Galatians 4 v 30, 31, 5 v 1a - The exclusion of Hagar the slave girl and her son Ishmael from the inheritance

 ‘But what is Scripture saying? ‘Be throwing out the slave girl and her son, because the son of the slave girl will absolutely not inherit in company with the son of the free woman’. 31 Therefore on this basis brothers, we are absolutely not children of the slave girl, but on the contrary, of the free woman, the free’, (Galatians 4 v 30, 31, 5 v 1a).

Paul refers to the language of Sarah to Abraham when she requested him to throw out Hagar and Ishmael, (Genesis 21 v 10). Her words received endorsement, ‘And rulers and judges said to Abraham, ‘Don’t let it be displeasing in your sight because of the boy or your concubine. All, whatever Sarah has said to you, listen and pay attention to her voice, because your seed will be called out within Isaac’, (Genesis 21 v 12). Thus, as the Galatians could read for themselves in the Scriptures, delegated rulers and judges said that Hagar and Ishmael were indeed to be sent away from Abraham’s family. The son of the slave girl was not to share the inheritance with Isaac. In the same way, on this account, all Jews who continue to exist under 'Jerusalem' and the legal Covenant of Sinai, enslaved to seeking to obtain judicial approval by observing its written codes of law, are excluded from the ‘family’ of those brought forth as a result of the announced promise. They are excluded from the divine inheritance. Thus Jesus says to Jews, ‘Struggle to go in by means of the narrow door. For I am saying to you, many will seek after entering in and will not be able, 25 away from which the master of the house having roused up and shut the door. And you begin to stand outside, knocking the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us’. Answering, he will say to you, ‘I don’t know you, from what place you are’. 26 Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in front of you, and you taught in our streets’. 27 And he will say, ‘I am telling you, I don’t know where you are from, stand away from me all workers of injustice. 28 There will be the lamentation and the grinding of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets within the Kingdom of God, but you being thrown out. 29 They will come from the east and west, and from north and south, and will recline in the Kingdom of God. 30 And look! Those existing last who will be first, and those existing first who will be last’, (Luke 13 v 24 – 30). 

Paul comes to a conclusion. ‘Therefore on this basis brothers…’. They are his brothers on account of being fellow Jews, but more especially they are his brothers because along with Paul, they ‘are absolutely not children of the slave girl, but on the contrary, of the free woman, the free’. Paul applies the allegory and brings it to its conclusion. Paul said earlier ‘Now if you [are] of the anointed, then you are existing Abraham’s seed, heirs down from announced promise’, (Galatians 3 v 29). And again, So therefore, you are no longer existing a slave, but if a son by means of God, also an heir, allotted a share, (Galatians 4 v 7). His logic then is this, if we are heirs, ‘we are not children of the slave girl’, whose son, according to Scripture, was ‘not to be heir’ (verse 30). But we are of the free woman whose son was, according to Scripture, to be heir. We Hebrew Christians are not ‘thrown out’ like Ishmael, but accepted as sons and heirs in God’s household on the basis of God’s announced promise.

Galatians 4 v 28, 29 - The children and heirs of God’s announced promise

 ‘But you brothers are down from Isaac, are children of announced promise. 29 But just as at that time the one having been procreated down from flesh persecuted the down from Breath, [Pneuma], in this manner also at this present time. 30 But what is Scripture saying? ‘Throw out the slave girl and her son, because the son of the slave girl will absolutely not inherit in company with the son of the free’. 31 Therefore on this account brothers, we are absolutely not children of the slave girl, but on the contrary, of the free’, (Galatians 4 v 28, 29).

‘But you brothers are down from Isaac’. Paul continues the allegory that he introduced in verse 23. He is not talking about physical descent from Abraham and Isaac, but about a line of ‘children of promise’, as he confirms in the next phrase – you ‘are children of announced promise’. Remember, Paul is speaking to and about Jews, and the contrast is between -

Jews existing under the Sinai Covenant and its written codes of law, and

 

Jews existing under the announced promise of God, by means of entrustment

The allegory describes -

Jews under the Sinai Covenant in terms of Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael

Jews under the announced promise in terms of Abraham, Sarah and Isaac

Scripture describes the animosity between Ishmael, born of the flesh, and Isaac who was brought forth as a result of the announced promise, down from the Breath. The particular reference made by Paul is doubtless to Genesis 21 v 9 where Ishmael treated Isaac with ‘outright scornful laughing’, jeering and deriding him. Jewish commentators pretty much also agree that Ishmael took his bow and shot an arrow at Isaac, with an intention to kill him, though he pretended it was but in play. The incident is recorded in the non-canonical Book of Jasher. ‘And Ishmael the son of Abraham was grown up in those days; he was fourteen years old when Sarah bare Isaac to Abraham. 12 And God was with Ishmael the son of Abraham, and he grew up, and he learned to use the bow and became an archer. 13 And when Isaac was five years old he was sitting with Ishmael at the door of the tent. 14 And Ishmael came to Isaac and seated himself opposite to him, and he took the bow and drew it and put the arrow in it, and intended to slay Isaac. 15 And Sarah saw the act which Ishmael desired to do to her son Isaac, and it grieved her exceedingly on account of her son, and she sent for Abraham and said to him, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for her son shall not be heir with my son, for thus did he seek to do unto him this day’.’, (Book of Jasher 21 v 11 – 15). Other commentators suggest that there was also contention about the inheritance, which Sarah’s words to Abraham seem to confirm. Ishmael claimed the birthright, despising Isaac as the younger son, and insisting on his right to the inheritance. He mocked the promise of God with respect to Isaac and threatened what he intended to do to Isaac should Isaac claim it.  Mocking has been always reckoned as a form of persecution.

Paul applies this animosity to the present situation. Just as Ishmael persecuted Isaac, so now at this present time, Jews under the Sinai Covenant with its written codes of law pursue and persecute Jews, and indeed Gentiles, who are ‘down from the Breath’.

Galatians 4 v 27 - The cry of the deserted woman and her children

 ‘For it has been written: ‘Be well understanding, the barren, the not bringing forth, break forth and shout, the one not labouring in birth pangs; because many the children of the desolate woman, more than of her possessing the husband’, (Galatians 4 v 27).

The quotation Paul refers to is from Isaiah. ‘‘Cry out, you sterile, not bringing forth; burst forth a ringing cry and cry shrilly you not writhing in birth pains, because many more the sons of the desolated woman than sons from the married woman’, says Yahweh’, (Isaiah 54 v 1). 

