The Priority of the Promise

1

Lesson 6July 29-August 4/5The Priority of the Promise

Memory Text:“For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise” (Galatians 3:18, ESV).

A top adviser to a president was asked: “Has the president kept all the promises that he made during his campaign?” The adviser answered, “The president has kept all the promises he intended to keep.”

Who hasn’t, at one time or another, been at one end or the other of a broken promise? Who hasn’t been the one to break a promise or the one to have a promise made to him or her broken?

Sometimes people make a promise, fully intending to keep it, but, later, don’t; others make a promise, knowing — as the sounds leave their mouths or the letters their fingers — it’s all a lie.

Fortunately for us, God’s promises are of an entirely different order. God’s Word is sure and unchanging. “ ‘I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it,’ ” says the Lord (Isa. 46:11, ESV).

In this week’s lesson, Paul directs our attention to the relationship between God’s promise to Abraham and the law given to Israel 430 years later.How should the relationship between the two be understood, and what implications does that have for the preaching of the gospel?

SundayJuly 30Law and Faith (Gal. 3:15-18)

Even if his opponents conceded that Abraham’s life was characterized primarily by faith, Paul knew that they still would have questions about why God gave the law to Israel about four centuries after Abraham. Did not the giving of the law nullify any previous arrangement?

What is the point of Paul’s analogy between a person’s final will and testament and God’s covenant with Abraham?Gal. 3:15-18.

Galatians 3:15-18 (The Changeless Promise) 15Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Thoughit isonly a man’s covenant, yetif it isconfirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.16Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one,“And to your Seed,”who is Christ.17And this I say,thatthe law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ,that it should make the promise of no effect.18For if the inheritanceisof the law,it isno longer of promise; but God gaveitto Abraham by promise.

16. Thy seed. The objective of God’s covenant with Abraham was the coming of the Messiah and the salvation of men. All the other promises were accessory to this. Great blessings were in store for the chosen people if they would cooperate with God (see Vol. IV, pp. 26–30), but unfortunately they failed to do so (pp. 30–33). Accordingly, they forfeited their role as the instrument of Heaven for the salvation of the world. Nevertheless, God overruled their failure to the extent that the Messiah came to earth in the fullness of time, as a Son of Abraham (see Vol. IV, p. 32).

Originally, the promise of posterity pointed forward in a literal sense to Isaac (see references cited above under “promises”; chs. 4:22, 23). But here, by inspiration, the apostle Paul points to a figurative truth deeper than that which the promise appeared, on the surface, to embrace (see on Deut. 18:15). The promise thus met its first and partial fulfillment in Isaac, but was to have a final and complete fulfillment in Christ. In here declaring that Christ was, in a special sense, the “seed” promised to Abraham, Paul does not excluded either Abraham’s lineal descendants through Isaac (see Gal. 4:23) or his spiritual descendants through Christ (see ch. 3:29). Accordingly, the promise met its supreme, but not exclusive, fulfillment in Christ.[1] 17. The law. That is, the entire legal system under which Israel was constituted a theocracy at Mt. Sinai, including the moral law, which was proclaimed by God in person, and the ceremonial system promulgated through Moses. Four hundred and thirty years. See Vol. I, p. 184. This period spans the interval from God’s original call to Abraham, to the establishment of Israel as a nation at the time of the Exodus (see on Gen. 12:3, 4; see on Ex. 12:40). This was the time of sojourn, first in Canaan and then in Egypt, between the promise to make of the Hebrews a nation and to establish them in the land of Canaan, and the fulfillment of that promises. Paul is here concerned particularly with the covenant promise at the beginning of the period and the giving of the law at its close, the law under which Israel was to function as a theocracy until the crucifixion (see DA 737, 738). Make the promise. The legal system ordained by God at Mt. Sinai (see p. 933; see on ch. 2:16) cannot replace, or in any wise alter, the provisions of the covenant (see on ch. 3:15). Specifically, “the law” did not provide a new means of salvation; it did not establish a system of righteousness by works to take the place of, or to compete with, the promise of righteousness by faith in the coming Messiah (vs. 6–8, 14).Accordingly, men were saved by faith between Sinai and the cross. For the relation of the law to the covenant see on v. 19. 18. The inheritance. That is, the promises of the covenant (see on v. 16). In a material sense this refers to the land of Canaan; in an ethnic sense, to Israel’s role as God’s chosen people; and in a spiritual sense, to the blessings of salvation through the Messiah. Although it is true of the first two that their basis was the covenant promise and not the law, Paul is here concerned more particularly with “the inheritance” of salvation by faith in Christ. In other words, God gave and they received “the inheritance” by virtue of their faith in God’s covenant promise, and not by their promise to fulfill the requirements of the legal system (see on Ex. 19:5, 8). No more of promise. That is, on the basis of the promises incorporated into the covenant made with Abraham (see on vs. 16, 17). By promise. The record is clear. The inheritance came by promise, not by law. Abraham had nothing but God’s promise. His literal descendants were accorded the status of being God’s chosen people and were given possession of Canaan by virtue of that promise. It is true that they were to retain their status and possession of Canaan only if they complied with the law, but they did not earn title to their inheritance.Title was theirs only by virtue of faith in the promise; their fitness to retain that title was to be measured by their compliance with the will of God as expressed in “the law” (see Vol. IV, p. 34). Thus it is with the inheritance of salvation in this life (see on Heb. 5:9) and with the eternal inheritance of the saints in heavenly Canaan.

