You can listen to this sermon at The Gospel Coalition.
Pullquote
J.B. Phillips has a nice translation for verse 1. “Oh, you dear idiots” — and I think that by the way shows that despite what people say about chapter 1, 6 to 10 , he’s not angry with them, he’s bewildered by them he’s utterly perplexed that his dear children are playing the fool like this he asks who has bewitched you and some commentators needless to say imagine that some of the missionaries were magicians like the woman in the road where I live who has a car with placards all over it “I believe in magic” — I always think it’s a marvellous testimony really because her car is without doubt the most bashed car in the square and magic has not managed to keep her obviously clear of accidents so it’s a fairly moth-eaten testimony and necessarily one look at her at the wheel is enough to tell you that she’s going to need all the help she gets. Now of course, this is not to be taken literally of course it’s not we use exactly the same language when we talk of certain beguiling preachers. We say “so and so is a spellbinder” and, by the way if you are a spellbinder, and one or two of you here are spellbinders, it’s a very dangerous gift isn’t it it’s to be consecrated to the Lord, but it is a dangerous gift if you can get people to do what you want. And, so I think what he’s saying here is that someone’s put a spell on you by their preaching and teaching someone has knocked the sense out of you and got you to go the wrong way just because you couldn’t resist their charm and their ability.
Comment
This teaching was presented at 11:15 am on January 29 1995, and is notable for at least two reasons. First, as the reader will note from the pullquote above, it showcases his trademark wit, pressed into the service of Scripture. He hooks the congregation instantly with a humorous anecdote, then pivots straight into Paul’s urgent letter to the Galatians.
The second standout feature is Lucas’s rare gift for cutting through contemporary noise, whether passing fads or weighty doctrinal controversies, by staying firmly anchored in the text. The issue vexing the Galatians in the first century was the very same one troubling believers at St Helen’s, London, in 1995.
But you see, we are constantly undervaluing that great experience of conversion. Once you undervalue conversion, you are open to the promise of the new missionaries that there is something bigger and better ahead of you before you get to glory. There is nothing bigger and better ahead of us before we get to glory than what God did when he rescued us and brought us out of darkness into glorious light.
Another challenge would later resurface as a flashpoint in the 21st-century Protestant world with the New Perspective on Paul. This Q & A exchange following the teaching demonstrates that Lucas and his audience were fully engaged with serious challenges, along with more trendy issues, and were even out ahead in some of their observations.
Doug Johnson spoke up:
You were mentioning the way that scholars today are approaching the whole thing. I think there are two hermeneutical issues that are quite important, and that is the majority of scholars don’t approach Scripture from where we do. They don’t approach it with the complete trustworthiness and the sufficiency of Scripture in mind, and they also have a limited view of grace, and they approach this whole question from those two points, which means that you will find Paul fallible. For my money, I think I would rather think in terms of Palestinian Judaism as interpreted by Saul of Tarsus as being slightly more accurate than interpreted by Ed Sanders, and the same way over Christianity in the first century. But because they don’t see Scripture as authoritative, as sufficient, they will obviously find people like Paul insufficient in their approach. And I think the same thing applies as far as their doctrine of grace is concerned. Earl Ellis started me off on this track earlier in the summer when he said the great thing about people like Ed Sanders, Jimmy Dunn, is really they come from a basically Arminian position, so they don’t actually come with a full doctrine of grace as they approach it. Ed Sanders’ main thing is to say that grace is what gets you in and works is what keeps you in. But I think Paul would say, grace is what gets you in and grace is what keeps you in. And I think it’s their basic theological presuppositions that affect the way that they come of the text itself.
Dick responded:
Isn’t that helpful? Yes, it does come from an Arminianism. Jimmy Dunn, of course, would be in that category, absolutely. We’re living in a era where Arminianism is going to seed badly, aren’t we? And, therefore we shall see that influence.
Dick Lucas was often ahead of the curve precisely because he refused to drift: he remained tethered to Scripture and the core traditions of authentic Christianity, within his Reformed, Evangelical Anglican stream.
Transcription
Please note: These transcriptions are completed by an AI model or agent, which does a very good job. But, I have not edited them for punctuation, paragraps, quotations, or style — they are presented here as a convenient search and cutting tool for those looking for Dick Lucas quotes and views on various topics or doctrines.