‘Jerusalem above’ - the delegated leadership and leadership infrastructure within the heavenly realm - is free and unbound, (verse 26). This statement is placed in contrast to ‘Jerusalem below at this present time’ - the enslaved delegated leadership and infrastructure of Israel. Given this context, the ‘the barren and not bringing forth’ refers to ‘Jerusalem at this present time’. The delegated rulers, authorities and judges of Israel – metaphorically referred to as ‘Jerusalem’ – are barren and not bringing forth, and are enslaved to law and flesh. Thus the delegated rulers, judges and authorities in Israel - ‘Jerusalem’ - are exhorted to be ‘well understanding’ (verse 27), to perceive their position and to ‘cry out with a ringing, shrill cry’, (Isaiah 54 v 1). The phrase ‘well understanding’ is from the Greek word ‘euphrainó’, usually translated into English as ‘Rejoice’, ‘Sing’, or ‘Be glad’, but it is actually an imperative to have a ‘good mind’. It can indeed refer to rejoicing and being glad, but this is not necessarily the case, and such a meaning is not intended here. In Isaiah the Hebrew word is ‘ranan’, meaning is ‘to cry out’, ‘to shout’. This is not a call to rejoice or be glad – just the opposite. Isaiah 54 ultimately leads to a prophecy concerning the Millennium Reign and the restoration of Israel. In verse 1 Israel is in a barren state and the call is to cry out. In verse 2 expansion is exhorted, because in verse 3 and the verse following, their restoration is prophesied. 

In Galatians it is the enslaved delegated leadership and leadership infrastructure of Israel, and given the quote from Isaiah, Israel itself, that is to cry out and shout with a shrill voice. Why? ‘Because many the children of the desolated woman, more than of her possessing the husband’ and ‘because many more the sons of the desolated woman than sons from the married woman’. 

By way of explanation Paul continues to refer to Hagar and Sarah. Hagar, points to the Sinai Covenant and its written codes, she is the ‘desolated woman’. The Greek word is ‘erémos’ meaning ‘deserted, abandoned’. Following the birth of Sarah’s son, Isaac, immediate animosity arose between Ishmael and Isaac, and between Sarah and Hagar, such that Sarah insisted to Abraham that Hagar and Ishmael be removed. Accordingly they were given some provisions and sent away into the desert – they were ‘deserted’. However, earlier, an angel/messenger had delivered a promise to Hagar, as recorded in Genesis 16 v 10, ‘I will greatly multiply your offspring so that they will be too numerous to count’. Hagar fled toward Egypt, and when in despair at the want of water, an angel/messenger again appeared to her, pointed out a supply of water close by, and renewed the former promises to her, (Genesis 21 v 9 - 21). Ishmael afterwards established himself in the wilderness of Paran, where he married an Egyptian, (Genesis 21 v 20, 21). Paul will refer to some of these events in verse 30. 

In the allegory here in Galatians, Hagar and her descendants point to Israel’s delegated rulers, and Israel’s leadership infrastructure at present, together with Jews themselves, as being enslaved under the Sinai Covenant with its written codes of law, from whom God's honour and praiseworthiness has departed. They are compared to Hebrew Christians who are described as ‘sons of the married woman’ – Sarah, who is free and unbound. 

Why is Israel to be ‘well understanding, and break forth and shout’? Because many are those who are under the Sinai Covenant, whereas few are brought forth by means of the announced promise. Jesus put what is being referred to here in another way - ‘Wide the gate and broad the way leading towards ruin and loss, and many are those going through it. Because small the gate and pressed in the way leading towards Life, and few are those finding it’, (Matthew 7 v 13, 14). There are many more descendants of Abraham who are seeking divine approval by means of Covenant law, leading to their ruin, loss and withering away, than there are descendants of Abraham who are children of God’s announced promise leading towards Life. 

Galatians 4 v 23, 24a - Hagar and Sarah, allegories of two Covenants [2]

 ‘But on the one hand, the from out of the slave girl was brought forth down from flesh; but the from out of the free by means of an announced promise, 24 which are speaking allegorically. For these are two set arrangements’, (Galatians 4 v 23, 24a).

Paul makes one last attempt to restore the Hebrew Christians who were turning back to Covenant law, and he addresses their failure to listen to divine law so as to hear or comprehend what it says. He turns their attention to their patriarch, Abraham, and the birth of his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. He contrasts them like this – 

Ishmael was brought forth down from flesh

By means of Hagar, the slave-woman and thus

born a slave

Isaac was brought forth by means of an announced promise

By means of Sarah, his wife and free-woman, and thus

born free

Paul says that these are ‘speaking allegorically’. The Greek word is ‘allégoreó’ - from ‘allos’, meaning ‘other’, and ‘agoreuó’, meaning ‘to speak in the assembly or broad gathering’. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, nor is it found in the Septuagint, though it often occurs in the classic writers. An ‘allegory’ is a sustained metaphor in which known events and experiences are used as ‘stepping stones’ to point to unseen realities. Paul says that Abraham’s situation says something to Jews in general, something other than what the words themselves imply. Within the Jewish assembly or community, they speak beyond the literal sense, in a way that reveals a hidden or parallel truth, often pointing to unseen heavenly realities. Sarah and Hagar were allegorised by Philo the Jew, before Paul did so. 

The allegory points to ‘two set arrangements’, (verse 24a). The Greek word is ‘diathéké’, usually translated into English as ‘covenant’ - a set-arrangement or disposition that has complete terms determined by the initiating party. The Apostle goes on to explain what these covenants are. They point to the difference between those who rested in the Messiah only, and those who trusted in obeying the law, and this is pointed to by the histories of these two women and their sons, as Paul goes on to explain.

Galatians 4 v 4 – 8 - Christians – adopted sons and heirs

 ‘But when the completion of the season had come, God sent away His son, having  come into being from out of a woman, having come into being under law, 5 in order that he buy back those under law, in order that we receive placing as a son. 6 And because you are sons, God sends forth the Breath of His Son penetrating into our hearts, our deep inner core, crying aloud and shrieking ‘Abba, Father!’. 7 So therefore, you are no longer existing a slave, but if a son by means of God, also an heir, allotted a share. 8 But indeed, at that time, absolutely not knowing God, you were the enslaved by nature, lest being gods’, (Galatians 4 v 4 - 8). 

