Galatians 5 v 13 – 15 - The boundaries of Christian freedom

 ‘For you were summoned and called on the basis of freedom, brothers, but not the freedom to penetrate into a starting point of the flesh. On the contrary, we are serving one another by means of practical beneficial love. 14 For the whole law is made full and complete within one saying, within this: ‘You will beneficially love those close by in the manner of yourself’. 15 But if you are biting and eating up one another, look, in case you are consumed under one another’, (Galatians 5 v 13 – 15).

Paul says that the Judaizers are undoing the whole object for which Christians were called. Christians are not called to legal bondage, or enslavement to the Sinai Covenant with its written codes of law, but to freedom. ‘We are not like Moses putting a veil over his face, toward the sons of Israel not intently looking towards the completion of that which is being rendered idle. 14 But their minds were hardened. For up until the present day, the same veil remains on the basis of the reading of the old Covenant - unless uncovered, for it is rendered idle within the Messiah. 15 But up until today, when Moses is being read a veil lies over their heart. 16 But whenever, if turning back toward the Lord, the veil is completely removed’, (II Corinthians 3 v 13 – 16). 

Now we come to one of the usual opposing arguments presented by Jewish and Christian legalists. If Christians are freed away from the written codes of law, then this will penetrate into a starting point of the flesh. The desires, impulses, energies and raw passions inherent in our fleshly constitution will be unleashed and unrestrained if the law is removed. If Christians are free, away from the written codes of law, then what is being introduced is lawlessness, permissiveness, a licence to speak and behave in any way that they please. And so legalists argue that Christians need Covenant law so as to avoid falling into wayward behaviour, and they direct Christians back to being governed and ruled by the written codes of Sinai Covenant law. 

‘On the contrary’, says Paul. ‘We are serving one another by means of practical beneficial love’. There is the principle of living a godly life. This is not a rosy, ‘Barbie Doll’ sentimentalised view of love. This principle arises from out of spiritual considerations that Christians are able to comprehend by means of the set-apart Breath. It is beyond the ability of unbelievers. It is the primary fruit of the Breath that indwells the Christian’s heart or deep inner core. It is directed at Christians serving one another.   

In response to legalists, Paul says, ‘For the whole law is made full and complete within one saying, within this: ‘You will beneficially love those close by in the manner of yourself’.

There it is, the primary principle of Christians living a godly life – 

The whole law is made full and complete within this: ‘You will beneficially love those close by in the manner of yourself

This is contrasted with Christians ‘biting and eating up one another’ – criticising and picking fault with one another. The allusion is to beasts of prey falling upon and devouring one another. For wolves or dogs to worry sheep is not a strange event, but for sheep to distress one another is unnatural. Paul does not say, ‘if grievous wolves should enter in among you and not spare the flock’, but warns against Christians themselves acting the part of wolves in relation to one another, devouring one another like wild beasts. Such attacks would consist of abuse, slander, sarcasm, invective or innuendo. The result can only be mutual destruction - the ruin of both parties because in due course there is an utter end to what constitutes the Christian community, the organic life of which is mutually destroyed by its own members.

Galatians 3 v 21 – 22 - The written codes of law are not how God’s promises are fulfilled

 ‘Therefore, is the law down from the announced promises of God? May it not be caused to happen! Because if law had been given having ability to give Life, indeed, the judicial approval and right wise-ness would exist from out of law. 22 But the Scripture shut up and enclosed all things underneath self-forfeiture and loss in order that the announced promise be given from out of entrustment and persuasion, to those who are persuaded and entrusting Jesus, His Anointed’, (Galatians 3 v 21 – 22).

In verses 19 and 20, Paul said that the God of the Sinai Covenant and its written codes of laws is one and the same as the God Who announced promises to Abraham. There is divine unity in spite of the various different aspects in which God reveals Himself to successive generations and different groups of humanity. Paul defines the implications of this in the following verses, and he considers another potential objection, which he once again expresses in the form of a rhetorical question - ‘Therefore is the law down from the announced promises of God?’ He immediately answers his own question, ‘May it not be caused to happen!’. 

