Reflections on Genesis 12-23: Abraham and Sarah


From land to Land we chose to roam,
Following visions, voices, and hope.
We built many altars, spent our share of grace.
Still on our minds uncertainty weighs.
Through what we’ve come,
For all we’ve seen,
I could never lose belief.

I gave you away, two times a lie.
You went without question, provocation, or fight.
Riches you brought upon each return.
In scandal and fear, we both knew rebirth.

Through it all we’ve known
In the dark has grown,
A fair glimmer of light.

We’ll hold on. We’ll hold on!
Through barrenness in a barren Land.
First the womb, and then the sand,
Life will come! Life will come!



Biblical Studies, Christian Community, Conceptions, Ebenezer, Exegesis, story, Theology, Uncategorized, Worship

Soul, Speak!

“Soul, Speak!”
by Eric B. Dixon

Father, close my lips that I might show forth Your praise!
Deafening silence amplifies a fortissimos life,
As one conversant with the stain of an untimely utterance.

Father, close my lips that I might show forth Your praise!
Solicitous humility echoes resounding muteness,
As one who knows the miraculous in Annunciation.

Father, close my lips that I might show forth Your praise!
Universal ken refashions a turgid tongue,
As She whose soul sings and heart harbors Treasure.

FullSizeRender 2

“Mary” by Margaret Adams Parker

Christian Community, Ebenezer, Image of God, story, Theology, Uncategorized, Worship

Through Change and Transition


“Let There be Light” by Eric B. Dixon

This is my iconic story,
A milagro of God’s muscles
Ringing forth and generating this spirited purge,
Illuminating the depth of my humanness.
Watch, be moved.
Allow, know sustenance
In a loving exchange between the dark and light,
Feeling not the weight of experience,
But embracing solely the Newness
There and then,
Here and now.



Antiquity, Biblical Studies, Hillel, Image of God, Pharisee

Made in the Image of God: Hillel’s Teaching on Caring for the Body and Loving Others



As a near contemporary with Jesus, Hillel was considered the most important figure in pre-70 c.e. Pharisaism. Hillel was born in Babylonia around the first century b.c.e., during the time of Roman occupation and control in Israel. During this time four major religious sects or parties were present in Israel: the Essenes, Herodians, and the two prominent parties, the Pharisees and Sadducees. Pharisees were the major of the two prominent parties focusing on the primacy of the Torah and their leaders offering expertise in interpreting the Torah. As a Pharisee, Hillel contributed to the transformation of the Pharisees from a political party to what Jacob Neusner describes as a “table-fellowship sect.” As a pioneer for the Pharisaic tradition, Hillel is attributed with particular interpretations of the Law pertaining to the image of God and the human body.

In this post I explore Hillel’s teachings on caring for the body and loving others as they are directed from his view of humans being made in the image of God. Furthermore, I hope to accentuate that Hillel derived his instructions from the book of Genesis that sees the human body as reflecting the goodness of God in creation. This study is presented in three parts: 1) Hillel’s predecessors and background, 2) Hillel’s teachings on caring for the body and loving others based on the image of God, and 3) Hillel’s influence and differences in interpretation.


I. Hillel’s Predecessors and Background 

Desiring to continue his study of the Torah, Hillel moved from Babylonia to Jerusalem around 60 b.c.e. and studied under two Pharisee sages, Shemaya and Avtalyon. Shemaya the Nasi (“the Prince”) and Avtalyon the Av Beit-din (the Head of the Supreme Religious Court) were considered the two great interpreters of the Torah during this time, dual leaders of the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees, and over the popular religious community.

According to legend, Hillel studied under Shemaya and Avtalyon for a period of forty years then returned to Babylonia for a period of time. Upon Hillel’s return to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, there was controversy over interpreting the Torah because the festival of Passover fell on the Sabbath that year. Through the prestige of studying under the two sages, Shemaya and Avtalyon, Hillel was elevated to Nasi because he interpreted the Torah to solve the dilemma asserting that precedence of the festival of Passover was to be practiced over the Sabbath.