Paul has just said that Jews existed like under-age heirs, enslaved under the orderly system of rudimentary elements and first principles of the Sinai Covenant with its written codes of law, until the time appointed by the Father. That season of under-age enslavement of Jews was completed when ‘God sent away His son’. The only-begotten Son pre-existed his ‘coming into being from out of a woman’. Indeed, the Son of God is ‘the image of the invisible God, firstborn of the whole in terms of the individual parts of what is originally formed’, (Colossians 1 v 15). ‘By means of him all came into being, and apart from him, not even one was caused to be that has come into being’, (John 1 v 3). Thus ‘God sent away His son’ from out of the heavenly realm to ‘come into being from out of a woman, having come into being under law’. God’s purpose was ‘that [His son] buy back those under law, in order that we receive placing as a son'. The details of this forms the details of the gospel or ‘good news’ of course. But Paul is not interested here in explaining the gospel in detail. He is interested to present the concept of ‘sonship’, because ‘if children, also heirs, indeed, God’s heirs, and fellow-heirs with the Messiah’, (Romans 8 v 17). 

But there is more, ‘because you are sons, God sends forth the Breath of His Son penetrating into our hearts, our deep inner core’. Over the course of his writings, Paul places two pairs of principles that are in opposition to one another - 

     Covenant Law vs God’s Promise (Galatians)

    Fleshly impulses towards death vs Breath penetrating into Life (Romans 7, 8)

The Breath of the Messiah penetrating within the Christian’s heart, including the heart or deep inner core of Hebrew Christians, is ‘crying aloud and shrieking ‘Abba, Father!’. 

Paul then reaches his conclusion in verses 7 and 8. ‘So therefore, you are no longer existing a slave, but if a son by means of God, also an heir, allotted a share. 8 But indeed, at that time, absolutely not knowing God, you were the enslaved by nature, lest being gods’ 

Paul’s conclusion is that Jews who are entrusting the Messiah are adopted sons and fellow heirs with the Messiah as a result of God fulfilling His promises through giving His only-begotten son and His Breath. Hebrew Christians are no longer enslaved to Covenant law, and no longer ‘the enslaved by nature’, by the impulses of their flesh. Why? Because of the opposing impetus and movement of the Breath of God within them in their deepest inner core. But previously, before entrusting the Messiah, Jews were enslaved, by their own human nature. Paul then adds sarcastically, ‘lest being gods’ – unless you Jews were gods with superhuman ability and strength. 

Galatians 4 v 1 – 3 - Divine law – A rudimentary system for infants

 ‘Now on this basis I am saying however long the time that the heir, existing owner of all, is an infant, he is carried across nothing different than a slave, 2 existing rather under tutors and house managers up until the time appointed beforehand by the father. 3 In this manner we also, were enslaved at the time we existed infants, under the row of rudiments of the ordered system’, (Galatians 4 v 1 - 3).   

Paul has just said that Hebrew Christians, like Gentile Christians, exist as Abraham’s seed (plural), heirs down from God’s announced promise. Having introduced the concept of heirs of the divine inheritance, he now begins to expand on this theme. 

He presents the illustration of a single heir who is still not yet of sufficient age to take full control of what he possesses. Such a young infant heir may own everything, but he is carried across just like a slave. Because he is still a child, he does not make decisions about buying and selling his possessions or about investments. Such decisions are made on his behalf and he has no say in the matter. He is under the authority of trustees – of house managers and governors. He does as he is told until he reaches the age, determined by his father, that he is able to take full control and possession of his inheritance. 

Paul then applies this to Jews, ‘In this manner we also’. Although they were God’s chosen ethnic group, Jews nevertheless existed as infants before the Messiah came. They were like children enslaved to the rudimentary, first principles of the ordered system.  The ‘ordered system’ is that of the Sinai Covenant with its written codes of law, as he says later, ‘scrupulously observing days, months, seasons and years’. 

Many translations read, ‘enslaved under the basic principles of the world’, but the word ‘world’ is not present in the Greek. The word ‘stoicheion’ means ‘rudimentary elements’, ‘orderly arrangement’, or ‘first principles’, and though often associated with the world so as to mean ‘the orderly arrangement of the world’ it does not necessarily refer to ‘the world’. Paul is talking here to Jews. The context of these verses is that Paul is talking to Jewish Christians about the law. So I suggest that the Sinai Covenant and its written codes of laws is the orderly system of rudimentary elements and first principles that Jews were enslaved under, existing like under-age heirs until the time appointed by the Father – the coming of the promised Messiah. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by what Paul says next. 

Galatians 3 v 23, 24 - Covenant law – a guardian for infants

 ‘Now persuasion and entrustment came in front. Under the law we were guarded, protected and kept watch over, enclosed and shut in together penetrating into the persuasion and entrustment intended to be uncovered, 24 so that the law has come into being our guardian and tutor of children, penetrating into His Anointed, in order that we might be judicially approved and made right wise from out of persuasion and entrustment’, (Galatians 3 v 23, 24).

Persuasion and entrustment, like that of Abraham’s, came first, long before the law. Then, for Jews, over four hundred years later, the law was added. Jews, who are God’s chosen ethnic group, came to exist under the authority of Covenant law, they ‘were guarded, protected and kept watch over, enclosed and shut in together’. Covenant law was (and is) not given as a means to divine judicial approval. It was not (and is not) an alternative to, or a means of fulfilment of, that which was made known by the announced promise of God to Abraham. The function of the law was (and is) to penetrate into persuasion and entrustment, as individuals under the law came to know their self-forfeiture and hopeless position. The function of Covenant law was (and is) to enable individuals to perceive their need of God’s promise. The law provides knowledge of self-forfeiture, it is the starting point that reveals the sinfulness of sin, and the extent and increase of sin within our fleshly constitution. The law does indeed lead wayward Jews to entrustment in God. The particular details of how God would bring His promises into effect, and what this entrustment would mean in particular, were yet to be revealed. Jews were in a state of infancy.

Covenant law came in towards Jews like a tutor or guardian of children or infants. It points out what God judicially disapproves of and indicates the penalties that certain behaviours incur. The law also provided the means of paying for and sending away self-forfeiture and loss by means of the infrastructure of Levitical priests and the various prescribed ceremonies and sacrifices. All of this constitutes an ‘outline shadow’ pointing to, and penetrating into His Anointed and judicial approval by means of hearing, persuasion and entrustment in him.  

That was the position of Jews prior to the coming of the Messiah. It remains the position of those Jews who are still not persuaded that Jesus is the Messiah and who therefore do not place their trust in him.

