Questions for Section 5: Gal 3:15-4:7

[jlkoch]

Brothers,
Here is a set of qeustions for your perusal and excavation. In time
they will make it into the Google Doc and be ready for scoring. Luke
is the next facilitator and will determine which questions to use for
our 17Sep09 study.

One question I have for all you to respond, "Do you feel questions are
of value or slow us down during our group discussion?" I think they
are always beneficial in preparation for the study, but they tend to
direct our focus down rabbit trails during the study at the expense of
skipping some verses or getting to the heart of what the author was
trying to say.

Thoughts on that?

Here are the questions:
In vss. 3:15-18, Paul uses an illustration of an earthly covenant.
1) What is his flow of thought from the preceeding verses that causes
him to launch into this topic of covenants?
2) What point does he make about covenants?
3) What is the point he is making ab ou the law?
4) How does this all relate to the promise of God made to Abraham and
what that pormise offers to the Galatian believers (as well as us
today)?

Verses 3:19-29
5) If the law is useless to bring life or blessing...if the law is
useless to nullify the promise made to Abraham, then what in the world
is it good for? WHat is the purpose of the law regarding
transgressions?
6) What is the point he is making about mediators? HOw is the giving/
dispensing of the law different from the giving/dispensing of the
promise?
7) If the law isn't useless or opposed to the promises of God, what is
it useful to perform?
8) In vss 23-25 there are a lot of references to "before and after";
are these OT/NT "before and afters" or rather phases in an
individual's life? What is his point for bringing it up?
9) In vss 7 and 26 he calls these belienving Galatian "children." In
each case how did they become children and in each case who are their
new parents?
10) What is their new relationship with Christ? WHy the mention of
baptism? Is it wet or dry?
11) In vss 26-29 he concludes with several statements about their
identity. According to these verses, who are they? Who are they not?
What's the big deal about that and why is this identity important?

Verses 4:1-7
12) In ch 4 he illustrates another point by using slave children and
heir children growing up together. What point is he making? How does
this fit into the general flow that began in chapter 3?
13) What is the "fulnesss of time" Paul refers to in vs 4? Is it OT/NT
arrival of Christ historically or the arrival of Christ to an
individual?
14) In the end (vs 7) he conludtes them to be sons and heirs; hos is
that vital to Paul's overarching purpose for this section?
15) Has the summary sentence for 3:15-4:7 changed from 3:1-14 or is
this latter section a continuation of the former? If different, how
so?

Blessings!
Justin

[Luke Knapp]

My answer to your question would be "yes".  I feel they are of value, but they definitely slow us down during discussion and lead to rabbit trails.  They tend to lead us to expound on the answer to the question rather than to expound on the specific passage we're looking at.  Whether that's a thing we want to remedy or not...I'm not sure really.

--
http://lrknapp99.blogspot.com

[Logan Hangartner]

I agree with Luke.  I would guess that the potential for rabbit trails is greater with out some questions to get us going in a specific direction from the get go, even if it means we find a few "rabbit trails" along the way.  In response to the "heart of what the author is trying to say", I was under the impression that the questions were to help direct us toward coming to a conclusion about it.

[Jeremy Hodel]

Here's a question:

What's with Paul's use of an apparently feeble and flawed argument in 3:16?

I thought this commentary was interesting, if anyone cares to read.  He addresses the question, but doesn't really provide a definitive answer:

From Albert Barns' "Notes on the Bible"

Gal 3:16 - 

Now to Abraham and his seed - To him and his posterity.