II. Hillel’s Teachings on Caring for the Body and Loving Others Based on the Image of God

Having considered Hillel’s predecessors and background, I now turn to Hillel’s teachings on caring for the body and loving others based on the image of God.

Hillel viewed the human body as a sacred gift from God. Jonathan Schofer notes in his work Confronting Vulnerability: The Body and the Divine in Rabbinic Ethics that, “Hillel’s teachings center on humans being in the image of God, a highly influential motif that builds on Genesis 1:26-28 and 9:5-7.” Israel Knohl, in his book The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, notes Hillel’s appreciation for human dignity and equality based on humans being in the image of God. Knohls says,  “the source of Hillel’s spiritual audacity was his awareness of the religious implications of the creation of human beings in the image of God.”

For Hillel, humanity being created in the image of God necessitates his love for others. Yitzhak Buxbaum, in his book The Life and Teachings of Hillel, details Hillel’s view in saying, “love of neighbor is itself derived from an even greater principle: that man is made in the image of God; and a religiously inspired love of man flows from the more fundamental love of God.” Buxbaum says, “That Hillel considered the commandment to love people as based on their being made in God’s image can be seen in two ways: first, by his use, in his theme-saying, of ‘loving the creatures(briyot), rather than other possibilities, to refer to people in general. This Hebrew word briyot directly suggests that man is created in the image of God.” The second reason Buxbaum identifies is Hillel’s teaching that a person should lovingly treat and care for their own body since they are made in the image of God. With these two reasons Buxbaum concludes, “If he [Hillel] taught about the image of God in connection with this somewhat unusual duty of love, it seems certain that he based the more straightforward obligation to love one’s neighbor on his being made in God’s image.” Buxbaum’s rational is seen and developed through two different accounts in Hillel’s teachings on humans being made in the image of God.

“The Story of the Bathroom and the Bathhouse” 

In his story of going to the bathroom to wash his hair and the bathhouse to bathe in preparation for the coming Sabbath, Hillel expresses his concern for the body as representing the image of God. Paul Patterson notes in his book Visions of Christ: The Anthropomorphite Controversy of 399 Ce that, “when asked why he regarded bathing a religious duty, Hillel refers to the imago Dei: ‘If the statues of kings are scoured and washed by the man appointed to look after them …[and who as a result] is exalted in the company of the great – how much more shall I, who have been created in the image and likeness; as it is written, “For the image of God made he man.’” Buxbaum notes, “Hillel considered attention to body cleanliness as being a part of one’s service of God and as showing honor to the image of God. As an old Rabbinic teaching states: ‘A person should wash his face hands and feet everyday for the honor due to his Creator, as it says: ‘For his own sake did the Lord create every thing.’ (Proverbs 6:14).’” Buxbaum notes that cleanliness has spiritual aspects and that Hillel’s motives were probably complex; nevertheless, Hillel’s motive was his understanding that he was to care for his own body because it did not belong to him, but to God.

“The Parable of the Statues”

In his “parable of the statues,” Hillel reflects on the reimbursement of those who maintain statues and relates their care for the statues to caring for the human body that is the “seat” of the human soul.  Buxbaum explains this idea of the body being the “seat” of the human soul in saying, “Hillel’s point was not that the body itself is in the image of God (who is incorporeal), but that a person’s soul is in God’s image, and the body must be honored because it is the ‘seat’ of the soul. Essentially, the concepts of the image of God and the human soul are referring to the same thing.” Hillel referred to his soul as a “house guest.” Buxbaum acknowledges that, “when Hillel said each time that he was ‘going to do a kindness (hesed) for the house guest,’ his soul, what that was in any particular instance is not stated, but his intention was exactly the same as when he said at other times: ‘I am going to do a mitzvah.’ Every deed should be a mitzvah, and every mitvah is a kindness to the soul and benefits the soul (and sometimes also the body).” Hillel’s view of the body differed from the Essenes who viewed the body as a prison for the soul. Buxbaum says, “The more moderate and life-affirming Pharisee Hillel saw it [the body] as a ‘temporary home’ where the soul is somewhat an uncomfortable ‘guest.’ When Hillel spoke of the ‘poor’ soul, he probably meant that, although the body provided poor ‘lodging,’ the heavenly soul is still able to receive ‘good hospitality’ if a person is righteous and cares for it properly.”