Please draw near to us, Heavenly Father, as we draw near to you in the name of Christ. We need your help both to speak and to understand and to live by what we understand and then to teach it to others. And we crave that help and power now so that this part of the sword of the Spirit in our hands may be sharp and shining for Christ’s sake. Amen. Right, we come to our fourth lecture and we’re going to have a slightly different kind of lecture because we’re going to cover a lot of ground and we’re going to move from trotting to galloping. So take several deep breaths. Forget that you had that donut. By lunchtime you really will deserve a break because I aim now to do the whole of chapter 3 especially concentrating on what I often call the melodic line that is the argument that runs through it and holds it together and which despite one or two tricky details and I won’t funk those so I may get them wrong which despite the tricky details I think is very clear and coherent I’m going to claim to you that the argument from now onwards is exceptionally clear I strongly object to modern commentaries who say this is tortured and rabbinical. If I can understand it, then anybody can understand it. And that’s the great benefit, isn’t it, of being bears a little brain. And we know that once we’ve seen it, the congregation will be able to see it too. Well, maybe you’re, of course, a double first or something, but anyhow, forget that. Where were we? Now, since chapter 4, verses 1 to 20, we’ve already introduced to one another. All that I shall do today is to show you how it fits into the jigsaw. One of the joys of doing a series of lectures like this is that more and more pieces fit into the jigsaw. It’s always a great joy. Do you like doing jigsaws? I love them. I’m old-fashioned in that regard. And when you get them all to fit in, it’s great, and we’re going to see that. And as I said earlier, when we get to return after half term, we’re going to start straight away at chapter 4, verse 21. This means that by halfway through the last morning, the fourth morning together, we shall have finished our course. And this will give us a great opportunity in the second part of that fourth morning to do an overview and find the application of Galatians for preaching today. and hopefully discover that Galatians is not useful just for confirming us in the doctrine of justification by faith, plus three or four more precious verses, which is all it is in the church today as far as I can see, but that really we shall have got this back as part of the sword of the Spirit. Three then, one to five. You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes, Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you. Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing? I’m going to take the alternative translation there. Have you experienced so much for nothing, if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law or because you believe what you’ve heard? As I said in the first lecture, it’s not always clear that Paul is addressing the Galatians. Sometimes he’s talking to Peter, sometimes he’s talking generally. But now we come straight back to the Galatian readers with you. We actually haven’t had that direct approach since chapter 1, verse 9, when he says, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel, and chapter 2, verse 5, where he says that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. And now this you returns. He’s actually got in his mind’s eye his naughty children, and he’s about to upbraid them. J.B. Phillips has a nice translation for verse 1. Oh, you dear idiots. and I think that by the way shows that despite what people say about chapter 1, 6 to 10 he’s not angry with them, he’s bewildered by them he’s utterly perplexed that his dear children are playing the fool like this he asks who has bewitched you and some commentators needless to say imagine that some of the missionaries were magicians like the woman in the road where I live who has a car with placards all over it I believe in magic I always think it’s a marvellous testimony really because her car is without doubt the most bashed car in the square and magic has not managed to keep her obviously clear of accidents so it’s a fairly moth-eaten testimony and necessarily one look at her at the wheel is enough to tell you that she’s going to need all the help she gets now of course this is not to be taken literally of course it’s not we use exactly the same language when we talk of certain beguiling preachers we say so and so is a spellbinder and by the way if you are a spellbinder and one or two of you here are spellbinders it’s a very dangerous gift isn’t it it’s to be consecrated to the Lord but it is a dangerous gift if you can get people to do what you want and so I think what he’s saying here is that someone’s put a spell on you by their preaching and teaching someone has knocked the sense out of you and got you to go the wrong way just because you couldn’t resist their charm and their ability. Before your very eyes, why, they’ve heard the real authentic gospel. They believed in Christ and his sacrifice for them. It’s a lovely description, isn’t it, of gospel preaching this. Jesus Christ clearly portrayed as crucified. When I say, I don’t mean to denigrate drama. I think there is a place for drama, especially, by the way, out in the street when we’re attracting the attention of the passerby. But this seems to me to suggest that preaching in that sense should be dramatic, because preaching the cross does mean telling the story of the cross. Otherwise, why do the Gospels do that? The Gospel account of the cross of Christ is a fascinating example of event plus interpretation. The events are described in that wonderfully moving away, and in them, amongst them, are the interpretation of those facts. That’s how we should be preaching. It isn’t enough to preach the interpretation without the story of the cross. So Paul evidently clearly portrayed the dying of Jesus to them, as well as, of course, interpreting that and explaining what it meant. So here are people who’ve heard the authentic gospel. And notice, by the way, the authentic gospel is the cross of Christ. in the new alternative service book in the Church of England. We remember at the Lord’s Supper not his death, as the Reformers said, but his coming, his death, his rising again, his ascension, and so on. That is wrong. We should be remembering at the Lord’s table his death. That’s the gospel. And Paul makes that very plain here, I think, in verse 1, and indeed the whole of Galatians. Now, having said that, he bombards them with questions. Let me just read it again because there’s one question after another. Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you experienced so much for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit, etc., because you believe what you heard? Question after question is bombarded at these naughty children by their teacher. Now the point, I think, is exactly in verse 4 that they have experienced so much. It could be suffered there, and as we’re going to see, suffering and persecution is one of the marks of the church, as it was of the apostle. But I think it probably means here, have you experienced so much that you want to go in another direction? After all, it’s usually when people haven’t experienced anything that they look for another answer. And what Paul is saying, you are churches that have experienced the grace of God. You’ve experienced the life of the Spirit. How is it that you look to an alternative? Now, as you know, the rogues that come preaching an alternative always begin by denigrating your present experience, don’t they? They always say, well, is this all that you had? We’ve got more to give you. So that’s why Paul in this argument is saying, what you have is something very great. And you received it by listening to the gospel and believing in Christ crucified. Verse 2 really is the question, the substantial question of this paragraph. Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, by law-keeping, by religion, by what you did, or what was done to you in circumcision, or by believing what you heard? All things have become new to them. Now this is the first reference to the Holy Spirit in this letter, and a very, very important one. The coming of the Spirit is the sure sign that God through Christ had accepted them. That is always so, isn’t it? The coming of the Spirit is the authenticating mark that I belong to Christ. And so he says three times. Verse 2, they had received the Spirit. Verse 3, they have begun in the Spirit. Verse 5, they have been given the Spirit. Do you see those three? They’re rather remarkable, aren’t they? Three times. Did you receive the Spirit? After beginning with the Spirit? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles, etc.? it’s impossible to say if the new missionaries made the spirits coming a subsequent experience as has happened so frequently in the last 40 years but Paul will have none of it justification and the gift of the spirit are united and must never be divorced forgiveness and the new life are united and must never be divorced you notice that they are not divorced in verse 20 They’re joined together. The Christ who loved me and gave himself for me is the Christ who lives in me. There is no doctrine of subsequence there. He lives in me as a sign that he loved me and gave himself for me. Exactly the same is true in chapter 4, verse 4 and 6. A very, very important description of the full Christian experience. God sent his son born of a woman born under the law to redeem those under the law that we might receive the full rights of sons. What are the full rights of sons? Well this. Because you’re sons God has sent the spirit of his son into your heart. The full rights of sons is to receive the spirit. The full gospel is Christ crucified. The full experience is the gift of the spirit. Never divorce those. Never separate them is what he’s saying. As we so frequently do. Incidentally, if you’re comparatively new to your doctrine of justification, and some of the CTC students may appreciate this, the verse that meant most to me in getting this joined together and not separated was Titus chapter 3 verse 4. So all the experts will forgive me if we just flip to that for a moment, because once you’ve got it, it is so clear. Titus chapter 3 verse 4, this wonderful description of justification. of the gospel, in other words. When the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that having been justified by his grace, we might become elders. Isn’t that striking? Only the outpouring of the Holy Spirit will make you a person who is justified by grace. Everybody who is justified by grace has received an outpouring of the Spirit. Let no one tell the young convert that there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that they have not received when they have been justified by grace and become an heir of eternal life. But you see, we are constantly undervaluing that great experience of conversion. Once you undervalue conversion, you are open to the promise of the new missionaries that there is something bigger and better ahead of you before you get to glory. There is nothing bigger and better ahead of us before we get to glory than what God did when he rescued us and brought us out of darkness into glorious light. When he gave us the Spirit and released miraculous powers in the Christian community. Verse 5 is meant to be, coming back to chapter 3, verse 5, verse 5 is intended to be a description of the normal Christian congregation. God gives us his spirit and works miracles amongst us. That is difficult for us to accept today because miracles have been redefined in materialistic and physical terms. If you think that means that miracles of the healing variety must be a mark of every congregation, then you will misread that sentence. What it means is that as God gives his spirit to individual Christians so he gives his supernatural power to the congregation therefore we are a praying congregation who see God doing things that could not be explained in any other way but his miraculous and supernatural power. And of course the chief of those is the conversion of souls. I spoke to somebody just before coming up after coffee who’s been in a church now only a few months or whatever it is we’re not yet seeing regular conversions. That’s the hardest thing of