Were the promises made - The promise here referred to was that which is recorded in Gen_22:17-18. “In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”

He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one ... - He does not use the plural term, as if the promise extended to many persons, but he speaks in the singular number, as if only one was intended; and that one must be the Messiah. Such is Paul’s interpretation; such is evidently the sentiment which he intends to convey, and the argument which he intends to urge. He designs evidently to be understood as affirming that in the use of the singular number σπέρμα  sperma (seed), instead of the plural σπέρματα  spermata (seeds), there is a fair ground of argument to demonstrate that the promise related to Christ or the Messiah, and to him primarily if not exclusively. Now no one probably ever read this passage without feeling a difficulty, and without asking himself whether this argument is sound, and is worthy a man of candor, and especially of an inspired man. Some of the difficulties in the passage are these:

(1) The promise referred to in Genesis seems to have related to the posterity of Abraham at large, without any particular reference to an individual. It is to his seed; his descendants; to all his seed or posterity. Such would be the fair and natural interpretation should it be read by hundreds or thousands of persons who had never heard of the interpretation here put upon it by Paul.

(2) the argument of the apostle seems to proceed on the supposition that the word “seed” σπέρμα  sperma, that is, posterity, here cannot refer to more than one person. If it had, says he, it would be in the plural number. But the fact is, that the word is often used to denote posterity at large; to refer to descendants without limitation, just as the word posterity is with us; and it is a fact, moreover, that the word is not used in the plural at all to denote a posterity, the singular form being constantly employed for that purpose.

Anyone who will open Tromm’s Concordance to the Septuagint, or Schmids’ Concordance on the New Testament will see the most ample confirmation of this remark. Indeed the plural form of the word is never used except in this place in Galatians. The difficulty, therefore, is, that the remark here of Paul appears to be a trick of argument, or a quibble more worthy of a trifling Jewish Rabbi, than of a serious reasoner or an inspired man. I have stated this difficulty freely, just as I suppose it has struck hundreds of minds, because I do not wish to shrink from any real difficulty in examining the Bible, but to see whether it can be fairly met. In meeting it, expositors have resorted to various explanations, most of them, as it seems to me, unsatisfactory, and it is not necessary to detail them. Dr. Burner, Doddridge, and some others suppose that the apostle means to say that the promises made to Abraham were not only appropriated to one class of his descendants, that is, to those by Isaac, but that they centered in one illustrious person, through whom all the rest are made partakers of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.

This Doddridge admits the apostle says in “bad Greek,” but still he supposes that this is the true exposition. Noessett and Rosenmuller suppose that by the word σπέρμα  sperma (seed) here is not meant the Messiah, but Christians in general; the body of believers. But this is evidently in contradiction of the apostle, who expressly affirms that Christ was intended. It is also liable to another objection that is fatal to the opinion. The very point of the argument of the apostle is, that the singular and not the plural form of the word is used, and that therefore an individual, and not a collective body or a number of individuals, is intended. But according to this interpretation the reference is, in fact, to a numerous body of individuals, to the whole body of Christians. Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise or learned men - Chandler. Borger endeavors to show that this was in accordance with the mode of speaking and writing among the Hebrews, and especially that the Jewish Rabbis were accustomed to draw an argument like this from “the singular number,” and that the Hebrew word זרע  zera‛ “seed” is often used by them in this manner; see his remarks as quoted by Bloomfield in loc.

But the objection to this is, that though this might be common, yet it is not the less a quibble on the word, for certainly the very puerile reasoning of the Jewish Rabbis is no good authority on which to vindicate the authority of an apostle. Locke and Clarke suppose that this refers to Christ as the spiritual head of the mystical body, and to all believers in him. LeClerc supposes that it is an allegorical kind of argument, that was suited to convince the Jews only, who were accustomed to this kind of reasoning. I do not know but this solution may be satisfactory to many minds, and that it is capable of vindication, since it is not easy to say how far it is proper to make use of methods of argument used by an adversary in order to convince them. The argumentum a.d. hominem is certainly allowable to a certain extent, when designed to show the legitimate tendency of the principles advanced by an opponent.