Galatians 3 v 19, 20 - If God’s promise is still in effect, why was the law given? [2]

 ‘the law… was added on account of stepping contrary, up until that the seed comes to whom the announced promise [was made], having been arranged and ordered by means of angel/messengers within the hand of a mediator. 20 But a mediator is not one; and God is One’. (Galatians 3 v 19, 20).

Different commentators have given many different explanations with regard to Paul’s reference to a ‘mediator’. But they can be classified into three divisions based on who the ‘mediator’ is understood to be.

In the first centuries after Jesus, commentators understood the word ‘mediator’ to refer to Jesus and indeed, many passages in the New Testament use this word in reference to Jesus. But the word ‘mediator’ does not refer exclusively to Jesus. In addition, the problem with using this interpretation here in Galatians is that the context is obscured or lost, and the force of the Apostle’s argument weakened.

A more probable view is that in verse 20, as in verse 19, the mediator is Moses. This is in full agreement with the context of the passage. In verse 19 ‘the mediator,’ is undoubtedly Moses. However, the problem now is that what was true of Moses as a mediator is also true of every other human mediator. 

The third view is that the first half of verse 20 presents a general principle – the characteristic of a mediator as such. Mediation implies a transaction involving at least two parties, but the announced promises to Abraham came from God alone, and have His will as sole source and guarantee. Thus the announced promises are more sure and more elevated. God alone dealt directly with Abraham, without a mediator. The logic is that Covenant law is thus inferior to the announced promises, and that the Sinai Covenant is a transaction of quite a different nature to the promises.

But the difficulty now is to see the relevance of what Paul is saying to the logical argument he is making. What does he intend to illustrate? How does what he states about ‘oneness’ and ‘mediators’ illustrate his point? 

Sinai Covenant Law pertained to Jews as God’s chosen ethic group. Covenant law was not given to Gentiles. In the passage in Genesis that Paul refers to, I have pointed out that in the first part of Genesis 22 v 17, the words ‘seed’ and ‘sand’ are intended to be understood in the plural sense – ‘I will increase your seed according to the stars of the heavens and….the sand on the sea shore’. The reference is not to a single seed or grain of sand, (or to one star), but to one body of seed or sand. But then, in the second part of verse 17, as Paul has been arguing, the word ‘seed’ refers to one individual who ‘will take possession of the gate of his enemy’ – this individual seed being the Messiah.

So the words ‘seed’ and ‘sand’ support both plural and singular meanings depending on the context. They are metaphors that either point to, 

The Messiah [singular]

Those delivered by means of hearing – both Jews and Gentiles [plural]

Jews, who are physically descended from Abraham [plural]

The point that Paul is making is that God is one and the same in reference to all. His promises pertain to all. He is the one God of Jews, Gentiles and His anointed deliverer. By contrast, Moses was a mediator between God and the Israelites. Moses was not a mediator on behalf of Gentiles. Therefore Moses could not transact anything that would tend to the annulment of that aspect of the promises of God to both Jews and Gentiles. Paul’s purpose is to show that the giving of Covenant Law could not negate the promises announced to Abraham. The true force of the clause may be expressed like this – ‘but the God of Sinai is one and the same as the God of promise’. There is divine unity in spite of the various aspects in which God reveals Himself to successive generations and groups of humanity.

Having made this general statement, Paul will explain over the next nine verses how this relates to Christians, and he begins by considering another potential objection.

Galatians 3 v 19, 20 - If God’s promise is still in effect, why was the law given? [1]

 ‘Then why the law? It was added on account of stepping contrary up until that the seed comes to whom the announced promise [was made], having been arranged and ordered by means of angel/messengers within the hand of a mediator. 20 But a mediator is not one; and God is One’. (Galatians 3 v 19, 20).

Paul anticipates another objection. If judicial approval and right-wiseness is shown as the result of promises made by God to Abraham and his seed, promises given over four hundred years before the law, then why was the law given to Jews at all? Paul says that the law was added because Jews and their delegated leaders were ‘stepping contrary’. They were engaging in wayward teaching and disapproved-of behaviour. So the law was brought in until the seed – Jesus - to whom the announced promise was made, (verse 14) - came in. It was brought in because of waywardness.

Covenant law is not of human origin. It does not belong to human manufacture, tradition or philosophy. Rather, it was arranged and ordered by means of angel messengers. ‘Yahweh came from Sinai and rose up on them from Seir. He shone forth from Mount Paran and He came from a myriad of the set apart. From His right hand, a fiery law for them’, (Deuteronomy 33 v 2). And again, ‘who received the law into the arrangement of angels…’, (Acts 7 v 53). (See also Acts 7 v 38, Hebrews 2 v 2). Covenant law was delivered ‘within the hand of a mediator’, namely, Moses. Thus, Covenant law was not given to Israel in the same way that the promises were announced to Abraham. The promises were announced immediately from and directly by God Himself. By contrast, Moses served as an intermediary, a ‘middle man’ between God and the angels on one hand, and Israel on the other hand. 

Then Paul seems to add an unusual sentence. He says, ‘but a mediator is not one; but God is One’, (verse 20). The statement itself is plain enough in its meaning, but why does Paul say such a thing here? A mediator is a facilitator who helps parties resolve disputes through communication. In Scripture we read that almost immediately after leaving Egypt the Israelites engaged in wayward behaviour, (Exodus 32), incurring God’s judicial anger. But Moses pleaded on behalf of the Israelites, reminding God of his promises to Abraham, and in due course divine law was given to Israel by means of Moses. So a mediator is not ‘one’ – rather he is an intermediary, in the case of Moses, between God and His chosen ethnic group. But it is also true to say that Jesus is a mediator between God and those whom God has selected. So the first problem is this, who is Paul referring to when he says a ‘mediator is not one’? Paul contrasts a mediator with God, Who is one. The second problem is this, what does Paul mean by raising this theme of ‘oneness’? Many scholars and commentators have had their minds exercised by these questions, and they have come up with different answers. I will consider these themes a little more in the next post.

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [24] – Divine Law, Priesthood and Citizenship

 When God brings Christians forth through the Messiah and the work of the set-apart Breath, they are placed as adopted sons within God’s household. They are also placed as members the priesthood that corresponds to that of Melchizedek, with Jesus as their high priest. Hebrew Christians are transferred from being under the Levitical priesthood, and divine Law is also transferred, whilst Gentiles are brought in from existing in relative ignorance to also be transferred to the heavenly priesthood.