all, isn’t it? The changing of human nature. Bringing people out of darkness into glorious light. That’s the big gulf. When that happens, miracles are working amongst us. Although I expect there isn’t a single living congregation amongst us that hasn’t seen God answer prayer in the matter of healing. But that’s not the point here. He’s saying that supernatural work of God in the Christian community is simply the norm of being a living church. You can’t be a living church without it. There’s no hope of making any impact on your community unless the new creation, which is the greatest miracle of all, comparable to Genesis chapter 1, unless God is working Genesis chapter 1 in terms of new creation amongst you, your church will die. Just as simply as that. Is that right? now this great experience of the Holy Spirit then beyond which God has nothing greater to give us how was it received this experience of theirs in Galatians was not just cerebral it was not just an understanding of justification by faith they had begun rightly in the spirit their question was not so much how they received they had to acknowledge that Paul was right that they’d received the spirit The Spirit had been given to them. They’d begun rightly. Notice again that the gift of the Spirit is the beginning of the Christian life. The question was then, how do I go on to maturity? And they were turning to the law, which in effect was turning to human effort. Christ crucified speaks of what God does for me. The law speaks of what I do for God. So the full gospel is given us in verse 1, and the full experience of the gospel is given us in verse 5, the gift of the Spirit and the working of supernatural powers amongst us. And where betide us if we deny to every real Christian and Christian congregation this right and this privilege? If they do not have these privileges, then it means that Christ has not done enough to pay for these by his death on the cross. If Christ has not done enough on the cross to bring us that salvation, then obviously some new work is necessary for us to do. Now it seems to me that the meaning of that 3, 1 to 5 is seminal, and it really controls the next two paragraphs. The contrast in 1 to 6 is between believing and observing. And this contrast is now spelt out in the next two paragraphs. Verses 6 to 9, by believing. Verses 10 to 14, not by observing the law. The positive 6 to 9, the negative 10 to 14. So these next verses are simply filling out the meaning of 1 to 5 and doing it in a very characteristic apostle way. He underlines the positive, then he underlines the negative. I keep saying this, don’t I? You cannot teach the positive truths without saying the negative as well. So let’s look at the positive. Now before we look at these two paragraphs, which make together one section, verses 1 to 14, the printing here I think is quite useful, faith or observance of the law, 1 to 14. It’s interesting to see that in both these paragraphs, now supporting what he has said about a New Testament church and a New Testament experience about the Spirit, he turns now in both these paragraphs to prove his case to the Old Testament. But of course, it was on this Bible, the only Bible they had at this moment, that the new missionaries depended for their work. Paul, they said, was starting with Christ de novo. All that came before Christ, Paul was neglecting, and that should not be. Do you see what a strong case these Jewish Christian missionaries were making? It’s as though Christ was a new beginning without any relationship to the old. It is therefore essential now that Paul should recapture Old Testament ground and show that the new Jewish Christian missionaries had misunderstood it. And so you get this magnificent statement in verse 6, consider Abraham. Well, that’s exactly, I take it, what the new Christian missionaries had been doing. I take it that they had gone to these young congregations and they had announced their text and their text had been, consider Abraham. They had said, you don’t understand the principles on which God comes into covenant with his people. And if you break those principles, you will not remain in God’s covenant people because his principles are unchangeable. So Paul begins to recapture this ground that the Jewish Christian missionaries have been using, and he says, yes, let us consider Abraham. Let me then read this paragraph, and you will see that he is really making one point, that we receive the blessings of the covenant by faith. So you have to read this putting the right emphasis. Consider Abraham. He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Understand then that those who believe are children of Abraham. The scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith and announce the gospel in advance to Abraham. All nations will be blessed through you. So, summary, those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Now once you read it like that, it’s difficult to miss it, isn’t it? He’s simply underlining what he has said in verses 1 to 5, but he’s going back to the Old Testament to underline. You see how clever that is. He’s saying, what I’ve been teaching you is not day over. It’s not something that I have made up as some new gospel. There it is, right at the beginning of the covenant. The covenant blessing always was given to those who believed. So Paul meets the missionaries head on. The essential point about Abraham was that he believed God and was a man of faith. At the same time, Paul slips in another magisterial blow. This blessing of justification by faith, which is the gospel blessing, notice verse 8. This gospel blessing that Abraham received long ago, received by faith alone, was from the very beginning. From the time that Abraham came out of Mesopotamia and was called by God and went out not knowing where he was going, he was taking his message to the whole world. Isn’t that sensational? Of course you’re used to that, aren’t you? But you see how sensational that is to the people who first heard it. That the blessing that Abraham received was not for his children according to the flesh, but for all nations. It was for the whole world. To put this in the language that’s become popular, I think, in recent