For Hillel, “the story of the bathroom and the bathhouse” and “the parable of the statues” exemplifies his understanding and teaching that humans were created in the image of God and because of this, care for the body is essential. Buxbaum notes that, “Hillel’s parable about the statues and his lesson show his appreciation for the teaching that humans are made in the image of God. The Torah says, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself’ –a person must love himself, since he too is made in the image of God.” Hillel’s understanding of his own body being made in the image of God influenced how he treated Gentiles. Hillel viewed all of humanity as sharing the status of equality and commonality in being made in the image of God. Joseph Telushkin notes in his book Hillel: If Not Now, When? that, “[Hillel’s] justification—that we are made in the image of God—is also of course a key to understanding the basis of his treatment of outsiders. He reasoned from his own body outward—the opposite of narcissist—and recognized that caring for others is also caring for God.”


III. Hillel’s Influence and Differences in Interpretation

Having explored Hillel’s teachings on caring for the body and loving others that derives from his view of humans being made in the image of God, I now turn to Hillel’s influence and differences in interpretation concerning care for the human body and others.

An individual that represented a different interpretation of the Torah than Hillel was Shammai. According to Stephen Wylen, “Shammai was the strict constructionist of the Pharisees while Hillel was the loose constructionist.” Hillel and Shammai had different views concerning the human body. In the story of the bathhouse, Hillel was concerned with caring for his body, while Shammai was concerned with fulfilling his duty. Buxbaum details this difference in saying that, “Hillel was pious from love of God and was kind even to his own body. Shammai was pious from fear of God and his excessive fear of sin made him wary of the body’s attraction to sense-pleasures.” Wylan explains that, “The Mishnah contains many disagreements between beit Hillel and beit Shammai. In almost every instance, the Hillelites give a lenient interpretation to the Torah law, and the Shammaites give a stringent interpretation.”

Other differences of interpretation extended beyond the Pharisees and involved other religious parties. In regards to slave ownership and liability of the owner if one’s slave were to damage someone else’s property, the Pharisees and Sadducees had varied interpretations of rights and responsibilities. Louis Finkelstein details that the Pharisees “respect for the dignity of man as homo sapiens made it impossible for them to countenance a law which made one man answerable to another’s deeds. To compare the slave to an ox or an ass was in itself a judicial insult: the one was human, the other a chattel.” In contrast to the Pharisees, the Sadducees were in favor of holding a slave’s owner responsible for damages and were unsympathetic to the principle of human equality. Another concern connected to human reverence was allocating work during the Sabbath to Gentiles. The Shammaites would not appropriate work to a Gentile on behalf of themselves during Sabbath. Their view was that if a Gentile worked on behalf of a Jew on the Sabbath, it was like the Jew was breaking the law to rest on that holy day.


IV. Conclusions

In this post I have explored Hillel’s teachings on caring for the body and loving others as they are directed from his view of humans being made in the image of God. Hillel taught that by loving humanity one was expressing love towards God. This teaching reflects Hillel’s view of humans being created in the image of God. By caring for his own body in the examples given above, Hillel taught his disciples that they should love their bodies so that they may also love others.