A Possible Answer:The point of Paul’s analogy was that just as the provisions of a human agreement are considered binding, God would not capriciously alter His promise to Abraham to save men on the basis of their faith in the coming Messiah.

A covenant and a will are generally different.A covenant is typically a mutual agreement between two or more people, often called a “contract” or “treaty”; in contrast, a will is the declaration of a single person. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, never translates God’s covenant with Abraham with the Greek word used for mutual agreements or contracts (syntheke). Instead, it uses the word for a testament or a will (diatheke). Why? Probably because the translators recognized that God’s covenant with Abraham was not a treaty between two individuals, where mutually binding promises are made. On the contrary, God’s covenant was based on nothing other than His own will. No string of “ifs, ands, or buts” was attached. Abraham was simply to take God at His word.

Paul picks up on this double meaning of “will” and “covenant” in order to highlight specific features of God’s covenant with Abraham. As with a human will, God’s promise concerns a specific beneficiary, Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1-5, Gal. 3:16); it also involves an inheritance (Gen. 13:15, 17:8, Rom. 4:13, Gal. 3:29). Most important to Paul is the unchanging nature of God’s promise. In the same way that a person’s will cannot be changed once it has been put into force, so the giving of the law through Moses cannot simply nullify God’s previous covenant with Abraham. God’s covenant is a promise (Gal. 3:16), and by no means is God a promise-breaker (Isa. 46:11, Heb. 6:18).

Replace the word covenant with promise in the following passages. What is the nature of the “covenant” in each passage? A Possible Answer:It is divine in nature. The strength of the covenant is consistent with the character and ability of the provider, God.

How does understanding God’s covenant as a promise make the meaning of the passage clearer, and how does it help us understand better what a covenant is? (Gen. 9:11-17, 15:18, 17:1-21).

Genesis 9:11-17 11Thus I establish My(promise) covenantwith you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”12And God said: “Thisisthe sign of the (promise)covenantwhich I make between Me and you, and every living creature thatiswith you, for perpetual generations:13I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the(promise) covenantbetween Me and the earth.14It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;15and I will remember My (promise)covenantwhichisbetween Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.16The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting (promise)covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh thatison the earth.”17And God said to Noah, “Thisisthe sign of the (promise)covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh thatison the earth.” Genesis 15:18 On the same day theLordmade a (promise)covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—

Gen.17:1-21 (Because of the length of this passage...please look it up independently)

A Possible Answer: A)It makes the meaning clearer because it helps the reader see that God takes the initiative which is a demonstration of His love, plus that being so, it breathes with greater assurance and hope. B) It helps us understand better what a covenant is buy informing us that it is simply a promise made by a benefactor while stripping away the intricacies that is normally wrapped up in a contract.

What does this teach us, too, about the character of God, and how we can trust Him?A Possible Answer: A) It teaches us that God’s character encompasses care, love, faithfulness and concern for His creation. B) That being so, we can trust Him because of His character envelops—to say the lease---mercy, faithfulness, in-depth knowledge of our nature, righteousness, consistency and care for our present and futurewell-being.

MondayJuly 31Faith and Law (Rom. 3:31)

Paul has argued strongly for the supremacy of faith in a person’s relationship with God. He has repeatedly stated that neither circumcision nor any other “works of law” are a prerequisite to salvation, “because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal. 2:16, ESV). Moreover, it is not the works of the law but faith that is the defining mark of the believer (Gal. 3:7). This repeated negation of the works of the law raises the question, “Does the law have absolutely no value, then? Did God do away with the law?”

Because salvation is by faith and not by works of law, does Paul mean to say that faith abolishes the law? What do the following texts tell us? Compare Rom. 3:31 with Rom. Rom. 7:7, 12; 8:3 and Matt. 5:17-20.