years, this means that the New Testament Gospel is not Plan 2, Plan 1, through Abraham having failed, but the coming of Christ is simply the continuance and climax of Plan 1. And therefore, Paul is insisting that the Old Testament is Christian Scripture. Would that all our Old Testament scholars believed that. so if he wants to teach the nature of the Christian life he’s just as much at home in the Old Testament as the New Testament right verses 1 getting the melodic line verses 1 to 5 is simply asking how did you receive the blessing of the covenant how did you receive the blessings of the gospel answer obviously by faith verses 6 to 10 support 6 to 9 support that from the Old Testament It always was so, right from the beginning. There never was any other way to receive the covenant blessings. And then verse 10 to 13, with the summary of verse 14, put the negative. It never was, even in Old Testament days, according to the law. This is really a stunning blow, isn’t it? Never even back there, never in the time of Judaism, at the height of its glory, were the blessings of the covenant received by being under the law. So let me read this, putting the emphasis in the right place. Verse 10. You notice, by the way, that every single verse has an Old Testament quotation. That’s the point of it. He’s linking all these truths to the Old Testament and saying, What I say today as a New Testament apostle is but a repetition of what the Old Testament said centuries ago. Verse 10. All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the law. So, keeping the law far from bringing you into the blessing brings you under the curse. And there’s the added touch, I think, there, since I don’t believe myself that the Jewish Christian missionaries ever, for a moment, thought they could bring the Gentile churches under a complete program of the Old Testament law. So Paul reminds them in verse 10 that if you want to come under the law, you’ve got to come under the law properly. so as I can’t choose what I’m going to keep I can’t say I’ll take circumcision but not that so if you’re going to bring the Gentile treasures under the law you’ve got to do it properly and they’ve got to keep the lot from A to Z and the Old Testament says that leads only to curse and not blessing even just to say it now and to get it clear in your mind it’s a devastating blow isn’t it to the Christian missionaries verse 11 what does the bible say because this was the language of the jewish christian missionaries by the way the bible says the bible says is how they talked clearly no one is justified before god by the law because the bible says the righteous will live by faith verse 12 the law is not based on faith now that’s just what the new jewish christian missionaries were saying they’re saying yes we understand that faith is the foundation that’s the basic thing but then on that we build the law in order to maintain a pure and upright and godly life but he says the law is never based on faith on the contrary the man who does these things will live by them so you’re talking in contradictory terms to say that law and faith can go together with one as a foundation and the other as a superstructure and then verse 13 the most amazing of all What was Messiah’s destined role in the Old Testament? How did the Old Testament see the role of Messiah when he brought the covenant blessings to his people? Well, Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, your Old Testament tells you, that cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. Messiah was to receive in himself this terrible curse of a broken law on behalf of his people standing condemned in their place. Luther, quote, I am thy sin, thy curse, thy death, thy wrath of God, thy hell. Contrarywise, thou art my righteousness, my blessing, my life, my grace of God, my heaven. Verse 14. Here’s the summary. Very striking that each paragraph has the little summary. He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham, that is the only blessing of the Bible, by the way, only one gospel, only one covenant. Surely we believe that, don’t we? the blessing given to Abraham might come to the nations through Christ Jesus so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. The blessing given to Abraham is the blessing that we receive in Christ, my brothers. It is the blessing of the promise, and the promise concerns the gift of the Spirit. And that we are privileged to know in his fullness today. We are very fortunate people, are we not? So what is the hallmark of the new creation? What is the hallmark of the fulfilling of the promise? Well, it’s going to be heaven, of course. The new heavens and the new earth. But for now, in this world, there is only one certain hallmark of the promise, and that is the indwelling spirit. We must not hand to a part of the evangelical church the doctrine and experience of the Spirit, because that belongs to all Christians, without which we are not Christians. Summarize then. 1 to 5 is the general statement, and 6 to 9 underlines the positive, 10 to 14 underlies the negative and the summary is verse 14 again the heading of NIV is really very shrewd we now look at the law and the promise and we compare them 15 to 29 I’m going to do now hopefully I will not totally ignore the knotty bits for example verse 20 of which Lightfoot in his day said there were even then 250 to 300 different interpretations so I don’t promise to get it right. All I aim to do now in this last spell is to demonstrate the melodic line, the perfectly clear, orderly argument, nothing torturous at all, in 15 through to 29. In 15 to 18, Paul shows that the covenant blessings, only one covenant, come to God’s people through divine promise and not through observing the law. that is they come by the action and word of God keeping his word and not by us keeping his commands let me read 15 to 18 and once again verse 18 summarizes all he has to say here brothers let me take an example from everyday life just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established so it is in this case the covenant had been duly established to Abraham nothing has to be added to it the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed the scripture does not say unto seeds meaning many people but unto your seed meaning one person who is the Christ in other words the promise concerned one person Christ what I mean is this the law introduced 430 years later does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise summary if the inheritance depends on the law then it no longer depends on a promise but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. The fascinating point is that the original promise was made not to many people in Israel but to his seed, one person, Christ. Christ is the true Israel to whom the promise was made. So it was never made with people, however numerous they were. It was made with and for Messiah. And therefore the Old Testament people of God are only in the covenant of God inasmuch as they are loyal to Messiah and the promise made to him. And that’s what he’s going to work out of course in chapter 5, 4 and 5. Thus the whole Bible centers on Christ. The Old Testament is written for his people whether Jew or Gentile. It’s irrelevant really which. I have in a sense to read the Old Testament back from Christ as I have to read the New Testament church forward from Christ the promise is made to him those who are in Christ in Old Testament or New Testament days are his people those who are out of Christ are not and that’s why he’s going to say in the brilliant passage on Hagar and Sarah that Abraham had two sons one line was faithful to Christ and one was not so Israel was never Israel according to the flesh within the people of God there was the true church the true church inherits only because Christ inherits so you say there is no no superiority to Israel at all we could get out of some of our evangelical curiosities on Israel only that we could put Israel in the place in which the Bible puts Israel once you’ve got Christ central you see you’re no longer committed to believing that there is any promise for Israel outside of Christ there never was and there never will be there never can be so what verse 15 to 18 says very plainly His law and promise are as oil and water. They can’t mix. And the priority belongs to promise. Well, the inevitable question now comes. We’ve been waiting for this question for a long time. And as Paul is beginning to carry all before him, the Jewish Christian missionary holds up his hand and says, But what was the point of the law then, Paul? He stopped in his tracks. Well, why did God give it if it doesn’t mean the establishment of covenant? I take verse 20 probably to mean and I’m only going by what seem to me the better commentators that always promise is superior to law because promise came directly from God while law was mediated in a twofold way by angels and Moses but I can’t pretend fully to understand that now I’m going to read in a moment 19 through to 25 but I think what is so very striking here is that Paul’s answer to this tremendous question the question what was the purpose of the law is that the Old Testament people of God were put under the supervision of the law on a temporary basis until Christ came I just want to make that plain again The law was given for Israel on a temporary basis, 430 years after Abraham until the fullness of time. Therefore, what we’re going to read in verse 19 to 25 does not have reference to us. And all our favorite sermons on schoolmasters to lead us to Christ and preaching the law before we’re preaching the gospel, I’m afraid I can’t underline for you and you may have to put away in a bottom drawer. because this is not for us. Now let me read it. What then was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgression until the seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party, but God is one. Is the law therefore opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not. For if a law had been given that could import life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. The we refers, of course, to the Jewish nation. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come. We are no longer under the supervision of the law. The we there are the Jewish people. They had the supervision of the law to keep them pure in pagan corrupting circumstances until Christ should come. But now that Christ has come, the law has no supervising role. And it is not a schoolmaster to lead people to Christ in your congregation. You do not have to preach the law to bring them to grace. What do you have to preach? chapter 3 verse 1 that’s the gospel don’t misunderstand me there I do believe we’ve got to preach the moral law of God but what I’m saying is that these verses so popularly taken out of that context and spoken of in terms of our ministry have not got to do with modern times they have to do with that period between the giving of the law and the coming of Christ during that period the law held Israel prisoner, was Israel’s protector and Israel’s supervisor. I personally think that 25-26 should be read together without a gap. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law and we are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ. The Christian religion, then, is not the religion of Moses, it’s the religion of Abraham. Now, a new day has dawned, a new situation has come. And notice the way he puts that, verse 19. Until the seed should come. Verse 23 and 25, until faith should come, meaning, of course, Christ. Chapter 4, verse 5, until the time should fully come. So, now that faith has fully come, verse 25, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. And notice the way he turns around. You, Galatian Christians, are all sons of God. You got the point? What does the word sons of God mean in the Bible? Hold on to your seats. A good deal of work has been done, good work by modern scholars on this, I think, with good effect. The designation sons of God is the prerogative of Israel in Scripture. and that’s how Paul understands it here so in this magnificent sentence verse 6 that you slide over so easily what he is saying is now you Gentiles are Israel you are the sons of God you now have that prerogative those rights are now yours the key word in this final paragraph of chapter 3 is of course the word all you are all Galatian Christians and Jewish Christians