Hillel is known for the saying, “What is hateful for you, don’t do to your fellow man – that’s the whole Torah and the rest … is just a commentary on it. Go then and learn it!” Although Hillel is known for particular sayings such as this, there has been scholarly research done tracking the tradition of Hillel and Pharisaic presence prior to 70 c.e. In Neusner’s work The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 Part I: The Masters, he offers a detailed description of texts attributed to Hillel and evaluates Hillel’s teachings. Neusner says, “Despite the rich and impressive Hillel-tradition, however, we can hardly conclude that with Hillel the pre-70 Pharisees enter the pages of history. The traditions on Hillel do not lay considerable claim to historical accuracy about the life and sayings of Hillel himself. They provide an accurate account of what later generations thought it important to say about, or in the name of, Hillel.” Neusner continues, “If Hillel is the first Pharisee to emerge in the model of the later first-century Pharisees and later rabbis, that is because the rabbis adopted him and made him their own, not because in his day he managed effectively to transmit his sayings in the way in which later masters did.”

Although we do not know specifically the sayings of Hillel, we do recognize truth in the sayings that have been passed down through teachers who have been influenced by the Pharisaic tradition. Hillel’s teachings instruct us that to love and care for our bodies is to love and cherish the gift that God has given to all of us. To desecrate or defame another human being through violence or slander is to desecrate or defame someone who shares the image of God. If we truly care for our bodies like they are gifts from God that reflect his image, then it will not only affect how we treat our own bodies, it will also affect how we care for others.


Works Cited

Belford, Annie. A Teachers Guide To A Taste of the Text: An Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. New York, NY:UAHC Press, 2003.

Buxbaum, Yitzhak. The Life and Teachings of Hillel. Lamhym, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publisher, Inc., 2008.

Finkelstein, Louis. The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962.

Knohls, Israel. The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2000.

Neusner, Jacob. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

——. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 Part I: The Masters. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1971.

Patterson, Paul. Visions of Christ: The Anthropomorphite Controversy of 399 Ce. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Seibeck, 2012.

Schofer, Jonathan. Confronting Vulnerability: The Body and the Divine in Rabbinic Ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Telushkin, Joseph. Hillel: If Not Now, When?. New York, NY: Schocken Books, 2010.

Wylen, Stephen. The Seventy Faces of Torah: The Jewish Way of Reading the Scriptures. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005.

Biblical Studies

An Exegesis on Romans 4

Paul associates Abraham as their ancestor “according to the flesh.” He asks his readers “what is to be obtained by Abraham?” Even if Abraham was justified by works he would have something to boast about, but not before God (Rom 4:2). Paul begins his discourse by asking the reader a question, “For what does the scripture say?” Paul refers to Gen 15:6 where Abraham believes God and because he believes God, it was credited to him as righteousness.

For Paul, if one is considered righteous because of their works, then righteousness would not be a gift but something that is owed to one because of their deeds. He says that “to the one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.” It is interesting that Paul uses the same word for “justifies” here, referring to the ungodly, that he uses in Rom 4:2 to refer to Abraham. Is Paul considering Abraham ungodly? This idea seems to be countered in Rom 4:20 when Abraham is depicted as giving “glory to God.”

What works did Abraham have prior to believing God’s promise to him that he would have many descendants? God gave the promise to Abraham while Abraham had nothing to offer God in return. Abraham was, so to speak, bankrupt. God calls the promise with Abraham into existence and is able to keep it (referring to God as the one who “calls into existence the things that do not exist.” – Rom 4:17).

Paul quotes Psalm 32:1-2 LXX to use David as an example of one who speaks of the “blessedness” of those “to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works.” Righteousness is not mentioned in this Psalm, nevertheless, Paul associates “blessedness” with the forgiveness of sins. Paul presents a second question, “Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised?” Paul seems to use Socratic Method to present his argument to his readers in Rome. He acknowledges that those in Rome attest to the same interpretation of Gen 15:6 as he does. Paul affirms his readers that this is what “we” say in our interpretation of Gen 15:6.