Thus we read, ‘Because our citizenship is existing within the heavens, from out of which we also eagerly expect a Saviour, Lord Jesus, Messiah’, (Philippians 3 v 20). The word translated into English as ‘citizenship’ is ‘politeuma’, meaning ‘life as a citizen’. This word only occurs here in Philippians. In the Greco-Roman world citizenship was valued as being high-status, conferring rights, privileges and responsibilities within a city-state. Citizens were expected to participate in civic duties and uphold the laws and values of their community. It provided a powerful metaphor for Christian identity and allegiance within God’s household.

The concept is not unique to the Letter to the Philippians however. In his letter to the Ephesians, who were Gentile Christians, Paul says, ‘Therefore then you are no longer lodgers, namely dwelling beside, but exist fellow citizens, the set apart and of the household of God’, (Ephesians 2 v 19). The Greek word here is ‘sumpolités’, meaning ‘fellow citizen’ and again it has just one occurrence in the New Testament. It refers to someone who shares citizenship with others, indicating a sense of belonging and community within a political or social entity. 

The idea of citizenship within the household of God is implied when Jesus said, ‘Within the household of my Father many residences exist, but if not, would I have told you that I am going to make you ready a place? 3 And if I go and prepare you a place, I am coming again and will receive you alongside toward myself, in order that where I am, you are also’, (John 14 v 2, 3). 

The idea is also referred to when the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews talks about notable people who lived by faith during Old Testament times. He says, ‘All these died down from faith, not receiving the promises but seeing them from afar and embracing, acknowledging and agreeing that they are lodgers and temporary residents on the land. 14 Because those saying such as this are making clear that they are seeking after that fatherland. 15 Indeed, if they called to mind that one there, from where they came out, they had occasion to turn back. 16 But at this present time they are stretching forth to better and superior, this existing [within] heaven. Therefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called God by them, because He has prepared them a city’, (Hebrews 11 v 13 – 16). The Greek word is ‘polis’, meaning ‘city’ and is used 165 times in the New Testament. It refers to a city or town, often highlighting its significance as a hub of population, culture, and governance. In the Greco-Roman world, a ‘polis’ was more than just a physical location; it was a centre of political, economic, and social life. Cities were often fortified, served as administrative centres and were places where people gathered for trade, worship, and community activities. The concept of the ‘polis’ was integral to Greek identity and civic life, influencing the development of democracy and public discourse. 

Concerning those of faith in the Old Testament period, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews concludes, ‘and all these, testifying by means of faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God providing something better around us, in order that they are not brought to completion separately from us’, (Hebrews 11 v 39, 40). Those in the Old Testament period who exercised obedient entrustment in God are also included as fellow citizens – which they saw from afar off – and they will be brought to completion alongside Christians.   

The concept is that Christians are fellow citizens of a heavenly city and therefore only temporary lodgers here on earth. We see it again here – ‘Because we do not possess an enduring city here, but we are seeking after what is about to be’, (Hebrews 13 v 14). But once again we need to ask how Christians being placed into this priestly order and heavenly citizenship affects the relationship of Christians to Sinai Covenant divine Law. On becoming Christians are Gentiles placed under the Sinai Covenant and its laws? Do Jews continue under the Sinai Covenant and its laws? I suggest definitely not. That is what Judaizers thought and this was one reason why they wanted male Gentile Christians to be circumcised according to the written codes of divine Covenant Law. But we have seen that Christians are transferred into this royal priesthood like the order of Melchizedek that exists alongside the Sinai Covenant. We have seen that divine Law is also being transferred, but not abolished or dissolved. So we need some more information.

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [23] – Divine Law and the two orders of priests

 The author of the Letter to the Hebrews is writing about the Christian’s high priest, Jesus, in chapter 8. He says that Christians ‘are holding and possessing a high priest who is seated down within the right hand of the throne of the Majesty within the heavens, 2 a servant in the set apart places, the True and Real Tabernacle or Tent of meeting, which the Lord, not a mere human being, has pitched and made fast’, (Hebrews 8 v 1, 2).

Then he says, ‘It is certain then that if [Jesus] was existing on earth he would certainly not be a priest 5 because there exist those offering gifts according to Law, which is a copy, example and shadow outline serving the heavens, as Moses was warned when he was about to complete the Tabernacle….. 6 But now, [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent service, as much as he is the mediator and go-between of a much better Covenant that has been enacted on the basis of stronger, more excellent promises and announcements. 7 Because indeed, if that one there that went before had been faultless, then a place for a second would certainly not have been sought after and desired’, (Hebrews 8 v 4 – 7). 

He reaches a conclusion: ‘If Jesus was existing on earth he would certainly not be a priest’, (verse 4). Why? Because Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, and on earth, under Sinai Covenant Law, priests are only selected from the Levitical tribe. They were ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices in the tabernacle/temple according to Covenant Law, all of this being a shadow outline of realities within the unseen heavenly realm. But this shadow infrastructure was brought to ruin and loss with the Babylonian Conquest and the destruction of Solomon’s Temple and it has never been fully reinstated even though another temple was built decades later, only to be destroyed again in 70 AD. 

By contrast, Jesus is indeed a priest, but not of the Levitical order and not on earth, but rather, within the heavenly realm at the right hand of the throne of God. He is high priest serving in the set apart places, in the True and Real Tabernacle/Temple in the heavenly realm. The Lord God, as opposed to a mere human being, has made this firm and secure. 

Thus we have the two priestly orders. First, the Levitical order of priests, established for God’s chosen ethnic group, the Jews, according to the Sinai Covenant with divine Law as an essential component of this Covenant. This exists as a shadow outline of heavenly realities. But it is an order that has fallen into a degree of ruin and loss as a result of the repeated wayward corruption and disobedience of Jews and their delegated leaders in the past. This loss occurred when God withdrew Himself and His honour and praiseworthiness from Israel at the time of the Babylonian Conquest. This still remains the position of Jews with regard to God down to this present time. 

Other ethnic groups, races and nations – Gentiles – continue to exist outside of the Sinai Covenant and its infrastructure, in relative ignorance with regard to God and heavenly realities. Gentiles are not under a priestly order, but rather, they exist under a Covenant of Behaviour in which their conscience – faulty as it may be, as we will see later – either excuses or convicts them before God.