you are all sons of God you’re all in Israel through faith in Christ for all of you who are baptized into Christ and that does mean many indeed it means all the Jewish Christians however misguided they’ve been have clothed yourself with Christ all of you who were baptized into Messiah have clothed yourself with Messiah and then notice the devastating point here there is neither Jew nor Greek so don’t call yourself a Jew anymore a Jew now is a non-Christian so don’t pride yourself on that title anymore you’re sons of God whether Jew or Gentile that differentiator has disappeared it’s only if you reject Christ that you remain a Jew now these three clauses have been greatly misused, as we all know, and I won’t go into that. It seems that people can use almost the Bible for anything they want these days, don’t we? Preaching and teaching has got quite out of control, even amongst very responsible people. Here is one suggestion. One can’t be certain exactly why he chooses these religious and social and sexual differentiations, but one scholar has made the very helpful comment may be a direct reference to Jewish morning prayers. And you will know that morning prayer for the Jew begins like this every day. Blessed be he that did not make me a Gentile. Blessed be he that he did not make me a boar, meaning an ignorant peasant or slave. Blessed be he that he did not make me a woman. Coming from the Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth of Nations, 1962. Printed by Aaron Spottiswood. Isn’t it remarkable that people can still take those words on their lips? Paul knew those words. See? So what is he saying? He’s saying, blessed be God, that there is now neither Jew or Gentile. Slave nor free. Male nor female. If you’re all one in Christ Jesus, you all are equally acceptable to God and therefore should be acceptable to one another. If you belong to Christ, to Messiah, then you are Abraham’s seed. Then you belong to the true Israel and you’re as according to the promise. Now I used to think that 4.1.2.7 was a strange recapitulation going back again over this whole matter of Old Testament slavery. But it’s only in the last day or two I’ve seen that it isn’t there at all. From now on, brothers and sisters, he addresses the Gentile Christians as though they are part of Israel. Once you’ve got that, it’s most exciting. From this part in the letter, this moment of the letter, he now addresses the Gentile Christians as Israel. And therefore, do you see, the history of Israel is their history. What I’m saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no longer, he’s no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He’s subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also when we were children, you see, these Galatian Christians are now part of Israel, so they can look back to Old Testament times as times when they were children. We were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, and here comes the full gospel experience, God sent his son born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under the law that we might receive the full rights of sons. That is, we are forgiven, justified, acquitted, redeemed. Verse 6. Because you are sons, God sent the spirit of his son into our hearts, the spirit who calls out Abba, Father, so you are no longer a slave but a son, and since a son, God has made you also an heir. There’s nothing beyond that, is there? There’s the full Christian experience. And that explains what puzzled us so much, at least puzzled me so much, that he talks about the pagan Gentiles in verse 8, 9, and 10 going back again to weak and miserable principles of the Jewish nation. Of course, because now they’re thought of us being Israel. How can they therefore go back to the time when Old Testament Israel was a child, immaterial, under the supervision of the law? and his only answer as you know is in verse 19 my dear children my dear idiot children for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth almost as though you’ve not been converted you seem so stupid I’m praying that Christ may be formed in you because once Christ is formed in you you have no need for any of these other things well let’s have time for a few questions and then we’ll break up for lunch we can give notice to the ladies that we shall be hungering and thirsting in exactly 10 minutes time hoping that that will not put the skids under them so we’ve nine minutes anybody like to make comments Doug Johnson where are you, are you with us still brother, have you got anything to comment on could you stand, I think we want to hear you Doug, come here if you like
Speaker 2 • 43:40
You were mentioning the way that scholars today are approaching the whole thing. I think there are two hermeneutical issues that are quite important, and that is the majority of scholars don’t approach Scripture from where we do. They don’t approach it with the complete trustworthiness and the sufficiency of Scripture in mind, and they also have a limited view of grace, and they approach this whole question from those two points, which means that you will find Paul fallible. For my money, I think I would rather think in terms of Palestinian Judaism as interpreted by Saul of Tarsus as being slightly more accurate than interpreted by Ed Sanders, and the same way over Christianity in the first century. But because they don’t see Scripture as authoritative, as sufficient, they will obviously find people like Paul insufficient in their approach. And I think the same thing applies as far as their doctrine of grace is concerned. Earl Ellis started me off on this track earlier in the summer when he said the great thing about people like Ed Sanders, Jimmy Dunn, is really they come from a basically Armenian position, so they don’t actually come with a full doctrine of grace as they approach it. Ed Sanders’ main thing is to say that grace is what gets you in and works is what keeps you in. But I think Paul would say, grace is what gets you in and grace is what keeps you in. And I think it’s their basic theological presuppositions that affect the way that they come of the text itself. And I think you’ve reiterated that. Well, that puts it much better. Thanks, Doug.