In Rom 4:9b, Paul shifts his argument briefly to demonstrate that Abraham received “Faith” before he was circumcised. The main question is how and when did Abraham receive Faith? Did Abraham receive faith when it was reckoned to him as righteousness, before he was circumcised? Paul refers to circumcision as a “sign” of a seal that Abraham was considered righteous because of faith. For Paul, the purpose for Abraham receiving faith before he was circumcised was “to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them” (Rom 4:11b). Paul adds that Abraham is also “the ancestor of the circumcised” whose circumcision is a sign of their following the example of faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Since Paul has shown through scripture that Abraham received faith and therefore righteousness before circumcision, his argument now moves to “the promise” (Rom 4:13). For Paul, God’s promise (What does it mean to “inherit” the world? – following the argument from Gal 3, “the promise” is the Holy Spirit) did not come through the law (Mosaic or circumcision) but through “the righteousness of Faith.”

Paul argues that if those who keep the law are the ones who will inherit the world (the promise), then faith is nothing and the promise is “void” since the promise came before the law (Mosaic and circumcision) (Rom 4:14). It seems that Paul is arguing that the law brings “wrath” because no one is able to keep it fully, and that without a law there is no violation. Therefore, since there is a law and a violation of that law, then the promise depends on faith so that the promise rests on grace (Rom 4:16). Paul acknowledges that the promise is guaranteed to all “his” descendants, “not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham.” Interestingly, Paul equates those who would receive the promise by adhering to the law being the same as those who share the faith of Abraham. Is Paul referring to being united to Jesus Christ, the offspring of Abraham, that he mentions in Gal 3 as taking place in baptism? Paul speaks of those who “share the Faith of Abraham” in the presence of God. If Paul is referring to being united to Jesus Christ, then it is only because Jesus Christ has been given life from death that mortals would be able to exist in the presence of God in heaven.

“Hoping against hope” seems to stress the point that Abraham believed without seeing. Paul appeals to Abraham’s faith in God’s promise to him that he would become “the father of many nations” by highlighting Abraham’s inability to do anything on his own. Paul does this by directing attention to Abraham’s age (“as good as dead”) and Sarah’s barrenness. Paul portrays Abraham as completely trusting God’s ability “to do” what he had promised. God is doing, and Abraham is having faith that God is able to do what he promised. Therefore, Abraham received  righteousness through faith.

Paul is saying that Jesus was put to death for our violation (trespasses) of the law and was “raised to life for our justification.” Jesus’ resurrection along with his death together are necessary for our justification. Our justification comes through Faith, who is Jesus Christ. Paul is associating the faith of Abraham, by which he was justified, with Jesus Christ who was raised from death fulfilling the promise of God’s eternal covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Jesus Christ is reckoned to us as righteousness.

Paul’s words in Rom 4:

1. Flesh (4:1)

2. Justify/Justification (4:2, 5, 25)

3. Works (4:2, 4, 5, 6)

4. Do (4:21) [God is the one “doing” work]

5. Reckoned (4:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24)

6. Scripture (4:3)

7. Faith (4:5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22)

8. Ungodly/Glory to God (4:5, 20)

9. Believe (4:3, 11, 17, 18, 24)  [“being fully convinced” – 4:21]

10. Righteousness (4:3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 22)

11. Gift (4:4)

12. Trust/Distrust (4:5, 20)

13. Blessedness (4:6, 7, 8, 9)

14. Circumcision (4:9, 10, 11, 12)

15. Sign-Seal (4:11)

16. Uncircumcision (4:9, 11)

17. Inherit/ heirs (4:13, 14)

18. Promise (4:13, 14, 16, 20, 21)

19. Law (4:13, 14, 15, 16)

20. Violation/Trespass (4:15, 25)

21. Wrath (4:15)

22. Grace (4:16)

23. Hope (4:18)

24. “Barrenness of Sarah’s womb” (4:19)