Second, we have the superior priestly order that corresponds to Melchizedek, which is situated firm and secure within the heavenly realm, and based on a promise made on oath by God. It is into this order of priests that Jewish Christians are transferred and Gentile Christians are placed. Jesus is the high priest of this order, serving in the True Tabernacle/Temple that the Lord has pitched in the heavenly realm. Jesus serves as the mediator of a much better Covenant that has been enacted on the basis of stronger, more excellent promises and announcements than the Sinai Covenant.

He concludes by saying, ‘if that one there that went before [the Levitical order of priests] had been faultless, then a place for a second [order of priests corresponding to Melchizedek] would certainly not have been sought after and desired’ (verse 7). But what does this mean for Christians and their relationship with divine Law under the Sinai Covenant?

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [22] – Divine Law and Christian priesthood [3]

 The author of the Letter to the Hebrews has said that Hebrew or Jewish Christians (along with Gentile Christians), are brought into a new and different priesthood of the order of Melchizedek, such that a more confident expectation is brought alongside. This new priestly order exists in parallel to Sinai Covenant Law. But for Hebrew Christians, when it comes to the setting in place and qualification of priests and the high priest, the old injunctions have been set on one side. 

He then goes on to explain why Jesus, as high priest yet not a Levite as Covenant Law requires, brings in this more confident expectation. He explains by comparing the two orders of priests. A more excellent confident expectation, by means of which we Christians are coming near to God, is brought in alongside. ‘Namely down as absolutely not separated from an oath, because on one hand, those detached from swearing an oath are becoming priests, 21 but in company with an oath, by means of saying to him, [Jesus], ‘The Lord swears an oath and will not change afterwards. You are a priest penetrating into the age’, [Psalm 110 v 4] 22 down from so great and more excellent a set agreement Jesus has become the secure guarantee and bondsman’, (Hebrews 7 v 20 – 22).  

That is another slightly complex sentence, so what is he saying? He is saying that the one made a priest by the swearing of an oath, is a better and greater priest than any who are made a priest without swearing of an oath. Nothing is said in Scripture of God swearing an oath when He chose Aaron and his posterity to be priests. Levitical priests were set apart without their role being confirmed to them by God swearing an oath. Priests of Aaron’s order were selected, instituted and set apart without any oath being mentioned by Moses, who did everything exactly as YHVH commanded him, (Exodus 40 v 16). By contrast, Jesus became a priest by virtue of God swearing an oath that He will not regret or think about again afterwards so as to change His mind. ‘You are a priest penetrating into the age’, and down from such an excellent and superior agreement, Jesus has become the secure guarantee and bondsman. The Greek word is ‘egguos’ and it only occurs here in all of the New Testament. It means ‘one who acts as a surety or guarantee’, ‘a guarantor who takes responsibility for another ensuring that an obligation or promise is fulfilled’.

Jesus is the secure bondsman ensuring that those brought forth by God will be delivered. He becomes responsible, so to speak, to law and justice, such that no injury will be done to law and justice by our deliverance even though we are sinners. The principles of divine law will be honoured in order that Christians will be delivered even though they have earned self-forfeiture and condemnation, as the Law and their conscience testifies. Jesus has become responsible for the fulfilment of this promise of deliverance, he is the surety, the pledge, that all proper honour will be paid to the Law and justice within this deliverance. He died to honour Covenant Law and the underlying principles of divine Law, in order to open a way by which divine condemnation may be fully remitted in a way that is consistent with justice. ‘But now, apart and separate from Law, God’s judicial approval is made clear and apparent, testified and borne witness to by the Law and the Prophets’, (Romans 3 v 21).

The author of Hebrews then spends verses 23 – 27 making further comparisons between Jesus as high priest with the Levitical priests and high priests of the old, Sinai Covenant. He shows the superiority of Jesus, concluding once again that ‘the Law appoints men who have weakness as high priests; but on the other hand, the word of the oath, after and in company with the Law, completely accomplished a descendant penetrating towards the age’, (Hebrews 7 v 28). 

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [21] – Divine Law and the Christian priesthood [2]

 The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews says that when a Jew becomes a Christian, transference of priesthood is taking place. But in addition, a second key concept is presented in Hebrews 7 v 12. ‘...the priesthood is being transferred, from out of necessity, from out of compelling need, and a transfer of law is coming into being’. There is also a transfer with regard to Covenant Law in that by entering into this new priesthood, the injunctions written in stone concerning the appointment of priests and the high priest are being rendered idle. He goes on to say, ‘Because indeed, there is a setting aside of the preceding command, [the injunction that to qualify for the priesthood, a Jew must be physically descended from Levi], because it is weak and has no utility or benefit 19 because the Law brings nothing to completion – bringing in alongside a more excellent confident expectation by means of which we are coming near to God’,  (Hebrews 7 v 18, 19). 

This is a moderately complex statement so lets break it down into manageable parts. 

There is a setting aside of the Covenant Law about Hebrew priests having to belong to the tribe of Levi 

This setting aside brings alongside a more superior confident expectation

By means of this more excellent expectation, Christians are coming near to God

The Covenant Law regarding the qualification that a Jew must be a Levite before he can be considered for entry into the delegated authority of being priest, is being set aside because it 

Is weak and

Has no useful, practical benefit, because

It brings nothing to completion  

This is in agreement with what Paul says in his letter to the Roman Christians. ‘But now, apart and separate from Law, God’s judicial approval is made clear and apparent, testified and borne witness to by the Law and the Prophets’, (Romans 3 v 21).

I want to note that the Covenant Law regarding the qualification of Hebrew priests is not abolished, dissolved or relaxed, (Matthew 5 v 18, 19). Rather, for Hebrew Christians it is set aside such that a more confident expectation is brought alongside – in parallel to Covenant Law.  

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [20] – Divine Law and the Christian priesthood [1]

 The author of the letter to the Hebrews makes a comparison between two priestly orders – the Levitical order of priests under the Sinai Covenant and its Laws, and the order of Melchizedek. He does this because Jesus is the high priest of those brought forth by God, a high priest corresponding to the order or arrangement of Melchizedek. 

He says,  ‘….if the people were completely fulfilled and made complete through the Levitical priesthood – on the basis that it was ordained and sanctioned by Covenant Law – why is there still need for another priest to be raised up according to the rank of Melchizedek, not being spoken of according to the rank of Aaron? [A Levite] 12 Because the priesthood is being transferred from out of necessity, from out of compelling need, and a transfer of law is coming into being. 13 Because these things [about Jesus as high priest] are being said on the basis of another tribe participating, away from which no one held towards the altar. 14 Because it is very clear that our Lord rises from out of Judah, penetrating into which tribe Moses says nothing around priests. 15 And it is even more abundantly clear if another priest is arising down from a resemblance to Melchizedek, 16 who is not caused to come into being down from a fleshly command of law, but down from power and ability of indissoluble life. 17 Because it is testified: ‘You are a priest penetrating into the age, down from the arranged order of Melchizedek’, [Psalm 110 v 4], (Hebrews 7 v 11 – 17). 