But here there is no evidence that Paul was reasoning with an adversary. He was showing the Galatians, not the Jews, what was the truth, and justice to the character of the apostle requires us to suppose that he would make use of only such arguments as are in accordance with the eternal principles of truth, and such as may be seen to he true in all countries and at all times. The question then is, whether the argument of the apostle here drawn from the use of the singular word σπέρματα  spermata (seed), is one that can be seen to be sound? or is it a mere quibble, as Jerome and LeClerc suppose? or is it to be left to be presumed to have had a force which we cannot now trace? for this is possible. Socrates and Plato may have used arguments of a subtile nature, based on some nice distinctions of words which were perfectly sound, but which we, from our necessary ignorance of the delicate shades of meaning in the language, cannot now understand. Perhaps the following remarks may show that there is real force and propriety in the position which the apostle takes here. If not, then I confess my inability to explain the passage.

(1) there can be no reasonable objection to the opinion that the promise originally made to Abraham included the Messiah; and the promised blessings were to descend through him. This is so often affirmed in the New Testament, that to deny it would be to deny the repeated declarations of the sacred writers, and to make war on the whole structure of the Bible; see particularly Rom. 4; compare Joh_8:56. If this general principle be admitted, it will remove much perplexity from the controversy.

(2) the promise made to Abraham Gen_22:18, “and in thy seed זרץ  zera‛, Septuagint ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου  en tō spermati sou), where the words both in Hebrew and in Greek are in the singular number) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,” cannot refer to all the seed or the posterity of Abraham taken collectively. He had two sons, Isaac by Rebecca, and Ishmael by Hagar, besides numerous descendants by Keturah; Gen_25:1 ff. Through a large part of these no particular blessings descended on the human family, and there is no sense in which all the families of the earth are particularly blessed in them. On any supposition, therefore, there must have been some limitation of the promise; or the word “seed” was intended to include only some portion of his descendants, whether a particular branch or an individual, does not yet appear. It must have referred to a part only of the posterity of Abraham, but to what part is to be learned only by subsequent revelations.

(3) it was the intention of God to confine the blessing to one branch of the family, to Isaac and his descendants. The special promised blessing was to be through him, and not through the family of Ishmael. This intention is often expressed, Gen_17:19-21; Gen_21:12; Gen_25:11; compare Rom_9:7; Heb_11:18. Thus, the original promise of a blessing through the posterity of Abraham became somewhat narrowed down, so as to show that there was to be a limitation of the promise to a particular portion of his posterity.

(4) if the promise had referred to the two branches of the family; if it had been intended to include Ishmael as well as Isaac, then some term would have been used that would have expressed this. So unlike were Isaac and Ishmael; so different in the circumstances of their birth and their future life; so dissimilar were the prophecies respecting them, that it might be said that their descendants were two races of people; and in Scripture the race of Ishmael ceased to be spoken of as the descendants or the posterity of Abraham. There was a sense in which the posterity of Isaac was regarded as the seed or posterity of Abraham in which the descendants of Ishmael were not; and the term σπέρμα  sperma or “seed” therefore properly designated the posterity of Isaac. It might be said, then, that the promise “to thy seed” did not refer to the two races, as if he had said σπέρματα  spermata, “seeds,” but to one σπέρμα  sperma, “the seed” of Abraham, by way of eminence.

(5) this promise was subsequently narrowed down still more, so as to include only one portion of the descendants of Isaac. Thus it was limited to the posterity of Jacob, Esau being excluded; subsequently the special blessing was promised to the family of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob Gen_49:10; in subsequent times it was still further narrowed down or limited to the family of Jesse; then to that of David; then to that of Solomon, until it terminated in the Messiah. The original intention of the promise was that there should be a limitation, and that limitation was made from age to age, until it terminated in the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. By being thus narrowed down from age to age, and limited by successive revelations, it was shown that the Messiah was eminently intended, which is what Paul says here. The promise was indeed at first general, and the term used was of the most general nature; but it was shown from time to time that God intended that it should be applied only to one branch or portion of the family of Abraham; and that limitation was finally so made as to terminate in the Messiah. This I take to be the meaning of this very difficult passage of scripture; and though it may not be thought that all the perplexities are removed by these remarks, yet I trust they will be seen to be so far removed as that it will appear that there is real force in the argument of the apostle, and that it is not a mere trick of argument, or a quibble unworthy of him as an apostle and a man.