25. Dead/Death (4:17, 19, 24, 25)

26. Life, raised from death (4:17, 24, 25)

Biblical Studies

An Exegesis On Galatians 3

ImageFollowing his rebuke of the Galatians in Gal 3:1, Paul begins constructing an argument against the Judaizers in Galatia who would have the Gentiles follow the law and become circumcised. The question posed by Paul in Gal 3:2 seems rhetorical and provides the thesis for Paul’s argument that the Gentile Galatians received the Spirit by believing what they heard and not by doing the works of the law. The question is posed and left up to the Galatians to answer based on Paul’s argument. If this is a rhetorical question then it can be presumed that the Galatians already understand that they received the Spirit “by believing” what they heard before there were any demands on them to become circumcised in order to keep the law.

Paul constructs his argument on the foundation that Abraham believed God, and God credited to him as righteousness. Following his quotation of Gen 15:6 LXX in Gal 3:6, Paul reveals that the descendants of Abraham are “those who believe” (οἱ ἐκ πίστεως). Furthermore, Paul argues that God planned to justify the Gentiles by faith before the law was written. Paul claims this in God’s declaration to Abraham that “all the Gentiles (τὰ ἔθνη) will be blessed in you (ἐν σοὶ).” Paul quotes part of Gen 22:18 LXX, but he does not mention right away that it is in Abraham’s seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματι) that all the nations will be blessed. Paul later reveals that it is through Jesus Christ, the only “offspring” of Abraham, that the promise of God’s covenant, the Spirit, would come to all nations through faith (Gal 3:14-18). Paul closes his opening argument for belief over doing the works of the law by associating those who believe as being “blessed with Abraham who believed” (σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ).

The next progression in Paul’s argument is to reveal the role of Jesus Christ in redeeming all from the curse of the law. Paul asserts that through Jesus Christ the blessing of Abraham has come to the Gentiles so that God’s promise to Abraham, the Spirit, might be received by all through faith.

Paul states that “all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse.” Interpreting Deut 27:36, Paul argues that no one is able to “observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” He points out what is “evident” for everyone, that is, “no one is justified before God by the law,” because if they were they would live. In saying that “the righteous will live by faith,” Paul negates the possibility that there will be some who will be made righteous and alive through the law.

Furthermore, Paul insists that the law is separate from faith. He says, “the law does not rest on faith.” As evidence for this Paul quotes Lev 18:5 LXX asserting that if anyone was able to “do the works of the law,” then they would live by them. As Paul’s argument progresses, he will make this distinction between the law and faith once again (Gal 3:13-16). This is important for Paul’s argument that Jesus became a curse to alleviate the curse of the law for everyone. It seems evident that, for Paul, Jesus Christ’s resurrection is proof that life comes through faith and not through the law. He quotes and interprets Deut 21:23 LXX as evidence that according to the law Jesus is cursed because of the manner in which he was put to death. Paul interprets Jesus’ death on the cross to meet the criteria of Deut 21:23 LXX of one who is cursed. The curse of the law is broken for all because Jesus Christ was crucified to death and nevertheless lives.

Paul recalls two words (δικαιοσύνη and πιστεύουσιν) in Gal 3:21-22 that he used previously in Gal 3:6 when he quoted from Gen 15:6 LXX. Interestingly, Gal 3:6 and Gal 3:21-22 are the only two places in Galatians 3 that Paul specifically employs these words in reference to Gen 15:6 LXX. Paul’s use of δικαιοσύνη in Gal 3:21 calls the readers attention back to Gal 3:6 in order to conclude his argument that “if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) would indeed come through the law.” Paul maintains that righteousness is not possible through the law, since no one could do all the works of the law because of sin (“scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin”). Therefore, Paul insists that righteousness and life only come through the Spirit, which is what was promised to Abraham through the faith of Jesus Christ so that it might be given to those who believe (πιστεύουσιν).