Romans 3:31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

31. Make void.Gr. katargeō, “to make null and void.” See on v. 3. The law through faith. In the Greek, “law” stands without the article (see on ch. 2:12). Paul has previously said that the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law (ch. 3:21) and that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law (v. 28). Apparently realizing that these statements could lead to the mistaken idea that faith abolishes the principle of law, Paul raises this rhetorical question and answers it with an immediate and categorical denial. It is true that Paul “made void” the Jewish idea of law as a means of attaining righteousness and the Jewish insistence that the Gentiles must follow the same method (Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:16–19). But law in its true function is confirmed, rather than abrogated, by God’s appointed method of justifying sinners (see on Rom. 3:28). God forbid.Or, “By no means” (see on v. 4). Yea.Rather “on the contrary.” Establish the law.Paul is emphasizing the place of law as a principle, and particularly, in the context of this chapter, as it is embodied in the revealed law of the OT. He has already spoken of the witness of the OT to the teachings that were soon to become known as the NT (v. 21). Now he asserts that law, viewed as a revelation of the holy will of God and of the eternal principles of morality, is fully vindicated and established by the gospel of righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus came to this earth to magnify the law (Isa. 42:21; cf. Matt. 5:17) and to reveal by His life of perfect obedience that Christians can, through the empowering grace of God, give obedience to His law. The plan of justification by faith reveals God’s regard for His law in demanding and providing the atoning sacrifice.If justification by faith abolishes law, then there was no need for the atoning death of Christ to release the sinner from his sins, and thus restore him to peace with God.

Moreover, genuine faith implies in itself an unreserved willingness to fulfill the will of God in a life of obedience to His law (see on Rom. 3:28).Real faith, based on wholehearted love for the Saviour, can lead only to obedience.The fact that Christ endured such suffering because of our transgression of God’s law is one of the strongest motives for obedience. We do not easily and readily repeat a course of conduct that overwhelms our earthly friends in calamity. Likewise we can only hate the sins that inflicted such woes on the best Friend of all. One of the chief glories of the plan of salvation is that while the plan makes possible the sinner’s justification through faith, it also provides powerful influences to produce in him a desire to obey.

The plan of righteousness by faith places law in its proper position. The function of law is to convict of sin (v. 20) and to reveal the great standard of righteousness. The sinner who is confronted with the law sees not only his sin; he sees also his lack of positive qualities. The law thus leads him to Christ and the gospel (Gal. 3:24). Then faith and love bring forth a new obedience to the law of God, the obedience that springs from faith (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), the obedience of love (ch. 13:8, 10).

It is on this question of the authority and function of God’s law that the final conflict will come in the great controversy between Christ and Satan. That it is now no longer necessary to give complete obedience to every precept of God’s law is the last great deception that Satan will bring upon the world (Rev. 12:17; 14:12; cf. DA 763).

Romans 7:7 (Sin’s Advantage in the Law) 7What shall we say then?Isthe law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said,“You shall not covet.” 7. What shall we say then? A characteristic phrase (see on ch. 4:1). Paul prepares to meet another possible misunderstanding regarding what he has said about the relationship between law and sin. Is the law sin? Paul has stated (v. 5) that sin makes use of the law to bring about the destruction of the sinner. Does this mean that the law itself is a sinful thing, whose only purpose is to make men worse than they were before? Paul replies by explaining that the evil is not in the law but in man.Though it is true that the law is the “occasion” of sin (v. 8), nevertheless the law itself is “holy, and just, and good” (v. 12). Nay. Gr. alla, generally translated “but,” here possibly the equivalent of “on the contrary” (see 1 Cor. 12:22). That is, far from the law being sin, on the contrary, it exposes sin. Alla may also be understood to mean “yet,” “nevertheless” (see Rom. 5:14). That is, even though it be emphatically denied that the law is sin, nevertheless, but for the law, I would not have known sin. Either interpretation is appropriate to Paul’s argument. I had not known sin. Since sin is “lawlessness,” or “disobedience to law” (see on 1 John 3:4), it is only logical that the effect of law in a man’s experience should be to reveal his sin to him in its true nature.The illogical attitude toward law is to regard it as an enemy for having made this truthful exposure. A mirror is not an enemy to a homely person because it reveals to him his homeliness. Nor is a physician an enemy to someone who is sick because he discloses to him his sickness. The doctor is not the cause of the sickness, nor is the mirror the cause of the homeliness. Likewise God is not the cause of the sickness and ugliness of our sin because He shows it to us in the mirror of His holy law and by the divine Physician, who came to reveal and to heal our sinfulness. By the law. Literally, “through law” (see on ch. 2:12).