(Whatever may be thought of this solution of thee difficulty, the author has certainly given more than due prominence to the objections that are supposed to lie against the apostle’s argument. Whatever license a writer in the American Biblical Repository, or such like work, might take, it certainly is not wise in a commentary intended for Sunday Schools to affirm, that the great difficulty of the passage is “that the remark here of Paul appears to be a trick of argument, or a quibble more worthy of a trifling Jewish Rabbi than of a serious reasoner and an inspired man,” and then to exhibit such a formidable array of objection, and behind it a defense comparatively feeble, accompanied with the acknowledgment that if that be not sufficient the author can do no more! These objections, moreover, are not only stated “fairly” but strongly, and something more than strongly; so that while in the end the authority of the apostle is apparently vindicated, the effect is such, that the reader, unaccustomed to such treatment of inspired men, is tempted to exclaim, “non tali auxillo, nec defensoribus istis, tempus eget” Indeed we are surprised that, with Bloomfield and Burger before him, the author should ever have made some of the assertions which are set down under this text.

As to objection first, it does not matter what interpretation hundreds and thousands of persons would naturally put on the passage in Genesis, since the authority of an inspired apostle must be allowed to settle its meaning against them all. The second objection affirms, that “the word σπέρμα  sperma is not used in the plural at all to denote a posterity,” on which Bloomfield thus remarks, “it has been denied that the word זרץ  zera‛ is ever used in the plural, except to denote the seeds of vegetables. And the same assertion has been made respecting σπέρμα  sperma. But the former position merely extends to the Old Testament, which only contains a fragment and small part of the Hebrew language. So that it cannot be proved that זרץ  zera‛ was never used in the plural to denote sons, races. As to the latter assertion it is unfounded; for though σπέρμα  sperma is used in the singular as a noun of multitude, to denote several children, yet it is sometimes used in the plural to signify several sons of the same family; as in Soph. OEd. Col. 599, γῆς εμῆς ἀπηλάθην Προς τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ σπερμάτων  gēs emēs apēlathēn Pros emautou spermatōn.”

The elaborate Latin Note of Borger, part of which is quoted in Bloomfield, will give complete satisfaction to the student who may wish thoroughly to examine this place. He maintains:

1. That though the argument of the apostle may not be founded exactly on the use of the singular number, yet the absurdity at his application of the passage in Genesis to the Messiah, would have been obvious if, instead of the singular the plural had been used, “si non σπέρματος  spermatos sed σπέρματων  spermatōn mentio fuisset facta;” from which he justly concludes, that at all events “numerum cum hac explicatione non pugnare.”

2. The word זרץ  zera‛ is in certain places understood of one man only (de uno homine) and therefore may be so here.

3. The apostle, arguing with Jews, employs an argument to which they were accustomed to attach importance; for they laid great stress on the respective use of the singular and plural number; which argument. indeed, would be liable to the objections stated against it by Mr. Barnes, if the thing to be proven rested entirely on this ground, and had not, besides, its foundation in the actual truth of the case. If the singular number in this place really had that force attached to it which the apostle declares, and if the Jews were influenced in other matters by arguments of this kind, it was certainly both lawful and wise to reason with them after their own fashion.

4. What is still more to the point, the Jewish writers themselves frequently use the word זרץ  zera‛, not only of one man, but especially of the Messiah, “non tantum de uno homine, sed imprimis etiam de Messia exponere solent.”

On the whole, the objections against the reasoning on this passage are raised in defiance of apostolical interpretation. But, as has been well observed, “the apostle, to say nothing of his inspiration, might be supposed to be better qualified to decide on a point of this kind, than any modern philologist” - Bloomfield in loco.

[Jeremy Hodel]

And I realize this isn't all that relevant to the author's intent in the passage, but it bothers me all the same.

[Luke Knapp]

Jeremy,

I haven't read through and digested all the commentary you sent, but my first thought was along the lines of what we talked about a little at the last Bible Study regarding the N.T. interpreting the O.T.  Since the Holy Spirit wrote the whole thing, we know that the best interpretation we will ever get of the O.T. will come from the Holy Spirit in the N.T.  Therefore "seed" refers to the Messiah because the Holy Spirit (through Paul) says it does.