Throughout his argument, Paul associates Jesus Christ with faith itself. Furthermore, Paul denotes the revelation and coming of faith in Jesus Christ’ faith (Gal 3:14, 22-26). In Gal 3:22, I prefer the translation of πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as “faith of Jesus Christ” rather than as “faith in Jesus Christ.” I think that “faith of Jesus Christ” conveys the importance of the faith of Abraham’s “offspring,” Jesus. Given the context of Paul’s argument in Gal 3:15-18 that Jesus Christ is the “offspring” of Abraham, it is probable that Paul wants the Galatians to understand that the faith of Abraham’s “offspring” has enabled faith for all people. Through Jesus Christ’s faith all may receive God’s promise to Abraham and thereby fulfill God’s blessing of “all the nations” in Abraham.  Therefore, what was promised (the Spirit) through the faith of Abraham’s “offspring” (Jesus Christ) might be given to all who believe (πιστεύουσιν), just as righteousness was credited to Abraham because he believed God. Jesus’ faith has enabled anyone to become a part of “the offspring” (Jesus Christ) of Abraham by believing the Word about Jesus’ death and resurrection and receiving God’s promise (the Spirit) through faith. We are “heirs to the promise” by becoming a part of the “offspring” of Abraham by faith, just like it was Abraham’s “offspring” who brought about the promise through faith. (see Acts 2 = the promise (Holy Spirit) was given to Jesus and Jesus pours out the promise to everyone!)

Paul cites several scriptural texts throughout Galatians 3 including: Gen 12:3, 7; 15:5-6; 17:8; 18:18; 22:17-18; Ex 12:40; Lev 18:5; 26:46; Num 36:13; Deut 21:23; 27:36; 33:2; Hab 2:4.  Paul signals these citations of scripture either through example (e.g., Abraham in Gal 3:6), God speaking (e.g., Gal 3:8), by referring to the law as “it is written” (e.g., Gal 3:10, 13), historical interpretation of Gen 15:6 (e.g., Gal 3:11), or by correcting a false claim (Gal 3:12, 16).

Paul’s use of the future, passive, indicative, ἐνευλογηθήσονται, in his citation of Gen 12:3, 18:18, and 22:18 LXX, may signify his understanding that the extension of the blessing of Abraham to the Gentiles has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  In his citation of Deut 27:26 LXX, Paul changes “all the words of this law” (πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου) to “all the things written in the book of the law” (πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου). This change may reflect Paul’s argument against the Mosaic law as whole. Everyone who does not obey and observe the whole Torah is cursed.

In Gal 3:11-12, Paul quotes Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5. These two verses share a common word, ζήσεται (“live”). This is significant for the structure of Paul’s argument. Paul asserts throughout his argument that faith brings life through the Spirit. The law cannot bring life because no one can do all the works of law.

Paul interprets Deut 21:23 LXX in light of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion. Although ὅτι κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεοῦ πᾶς κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου (“for anyone who is hanged on a tree is cursed by God”) in the context of Deuteronomy probably refers to one who is hanged from the neck or in the sun, Paul interprets Jesus Christ’s crucifixion to meet the requirements of a curse according to the law. In his citation of Deut 21:23 LXX, Paul leaves out “by God.” Paul may have omitted the words, “by God,” so that the Galatians would know that Jesus Christ was obedient to God in his death on the cross. Furthermore, that Jesus Christ’s faith freed them from the curse of the law to live through the Spirit by faith. Interestingly, Paul’s citations of Deut 21:23 and Deut 27:26 share a common term, ἐπικατάρατος (“cursed”).