The first key thought for us here is that there is a transference of priesthood. Jews who become Christians are placed into a new and different priesthood with Jesus as the high priest. On becoming Christians they are no longer under the Levitical priesthood but have become members of a new priesthood that resembles that of Melchizedek at the time of Abraham. By comparison, Gentiles who are not Christians are not under the Levitical order of priests. But on being brought forth by God through the Messiah, they too are placed as members of this priesthood that corresponds to that of Melchizedek. 

Jesus comes from the Hebrew tribe of Judah, yet Moses, in mediating the Sinai Covenant and its Laws, says nothing about priests from Judah attending to the altar and its sacrificial duties. Jesus does not arise as high priest from out of a fleshly command of divine Law (verse 16) but from power and ability of an indissoluble life. The phrase ‘a fleshly command of Law’ may at first seem difficult to understand, but in this context it seems to mean the requirement or injunction of ‘the divine Law that states that in order to qualify be a priest a Jew had to be a physical descendant of Levi’ – a Levite.

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [19] – Christians and Divine Law

 Two of the major groups of people that Scripture looks at are Jews and Gentiles. Jews are God’s chosen ethnic group, and they were placed under the Sinai Covenant with its divine Laws. But because of their constant disobedience, God withdrew Himself and His honour away from them and left them to their own desires and reasoning. Even so, in the gospels they are urged to think again with the coming of their Messiah. Then we have the rest of humanity, referred to in Scripture as ‘Gentiles’ or ‘Greeks’, the various tribes, races and nations of the world. They were not placed under the Sinai Covenant and its Laws, but were left to go their own way in ignorance. Since the coming of the Messiah, they too are now urged to think again.

Given what I have said so far, what is the situation regarding Christians and the divine Law of the Sinai Covenant? Most Christians today are Gentiles. Many of them typically turn to Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, to see what he has to say on this matter. But I consider that we get a foundation and context for Paul’s teaching in another New Testament document, namely the Letter to the Hebrews. We don’t know the name of the author of this letter, but he is writing to Jews who have become Christians, and in part of his letter he writes about this very theme. So it is worth spending time to look at what he has to say. 

The author explains that Jesus has been made high priest, but that he is not like the high priests of old. ‘Although being a Son he learned obedience away from what he endured, 9 and being made complete he became the author of perpetual rescue to all hearing under him, 10 named under God high priest corresponding to the arrangement of Melchizedek’, (Hebrews 5 v 8 – 10). See also Hebrews 6 v 20. 

This means that there are two orders of priests – The Levitical order and the order of Melchizedek. He describes Melchizedek in this way – ‘This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever’, (Hebrews 7 v 1 – 3 NIV). 

Shortly afterwards, the author of the letter to the Hebrews begins to make a comparison between these two priestly orders and how they relate to each other, particularly for those Christians who were previously devout Jews under the Sinai Covenant with its divine Laws.   

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [18] – Jews, Christians and Divine Law

 I have pointed out that YHVH withdrew Himself from His chosen ethnic group, the Jews, such that with the Assyrian and Babylonian Conquests, Israel’s infrastructure, its monarchy, along with its delegated rulers, priestly arrangement, temple and so on were lost. Although exiled Jews returned to their land decades later and the temple was eventually rebuilt, their full infrastructure was never fully reinstated. In due course their promised Messiah was revealed, but despite their advantages in being prepared for their Messiah, Jews rejected Jesus as a charlatan or impostor. 

Speaking to Jews about the Law, Jesus declared, ‘Don’t consider that I come down to loosen or dissolve the law or the prophets, I am not coming to loosen or dissolve, but to fully complete. 18 Because I say to you, ‘So be it up until the heaven and land come alongside. No, not one iota or accent goes away from alongside the law up until all comes into being’, (Matthew 5 v 18, 19). Jesus confirmed what he meant by ‘law’ when he then went on to talk about judicial approval and the depth and scope of behaviours such as murder, adultery and taking oaths.  

Yet in his letter to Christians in Rome, Paul says, ‘But now we are being rendered entirely idle away from the Law, dying and withering away within that holding us down, in order that we serve within new, fresh breath [pneuma] and absolutely not within obsolete writing’, (Romans 7 v 6). He says something similar in his second letter to the Corinthians. ‘Now if the ministry of death, having been engraved in letters on stones and which is rendered idle and inactive….’ (II Corinthians 3 v 7, 8a). Paul always urges Christians who have been persuaded of the Messiah to the point of obedience to live a godly life day-by-day. Yet nowhere does he say to Christians, ‘Therefore walk around within the sphere of the Law and keep its injunctions’. If learning about and trying to obey the injunctions of divine Law was the effective means to live a godly life, then surely this is exactly what the Apostle would have said – but he never does. Instead, he urges Christians to exercise enlightened self-control and walk around within the sphere of the Breath. So how do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory perspectives about the Law? Does every small detail remain, or is it fading away?

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [17] – Jews and Divine Law

 The written codes of divine Law were given to the Jews through Moses at Sinai and form an essential part of the Sinai Covenant that YHVH made with the Israelites, a Covenant that they accepted to be placed under. These written codes present an integrated set of spiritual/moral injunctions. They are not simply a set of moral codes, nor are they a set of prescribed independent religious ceremonies. The morality or ethics that these codes present arise from spiritual considerations and realities. Thus Jews quite rightly saw the collection of laws as an integrated whole. It is not possible to separate these injunctions into two distinct and separate sets of injunctions. But this is what many Christians do – they divide these injunctions into ‘ceremonial’ laws, and ‘moral’ laws. 

I propose that this is a false dichotomy. Rather, what was established was a Levitical priestly order and for Jews, divine Law defined both moral and spiritual boundaries. These injunctions prescribed what was to be done about transgressions of these boundaries. The prescriptions were sometimes like ‘civil law’, involving compensation payments or substitute payments to the offended individual, and they were related to the severity of the transgression. Transgressions were also atoned for in ceremonies performed by the priests, and these usually involved sacrifices of birds and animals. Sometimes compensation payments and sacrifices were prescribed. There were also regular sacrifices of animals and birds to which Jews contributed. These provided a more general atonement for self-forfeiture. Such sacrifices were based on the concept of life-blood and life-breath. Thus I am proposing that divine Law provided an integrated, holistic system of injunctions, prescriptions and priestly sacrifices. 

