As usual, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:
15Brothers, I am speaking according to man. No one annuls or adds to a covenant even though having been ratified of man. 16And the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It is not saying, “…and to your seeds” as upon many, but “…and to your seed” as upon one, who is Christ. 17But I am saying this: The law, which came into existence after four hundred and thirty years, is not invalidating a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, so as to void the promise. 18For if the inheritance [is] out of law [it is] no longer out of promise. But God had graciously granted [it] to Abraham through a promise.
Paul’s obvious point here is that God’s blessing is a grace-gift not merit-pay. He’s using normal human contract standards to prove his point, thus his “…I am speaking according to man... even though having been ratified of man.”
But his logic has always puzzled me. I’ve always found this passage very hard to follow. Once again, I just figured that one of these days I’ll get to actually study this carefully and perhaps then it will make sense to me. Well, here I am and I actually think it does make sense.
First, before I get into that, I think it’s worth noting that Paul begins with “Brethren …” He started the chapter by addressing them as “foolish Galatians.” Clearly that was intended as a appellation of fact, not an immature anger-driven denigration. Paul never loses sight of love, even for people who are clearly being foolish. Lord help us to never lose sight of love, even when we’re dealing with people’s foolish behavior.
Back to the logic of the passage. Here is my thought: The reason this passage at first seems logically elusive is because we read it in a theological mindset. Granted, Galatians is an intensely theological book. It’s like a little Romans. But the passage before us is not primarily theological. The context is secular contract law. Human contract law. In the ancient world they called it a covenant, but, in modern secular language we call them contracts. Again, Paul clearly identifies this distinction: “I am speaking according to men.” I would suggest that fact is critical to understanding this passage.
I spend an enormous amount of time immersed in contract law. As an engineer, that is one of the most important functions we provide for clients. We design a project for them, then help them put it out to bid, then help them compare the bids and select a contractor with whom they wish to enter into contract for the work. Then we provide them with a proposed contract to consider. Their attorney reviews it, the contractor’s attorney reviews it, sometimes changes are made, and when it is agreeable to both parties, they each sign it and they are thereafter legally bound to its terms. You almost couldn’t believe the legal minutiae that has to be spelled out, beginning with the dollar amount of the contract (of course), the time in which it must be completed, and working all the way down to the requirement that the contractor has to provide a porta-john at the job-site! One of the very important aspects of the contract is identifying exactly who are the parties involved. As you can imagine, if there is going to be a contract, it is of paramount importance to identify exactly who is involved in this legally binding document. More on this later.
As long as projects go well, you don’t hear too much about the contract. But the minute there is a problem, that contract becomes like God Himself. Everyone rushes back to it because it carefully and specifically defines the obligations of each party. The contract, once signed, is very, very important.
That is all contract law in the human sense. What Paul is doing is arguing from the lesser to the greater. He’s saying, “If human contracts are so clearly spelled out and binding, how much more would be a contract (or covenant, in theological terms) ratified by God Himself?
So back to the passage. “No one annuls or adds to a covenant even though having been ratified of man.” Once a contract is signed by both parties, its conditions are binding as written. The only way it can be altered is through a “change order,” which is a formal document which again must be signed by both parties. Paul’s point is that, even in human contracts, the terms are binding.
Then he says, “And the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It is not saying, “…and to your seeds” as upon many, but “…and to your seed” as upon one, who is Christ.” Now Paul is addressing the question of exactly who were the parties to the contract. Remember, this question is of paramount importance even in a human contract. Exactly who is bound by the terms of this contract? Certainly there was God and the promises (the covenant, the contract) were made between Him and Abraham. But then there is this matter of his “seed.” Gentlemen, the court is in session. We will now hear arguments to clarify that person or persons identified as “his seed.” Paul notes it was written in the contract as “seed” not “seeds.” At first glance that appears to be a very poor argument, since “seed” is a collective singular and never is written “seeds.” But I think Paul is writing like a lawyer. The opposition shouts, “That argument holds no water! The word is a collective singular!” “Ah, yes,” says Paul, “I agree. Now let’s consider how singular.” Did it include all of Abraham’s immediate seed? Well, no. Only Isaac. What about Ishmael and the sons of Keturah? Of course not. “Ah,” says the wily lawyer, “So it doesn’t refer to all of his seed.” Well, no. “Then your honor, I submit, that we must establish just how singular the word “seed” must be before we can conclusively determine the parties bound by this contract. “Sustained,” says the judge, “Proceed, counsel.” Paul could then work his way down through Jewish history to a continuous process of singularizing the singularity of “seed.” Jacob but not Esau. Judah but none of the other 11 brothers. Jesse, then David, but none of the other millions of Israelites. At some point, it becomes obvious that the “seed” included as a party in the contract was never intended to be all of Abraham’s seed and in fact, the winnowing process was obviously headed for the Messiah. I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, but I have no doubt Paul’s argument would hold up in any court of law. What appears to be a fallacious argument (that “seed” is singular) turns out to be a rather a crafty legal device to force the court to officially and legally scrutinize the singularity of “seed” and recognize that the third party of the Abrahamic covenant was not the Jewish people but rather the Messiah himself (and thus all that are found in Him).
The theological objection is offered that, in other places, the term “seed of Abraham” is, in fact, used to refer to the Jewish people collectively. Granted. But remember that those are not passages where the legal specifics of the contract are under consideration. In modern contract law, once the terms of the contract are specified, then things get capitalized. Suddenly there is the Owner, the Contractor, the Engineer, the Work, the Contract Times, even the Contract itself. Why do we do this? Because in common parlance, every one of those words has a general meaning. It is extremely important to realize when we are and are not speaking in terms of the Contract. That’s why today the words get capitalized when they are meant to be understood as referring to the legal aspects of the contract, not to their general meaning. In the verse before us, Paul makes it clear we are talking legal contract language. The fact that some of the terms get used more generally in other passages has no bearing on their use in this passage. Once again, I personally think seeing this passage theologically is what creates the confusion. It must be understood in its legal context.
Therefore, I would maintain that Paul is on entirely legally defensible grounds to assert that “seed” refers to Christ. The “parties” specifically included and bound by the Contract are God, Abraham, and the Messiah, Christ.
Once again, speaking of contract law, Paul states, “The law, which came into existence after four hundred and thirty years, is not invalidating a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, so as to void the promise.” Whatever the Law meant, whoever it applied to, whatever legal grounds it may have held is legally irrelevant with regard to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant, the Contract, was ratified and continues binding. The Promise, as part of that Covenant, cannot be proffered on new terms just because someone introduces something new, even if it be Law from God Himself. The Contract has been signed.
Finally, the Contract involves a promise, not law: “For if the inheritance [is] out of law [it is] no longer out of promise. But God had graciously granted [it] to Abraham through a promise” “Promise” brings us back to faith. As I’ve noted before, faith requires a change of relationship and a change of heart. Part of the reason for that is the fact that it is all based on this thing of “promise.” That is the nature of a real relationship with God, building our lives around His promise(s). Salvation itself is to hang our very souls on a promise. “He that believes in me has everlasting life” (John 6:47). Law has nothing to do with promise. Faith has everything to do with it. God has given us “great and precious promises” whereby we “overcome the corruption that is in the world.”
Your honor, the defense rests its case.
No comments:
Post a Comment