This question proposes that God is fulfilling His promises to Abraham and his seed by giving Covenant law. In other words, it is proposed that Covenant law is the means by which God’s promises will be attained. ‘Not at all’ says Paul. ‘If it was possible that divine judicial approval could exist from out of individuals keeping the written codes of Covenant law, if Covenant law had the ability to give Life, then that would indeed be the arrangement that God would put in place’. But this is not possible, and Paul explains why.

‘Scripture shut up and enclosed all things underneath self-forfeiture and loss’. Self-forfeiture and loss encloses everyone. Everyone is trapped and imprisoned by self-forfeiture and loss, and there are no exceptions. There is an impulse and impetus inherent within our human nature, within the fabric of our flesh, inclining us towards self-forfeiture and loss. It is present within everyone, including those placed under Covenant law. Both Jews and Gentiles are trapped by it.

Why is this? Why does Scripture enclose everyone underneath self-forfeiture and loss? It is ‘in order that the announced promise be given from out of entrustment and persuasion, to those who are persuaded and entrusting Jesus, His Anointed’, (verse 22b). The announced promise given to Abraham – ‘in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed’, (Genesis 22 v 18a), is not and cannot be attained by any individual expending their energy and labour to keep the written codes of Covenant law. This is because everyone is trapped and imprisoned within self-forfeiture and loss. This means that as with Abraham, the announced promise is received by means of persuasion and entrustment, and the ‘object’ of this persuasion and entrustment is Jesus, His Anointed, the seed of Abraham. Because of the all-pervading principle of self-forfeiture and loss, knowledge of which only increases by knowing divine law, it means that hearing, persuasion and entrustment is the means by which the announced promise is attained – in other words, the promise is attained by means of faith. 

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 [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 [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 [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 [6] – Repentance [4 of 12]

 Jesus was critical of those who presumed that they were judicially approved in front of God. We can still hear this kind of sentiment today - ‘I have not been a bad person really – I have not murdered anyone or anything like that. I am sure that a loving God will understand and say that I tried my best, and that He will forgive my mistakes and welcome me into heaven’. 

But this is what Jesus actually says on this matter. After presenting the parable of the shepherd who rejoiced on finding his lost sheep, Jesus said, ‘I say to you that in the same way there will be joy within heaven on the basis of one sinner thinking and perceiving afterwards, than on the basis of ninety-nine upright and righteous, whosoever, absolutely not requiring to possess thinking and perceiving afterwards’, (Luke 15 v 7).  In other words such people, whoever they are, need to think again. Jesus presents a similar conclusion after his description of a woman who lost a coin, searched for it, and rejoiced at finding it. Jesus concluded by saying, ‘I say to you, in this way there is joy in front of the angel/messengers of God on the basis of one sinner thinking and perceiving afterwards’, (Luke 15 v 10). Once again this is a message to Jews. There is rejoicing in the heavenly realm when angels observe the beginning of a positive response to God when a Jew who has lost their way thinks afterwards and turns back to God. 

So what is it that people need to be presented with in order to be persuaded to the point of obedience? Do they need fine orators and clever, witty speeches? Do they need a preacher with personality and charisma? Do they need a slick outreach campaign with professional musicians and an attractive, entertaining presentation with all the razzmatazz? Do they need clever, educated proposals and arguments? In Luke’s gospel there is the illustration of a rich man who dies and finds himself unable to escape torment within the unseen realm. Some distance away he sees Abraham in a state of comfort, but there is a deep chasm that separates Abraham from the rich man such that the rich man cannot cross over to Abraham. So the rich man calls out and pleads to Abraham for someone to appear to his five brothers, to give them solemn evidence of the place of torment, so that they might avoid it. But Abraham replies, ‘“They possess Moses and the Prophets, they should hear and comprehend them.” 30 But the rich man said, “By no means father Abraham…’, in other words, there is no way that my brothers will listen to Moses and the Prophets. So the rich man makes an alternative proposal, ‘….but if one away from death travelled to them they will think and perceive afterwards.” 31 But Abraham said to him, “If they are not listening to Moses and Prophets they will not be persuaded, not even if one from out of death stands up”’, (Luke 16 v 29 – 31). The Apostle Paul presents this same principle in chapter 2 of his first letter to the Corinthians. The declaration of the gospel, the word of the cross, even when it is presented in a stumbling, hesitant way that lacks eloquence, is a sufficient means for the Breath of God to bring forth enlightened persuasion and thinking afterwards within those whom God has selected.