As the book of Ezekiel outlines in overview, Jews and their leaders were often wayward and negligent with regard to the Covenant and to divine Law. The priesthood and Israel’s leadership were often corrupt, and the people engaged in idolatry. Eventually YHVH stopped being patient with them and His honour and praiseworthiness departed. The infrastructure of - its monarchy, temple, priestly order and sacrifices was rendered ineffective by the Assyrian and Babylonian Conquests. YHVH withdrew Himself to leave Jews to their own mistaken, empty thinking and desires. Even after Jewish captives were allowed to return to their land decades later, the previous orderly system was never fully restored. Jews lived in ‘occupied territory’ and were governed as a province of various Gentile empires. Eventually, in 70 AD, the rebuilt temple was destroyed and Jews were thrown out of their historical homeland. God’s withdrawal away from Jews continues down to this present day, but as well as presenting God’s judgements in advance, the Hebrew Prophets also present the promise of future restoration, prosperity, security and godliness for Jews. 

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [16] – Divine Law defined

 What is divine Law? In Scripture the word ‘Law’ has a number of meanings, the particular meaning intended often being determined by the context in which the word ‘law’ is found. ‘Law’ can refer to the first five books of the Old Testament – the Pentateuch. Or it may refer to the larger body of the Hebrew Scriptures that includes the writings of the Prophets. It may refer to the written codes given to the Israelites through Moses as part of the Sinai Covenant after YHVH had released the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. Or it may refer to a fundamental principle that leads to specific patterns or types of speech and behaviour. It is the last two meanings that we will be concerned with more often than not. 

YHVH made a Covenant with Abraham and his male descendants, declaring that they were to be His chosen people and that He would be their God. Abraham and his male descendants were to be circumcised as a sign of this Covenant. Failure to be circumcised meant that such an individual would be cut off from his people, (Genesis 17 v 10 – 14). Prior to the exodus of Abraham’s descendants from Egypt under Moses, there were no sets of written codes away from God. 

On delivering Abraham’s descendants, the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, YHVH set out how things were going to be for as His chosen ethnic group. They agreed to be placed under what is sometimes called the Sinai Covenant, as part of which various written divine Laws were established, including the Ten Commandments. The Israelites were expected to live their lives in obedience to these Laws, which were intended to act like a ‘schoolmaster’ to keep them in God’s favour until the appearance of their promised anointed deliverer, the Messiah. These written Laws were seen as fixed and immovable – some of them literally being written in stone. The earlier instruction to be circumcised was re-stated in the written codes in the book of Leviticus, (Leviticus 12 v 3).     

Thus it was to Jews, not to Gentiles - other ethnic groups - that the written codes of divine Law were given. Other ethnic groups were left to their own ways of thinking, reasoning and behaving. And of course many such groups became worshippers of idols and so on. After the coming of the Messiah, Paul declared, ‘ …we are men of like affections to you, announcing the gospel to you, to turn away from these worthless vanities towards the living God who constructed the sky, the land, the sea and all within them, Who in ages gone permitted all the tribes and races to travel their own ways’, (Acts 14 v 15, 16). And again, ‘…we ought not to hold to the principle of God being like gold, silver or a skilful stone sculpture and the deliberation of a human being. Indeed therefore, God overlooking times of ignorance now commands all human beings everywhere to think and perceive afterwards’, (Acts 17 v 29, 30). 

Principles of living a set apart, godly life [11] – Repentance [9 of 12]

 With regard to the ill-treatment that Jesus received we read this. ‘It has been written in this manner: The Messiah experiences ill treatment and rouses from out of lifelessness the third day to herald a change of thinking and perception afterwards and the sending away of no share and self-forfeiture on the basis of his name towards all ethnic groups, beginning away from Jerusalem’, (Luke 24 v 46, 47). In previous posts we have seen that although this good news concerning Jesus and the sending away of no share is presented to all ethnic groups, the initial focus of the New Testament in the gospels and the early chapters of Acts is on God’s chosen ethnic group, the Jews. This good news was initially presented to Jews, because as God’s chosen ethnic group they had many advantages that prepared them for the Messiah, such as the Law and the Prophets. But because of their persistent disobedience, since the Babylonian Captivity Jews have been left to their own empty thinking as God had withdrawn Himself from them. As a result, the Jews rejected Jesus, seeing him as a false Messiah. Thus the message to Jews was that ‘The God of our fathers rouses Jesus, whom you lay violent hands upon to hang upon a tree. The right hand of God lifts him up and exalts him as chief leader and deliverer, to give Israel a change of thinking and perception afterwards and a sending away of no share and self-forfeiture’, (Acts 5 v 30, 31). Again we read, ‘Of this, away from the seed [of David], God, down from a promise, brings Israel Jesus the Deliverer, John heralding beforehand, in front of his coming, an immersion of a change of thinking and perception afterwards to all the people of Israel’, (Acts 13 v 23, 24). But many Jews rejected Jesus and presumed that they were within God’s favour simply because they were descended from Abraham. They refused to acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah, leading Paul to ask, ‘do you despise and scorn the wealth of His useful kindness, patience and tolerance, unaware that God’s useful kindness leads you towards a change of mind and perception afterwards?’, (Romans 2 v 4). 

In due course, other ethnic groups, referred to in Scripture as ‘Greeks’ or ‘Gentiles’, were seen to respond to the gospel and this was reported to the council of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. ‘Hearing these things they were tranquil and honoured God saying, ‘Therefore God gives a change of thinking and perception afterwards towards life even to other ethnic groups’, (Acts 11 v 18). Paul testified to the Ephesians saying among other things that he 'shrunk back under nothing that they carried together, except declaring to you and publicly teaching you also from house to house, giving solemn evidence, God penetrating a change of thinking and perception afterwards towards both Jewish and Greeks, and entrustment within our Lord Jesus’, (Acts 20 v 20, 21). And again, ‘…but first to those within Damascus and then all Jerusalem and the region of Judea, and to the Gentiles, I announced to think and perceive afterwards and return on the basis of God, accomplishing actions worthy of a change of mind and perception afterwards’, (Acts 26 v 20)