A human illustration. (3.15-18)

by Kent Leslie ✉️

I’m using a human illustration. Usually the apostles quote bible verses in context. But sometimes they used them as illustrations, to make analogies; to say “This is like that one bible story,” or “like that one bible character.” Sometimes they don’t make it obvious they’re about to speak allegorically. Here, Paul just did.

No one sets aside or makes additions to a validated human will. Well, no one ordinarily does.

Every once in a while Paul will say “No one” does this or that, as part of a rhetorical argument. He doesn’t literally mean no one ever does, and we know this because we can think of people who have done this or that. When Paul says in Ephesians, “No one ever hates his own flesh,” [Ep 5.29] we can all think of someone—we might even be someone—who totally hates their own flesh. But ordinarily, people don’t. People take care of themselves. That’s Paul’s point.

Ordinarily no one sets aside a person’s last will and testament. But sometimes they do! Remember mad King Herod, who tried to kill baby Jesus, and slaughtered all the two-year-olds in Bethlehem trying to find him? When he died in 4 BC, he stated in his will he wanted his son Herod Archelaus to be king after him. Herod’s other sons, Herod Antipas and Herod Philip, contested the will and took it to court. Court was the Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus. Caesar wound up firing Archelaus, dividing the kingdom into quarters, giving Antipas a quarter, Philip another quarter, Herod’s sister Herodia Salome a little sliver of land, and himself two quarters. And that’s why Roman governors ruled Judea from then on.

(“Herod” was the family name, in case you’re wondering why they’re all named Herod and Herodia. The Romans were family-name-first like China and Korea.)

Just about everyone in Jerusalem knew this story; it explained why the Romans were in charge instead of the Judeans, and only happened about 50 years ago. So Paul’s audience knew “no one” doesn’t literally mean no one, ever, ever. Again: Ordinarily no one does this. Most wills are enacted as-is!

We’re meant to use our common sense, and realize this is what Paul is doing. Same as the writers of the Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and all the wisdom writings: Ordinarily those statements are true and accurate descriptions about how the world works. Sometimes there are exceptions, but ordinarily there aren’t. Paul’s trying to make a point, so let’s just accept his premise for now.

To Abraham and to his seed. Remember when I said in verse 8 the Hebrew word for seed, זֶרַע/zerá, was singular? Still is in proof text #7.

Ge 13.15: “…for I will give you and your offspring forever all the land that you see.”

“Offspring” translates zerá, “seed.” The Greek word for “seed” is σπέρμα/spérma. Paul reminds his readers the text doesn’t say σπέρματι/spérmati, “seeds,” plural. (I had said in class, “Or the Hebrew plural, זֶּ֣רַעים/zara’ím. But I just finished digging through the Old Testament and found out the OT never uses the plural form. It’s always just zerá.)

Now, Paul was fully aware zerá can mean either “seed” and “seeds”; it’s just one of those words. Descendant or descendants. And in his other letters, Paul totally treats the word as if it’s a plural. (The CSB translated spérma into other things, so I swapped them out with “seed” in brackets.)

Ro 9.7: Neither is it the case that all of Abraham’s children are his [seed]. On the contrary, your [seed] will be traced through Isaac. [Ge 21.12]

2Co 11.22: Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the [seed] of Abraham? So am I.

Admittedly this isn’t very consistent of Paul. But remember, he’s using a “human illustration.” He’s making an analogy. He’s not using the OT literally. He’s just saying, “Y’know, it says seed, singular, not seeds, plural. And Christ Jesus is that seed.”

The law… does not… cancel the promise. You remember I talked about dispensationalists last week. They say the Law does cancel the promise: That Abraham lived under the dispensation of Promise, or dispensation of Patriarchal Rule, in which you were saved because you were either a patriarch who personally knew God, or you followed or allied yourself with one of those patriarchs. Wasn’t the dispensation of Law yet, since God hadn’t handed down the Law yet. But once God did hand down the Law, the previous dispensation was over, because God saves people by his Law now.

Anyway, just to remind you, dispensationalism isn’t biblical. The Law doesn’t invalidate God’s relationships with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Doesn’t save either.

For if the inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on the promise. “The inheritance” for the Hebrews is the land of Israel; the inheritance for us Christians is God’s kingdom, which Jesus is king over.

The Hebrews got their inheritance, not because they deserved it, but because God said so. They were freed from Egypt, brought to Canaan, and got that land because of God’s promise. Not because they obeyed the Law, because they didn’t!

And in the very same way, we inherit God’s kingdom because—again—God said so. Not because we’re good, because we’re not. Only because God is good.