effects” and not her property.

They lost.

As far as the law was concerned, the matter had been settled when the old woman died.

(Ryken, pg.

119).

Just as this woman’s last will and testament was irrevocable in the eyes of the law, so Paul argues in verse 17 that God’s promise to Abraham was irrevocable.

This promise was not replaced by the law that was given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

To set up his argument, Paul uses an example from human relations in verse 15.

Let’s look at this verse once again.

Notice that Paul’s tone has a marked contrast to the way he addressed them in when he wrote: “You foolish Galatians.”

One commentator referred to this as being “both frustrated affection and gentle coercion.”

(Dunn 1993a: 181; quoted in Moo, 2013: 226).

Notice next that Paul indicates that he is using a human illustration.

In other words, the illustration is to help with the understanding of the readers, but the comparison is not complete because you cannot adequately compare God and His works to anything that is human.

Isaiah once stated:

And again,

But to establish his argument, Paul uses a clearly marked human illustration.

One that is so common that any in his audience would get the picture.

Paul is arguing from the lesser to the greater

The term that Paul uses for “covenant” has two basic uses.

First it can refer to what we would call a last will and testament, which is how the apostle uses it in verse 15 regarding human relations.

The second use is for a covenant, which is the way the same term is used in verse 17.

What is the distinction between the two?

A last will is a one sided affair.

When my dad made out his will we had no say in the matter.

He made the determination and we received what he wished for us to receive.

There was no opportunity given to strike up a bargain.

There was no contract to be negotiated.

However a covenant is an agreement.

It is normally a multi-sided affair.

So, in I think the old RSV probably gives the better understanding of the context of this term:

When is a will validated?

It is not validated while the testator (the legal term for the person who has a will made) is still alive (at least not in our culture).

It is validated after the death of the testator.

From a human point of view, only the testator can make changes to his or her will.

The recipients of the will have no authority to make changes.

The main point is that once a last will and testament has been validated it cannot be changed

If that is the case in terms of a human will (which is the lesser) what about the case in terms of the promise of God (which is the greater in our argument from the lesser to the greater)?

Let’s turn our attention now from the human example to the Christ-centered parenthesis.

THE CHRIST-CENTERED PARENTHESIS

Look with me at verse 16.

Commentators have referred to this verse being parenthetical because the argument from the lesser to the greater that Paul begins in verse 15 is completed in verse 17.

This does not in anyway diminish the importance of this verse; it merely refers to the flow of the argument.

Such a format is rather common to Paul’s writings.

Sometimes the editors of the various translations are kind enough to insert a parenthesis to help the readers with the flow of the argument.

But not here.

I remember years ago when I was preaching through out in Maine.

I was trying to get a better grasp of what Paul was saying in a rather long sentence.

In doing so I read the passage from various translations, and I actually found the KJV to be the most helpful because the editors had inserted parenthesis marks which greatly cleared up the text for me.

Back to this text.

Here Paul takes us back to the promise that God made to Abraham.

The promises “describe the way in which God takes the initiative to hold out the prospect of blessings — of land, of numerous descendants, and of the extension of blessing to other nations — to Abraham and to the other patriarchs (Moo; 228).”

The apostle could be referring to one of many references in Genesis, but most likely he is referring to or since both the terms “seed” and “covenant” are used in both texts.

I don’t normally use the KJV rendering, but in this case it preserves the term “seed” as used in Galatians.

The term “seed” is also translated as “descendants,” or “offspring.”

The parenthesis of verse 16 serves to equate the covenant of verse 15 with the promise to Abraham.

Paul’s argument is based on the singular form of the Greek word that is translated “seed.”

σπέρμα sperma — is singular as opposed to the plural form σπέρματα spermata.

Paul’s argument here created issues especially for liberal scholars who seek to deny the inspiration of Scriptures.

That is because, as in English, the Greek term is collective.

What does that mean?

A collective term is a singular term that can be used to represent plurality.

Much like the term “deer” which can be used both singularly or collectively.

As a music teacher, when I would teach the song RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER I would have all sorts of trouble trying to get first graders to sing “then all the reindeer loved him” instead of “then all the reindeers loved him.”

Though first graders can’t grasp the nature of collective nouns, most adults do.

It comes so natural to us that we do not even think about it.

So in this passage critics state that this is an example of forced interpretation.

But just because it seems forced in our day does not mean that it was forced in Paul’s day.

In fact it was a common method of rabbinic teaching.

Also, Paul understands well the collective nature of the term since he used the same term in (in this very same context) collectively.

Moo points out that “Paul’s application of the ‘seed’ language to Christ may also reflect the later traditions about a ‘seed’ of David (Moo; 230).”

So what is the meaning of this verse then?

If the promises made to Abraham were made only to Abraham and his immediate descendants, they might well be considered fulfilled even before the giving of the law; the law would simply inaugurate a new era in God’s dealings with mankind.