According to BDAG, the range of meanings of διαθήκη include: “last will and testament,” “a will that has been ratified” (when used with κεκυρωμένην like in Gal 3:15),  “covenant” (used as a translation only when the thought communicates that it is God alone who sets the conditions – “a declaration of his purpose”), and “compact, contract.” The operative meaning in Gal 3:15 seems to be “a will that has been ratified,” since Paul is referring to God’s covenant with Abraham and his offspring. Paul does, however, seem to use διαθήκη to mean “covenant” in Gal 3:17. Translating διαθήκη as “covenant” in Gal 3:17 seems appropriate since Paul asserts that it is God who has set the conditions of the promise and ratified the covenant. Paul is recalling the condition in which God initiated a relationship with humans and more specifically, God’s covenant with Abraham. The covenant was not established with the law which came much later, but the covenant was established through God’s promise to Abraham.

In Gal 3:17, Paul makes the point that “the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.” This passage and the timeframe in which Paul places the giving of the law is further evidence that Paul is using the Septuagint and not the Hebrew text. By calculating the four hundred thirty years, Paul is including the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the earlier period in Canaan within this time period. This makes Paul’s argument that the inheritance comes through God’s promise to Abraham and not through the law even more justifiable, since the law was given so much later than the promise. He asserts that the law was a “disciplinarian” (Gal 3:25 – παιδαγωγόν can also mean “tutor” or “guide”) “until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made (Gal 3:19b).”

Based on Paul’s argument, it would be interesting to know whether or not Paul and Philo reflect a rational and appreciation for Abraham’s life that was common during the first century.  Did Paul understand the life of Abraham to be a model on which the law was written? Philo asserts that the written laws are “nothing more than a memorial of the life of the ancients (On Abraham).”  Furthermore, it seems that both Philo and Paul revere God’s response to Abraham’s belief to be a significant model on how to know and love God.

1]Michael Coogan, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd Ed. with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001), 315 New Testament.

Christian Community, Worship

“Why We Do What We Do.”

You may have asked yourself before, “Why do we do what we do in worship services?” or perhaps, “Who plans the order of the services?” or maybe even, “What are the requirements for leading any given part of the worship services?”

Different aspects of the worship services are purposefully planned for each Sunday morning
service. Those who lead the different aspects are essential in communicating our unity as
the body of Christ and our purposefulness in gathering to worship. If you won’t think me
irreverent, perhaps you will permit me to use the analogy of getting your car washed to illus-
trate designing and leading a worship service. Let’s imagine that our participation in a wor-
ship service is like getting our car cleaned by a professional business. Some of you may pre-
fer to wash your own car, but for the analogy’s sake let’s imagine that a full team is required for the job. Picture your unwashed car as an unplanned worship service that requires a team effort in order to plan, prepare, and achieve the goal of producing a clean car (ie. an intentional worship service). It is helpful to picture a worship service as a “vehicle” that provides for us an opportunity to give fully to God what He has already given to us, everything!

So, here is a quick comparison between the service of a professional car-washing business and the service needed during a Sunday morning worship service. The car-washing business provides: Welcome > Hospitality (ie. vacuum, a place to wait, etc.) > Rinse > Wash > Scrub > Rinse > Dry > Detail > Send Off. When compared with a Sunday morning service, the car-washing business’ order of service provides insight into the team effort and unity that is needed when participating in a worship service. Worship services may constitute: Welcome > Hospitality (ie. coffee, information, etc.) > Gathering Song > Prayer > Greeting (Passing of Christ’s Peace) > Scripture Reading > Songs of Response > Prayer > Sermon (Scripture Reflection and Application) > Prayer > Response to God’s Word (Individual and Congregational response) > Prayer > Offering > Announcements (ways to get involved and apply God’s Word in our lives together) > Benediction (Blessing/Sending).

Just as there are many different stations that require many people to work them in order to get your car cleaned, there are many different aspects to serving and leading in a worship service. We need you! We are all different parts of the same body, and each part offers something unique.
May God empower us through His Holy Spirit to be examples of Christ’ love, service, and leadership! Let us love, serve, and lead one another even as Christ leads us in worshiping our living God whose kingdom is among us!