Just my "shoot from the hip" answer.  I may have to modify it as I read your commentary and digest through it more.

I'm really looking forward to this coming Bible Study.  These verses we're covering have some Amazing truths to teach us.

Peace,
Luke

--
http://lrknapp99.blogspot.com

[Brian Sutter]

In regards to how questions are either helpful or hinder our progress through a passage. I would just say that as the facilitator it can be hard to keep the dialogue focused when trying to address the passage as well as the questions. I would suggest using the questions to prepare for the discussion and then going through that passage (verse by verse or section by section) as a group. The facilitator may feel it appropriate to have questions picked that will help facilitate discussion with the overall goal being to go through that passage rather than answer specific questions. In short I am saying questions may be helpful for the discussion but I think the primary goal should to process the passage.
 
Just as a side note I will not be able to make it next week due to being in TN for counseling college.
Brian
 

---

Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:14:51 -0500

Subject: Re: Questions for Section 5: Gal 3:15-4:7

From: lrk...@gmail.com
To: galatians-...@googlegroups.com

[Luke Knapp]

Brian,

Tennessee Schmennessee.  It's not that far to drive back for the evening.  *grin* 

I would agree with your assessment, and I will try that approach during my tenure as "facilitator".

Peace,
Luke

--
http://lrknapp99.blogspot.com

[Justin Koch]

Brothers,

 

Looking forward to this Thursday.  I have attached a .doc with questions if that is useful. 

 

Blessings!
Justin

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.78/2347 - Release Date: 09/05/09 05:51:00

[Luke Knapp]

Justin,

 

I wanted to make a comment about question 12:

12) In ch 4 he illustrates another point by using slave children and heir children growing up together.  What point is he making? How does this fit into the general flow that began in chapter 3?

It doesn't seem to me that Paul is referencing slave children and heir children growing up together, but rather that the "true" heirs of the kingdom, are indistinguishable from the slaves while they are "children"(before conversion/manhood), even though the heir is the owner of everything and the slave is...well, a slave.  But at the date set by the father (conversion) the heirs step forth from under their guardians/bondage, and look very different from the slaves who never will step out.  Vs. 6 seems to validate that by saying "since you are sons God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts..." 

 

Did I communicate that very well?

 

I'm looking forward to this Thursday too!  This is an exciting section with a lot of encouraging truths.

 

Peace,

Luke

 

P.S.  I'm still not sure Byron is getting these emails.  Can anyone go to the Galatians group page and verify Byron's email?  Justin, have you verified that Byron knows it's at his place this Thursday??

[Jeremy Hodel]

Confirming, Byron's email is incorrect on the Galatians group.  It should be: "Byron Schrock" <bsch...@mtco.com> but it doesn't appear that I have authorization to edit it. Who can fix it?

Jeremy

[Luke Knapp]

I will.

--
http://lrknapp99.blogspot.com

[jlk...@softhome.net]

Note from Byron,

Thurs. eve at our home works! Please forward to all and they can call
Byron at 696-7588 for directions. See you one and all, Byron

29509 Allentown Rd.
Mackinaw, IL 61755

(There are three driveways clustered together. Theirs is the furthest
east and has a flower planter box at the base of their driveway.)

Justin

[jlkoch]

Luke,

Sorry for the delay in getting back on this. I finally got to chapter
4 this morning. You are correct in noting that the two "types" of
children are not growing up together. That image is vintage from a
visual picture I carried around in my mind from "Gone with the Wind"
or some other civil war movie from yesteryear where Hollywood had made
a point of watching slave children and plantation children playing
together and becoming friends. As time went on, the movie accentuated
how the evils of social classification eventually seperated these
friends simply because of skin color. Paul does not portray that
image, but as you say, only the indistinuishableness of the two while
they are children.

Yes, you did communicate *very* well.

Thanks!
Justin