Speaker 1 • 45:20
Isn’t that helpful? Yes, it does come from an Arminianism. Jimmy Dunn, of course, would be in that category, absolutely. we’re living in a era where Arminianism is going to seed badly, aren’t we? And therefore we shall see that influence. Anybody else? Very helpful, Doug. Thank you. If you want to know anything about these manners of law, see Doug. He’s been studying them for about three years as well, thank me. David. I’m sorry, I’m not sure that I get the question, David. When I said that we’ve got to read in this historical context, I don’t mean that the principles won’t be of any help, but that he’s referring to what the law did. After all, God did give the law, didn’t it? He must explain and justify that giving. Israel needed the law in the sense of circumcision, the dietary commands, the calendar. In that sense, in that religious, cultic sense, Israel needed the law. What he is saying is the church does not need the law. Therefore, I should not take that passage at the end of chapter 3 and apply it to today as though it had direct relevance to the Christian Church. We do not need circumcision. We do not need dietary laws. We do not need a cultic calendar. Do you want to go on from there, brother? Yes. Well, now, you’ll have to leave that to Mr. Stott. I’m looking forward to going to Romans 7 to see what he has to say. Anybody else helped by that or want to add to that or touch on the tiller to correct that? That’s right. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. He does use the word law, there’s no doubt, in different ways, according to the context. We must say that, or we get into great and impossible difficulties. He’s quite accustomed to doing that in a number of things. We have to define what he means by it. In Galatians, he’s talking to the situation that’s brought about by the Jewish Christian missionaries who want to lay a yoke on the Gentile churches that they cannot bear. Now, he would never say that the moral law of God was a yoke we could not bear. He would certainly teach the moral law of God, and so should we, and that is to use it lawfully. David Jackman, can you help us through what? These are difficult territory, aren’t they, getting where the law comes in and where it doesn’t? So we turned to the director of the Cornhill training course. We put him on the spot to earn his lunch. Aren’t I cared? Amen.
Speaker 3 • 49:20
Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1 • 49:28
Yes. That’s why it’s so vital when we come across things like law in Paul to see what his context is, to whom he’s speaking, what the controversy is. That’s why things like a concordance, just going through a concordance, as people used to do, they were fashion preaching, topical preaching. You just took a lot of texts. That won’t do, will it? You’ve got to be a genius to manage that, because you’re just taking words out of different contexts. And it means endless explanation to a congregation, which is not profitable. I do hope we’re going to take seriously this position of Israel. You see, the final word, we won’t reach until our fourth morning together, and I can’t bear that we don’t anticipate it. Do you see verse 16 in chapter 6? This is the penultimate final word. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God. What is this rule? Verse 15. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcised mean anything. What counts as a new creation? That’s the rule for the whole Israel of God, which means the whole church of God. He’s not preaching circumcision, but he’s not preaching against circumcision. It’s all irrelevant. It’s all of this world. If he cannot bring the Galatian churches into the Israel of God fully by Christ and faith alone, then they can only become part of the Israel of God in the way that the Jewish Christian missionaries suggest. Alistair, have you got anything to say to us, my brother? I spot you. I can see from here. Anything you want to say about this? Nothing extra? Come, brothers, contribute. You learned men, we need you. Yes, Charles.
Speaker 4 • 51:17
I had you down at one point of saying that there was only one covenant, and yet, from what we’ve looked at just in the last few minutes, I seem to be getting the impression more that the gospel was before the old covenant, then came the old covenant, and then the new covenant, which is actually the fulfilment of the gospel promise. I mean, there is the language of two…
Speaker 1 • 51:41
Yes, there’s the language of two covenants, yes. Yes, thank you. Charles, that’s very helpful. It’s a covenant of grace throughout, isn’t it? There’s a complete continuity between Genesis chapter 15, verse 7, or whatever it is that is here, chapter 3, verse 6. There’s a continuity between verse 6 right the way through, isn’t it? But obviously Christ has come and inaugurated a new covenant. It’s still a covenant of grace and faith. Thank you, Charles, very much for that. any other learned men? Ken, come on dear brother we’d like to spot these learned men Ken, give us a word on this, are you happy or unhappy? Ken is happy, that’s a relief I’m the pastor of East London Baptist Tabernacle I’m happy, I’m happy Michael, you, you happy? John, John, I spotted you John Ross Give us a good… Yes, that’s right. That’s right. That’s Galatians. It’s not a good thing. It’s not a bad thing. Circumcision, non-circumcision, irrelevant now. Thank you, John. That’s a characteristic comment. And we’ll ask John Ross, having given us a fine comment, to say grace for us and we’ll get lunch.
Return to the Dick Lucas Sermon Index
Be First to Comment