Embark on an enlightening exploration where historical context meets theology. Pastor Bob Enyart discusses with Nicole McBurney the evolution of will and testament concepts from ancient civilisations, comparing Greek, Roman, and early Christian interpretations. This conversation illuminates how different people were governed by various legal systems within the same region—a concept mirrored in biblical teachings. The episode sheds light on seemingly contradictory biblical timelines, unraveling their complexities to reveal deeper truths embedded in scripture. With thoughtful insights, this discussion provides perspectives on the nuanced relationship between promise and law in the context of Christian faith.
Greetings to the brightest audience in the country and welcome to Theology Thursday. I’m Nicole McBurney. Every weekday we bring you the news of the day, the culture, and science from a Christian worldview. But today, join me and Pastor Bob Enyart as we explore the source of our Christian worldview, the Bible.
SPEAKER 02 :
During the break, we were talking about a Colorado high school student who, grade school? Okay, thank you. Charter school in the Denver area. who went to school and brought a lunch, mom-packed, opened up the lunch, and there’s a knife in it. It was mom’s lunch. Well, oh, it was mom’s lunch. She got it on accident. She took mom’s lunch by accident. Brian, I should let you tell the story because you know it better than I do. I appreciate it. Any mistakes I make, please correct me. And she immediately sees the knife and thinks, uh-oh, it’s against the rules, so brings the knife to a teacher. and says, here, this was in my lunch. Can you take this? It’s against the rules. Well, what would a school, you know, liberals worship rules. So what would they do to this girl? Because the rule is if you take a knife to school or any weapon, you need to be expelled. Well, of course, they expelled her. Of course. Now that is so typical and so predictable because liberals worship rules. There’s a great book called The Death of Common Sense. written by a New York lawyer. And just because he’s a lawyer, we have reason not to like him. But it’s a great book. And it really shows that they worship rules. And one of the rationales are, well, if we have all the rules, then it’s no one’s opinion. It’s a rule. And it’s automatic. And so we’ll take the personal responsibility, the humanness out of the situation. We’ll take the individual out. No one’s responsible. It’s a rule. You just go by the rules. So, well, you can’t have a rule for everything. There’s too many things. But you can try. And that’s what we have done. And we have millions and millions of rules, laws. Federal, state, local, county, schools, institutions, government agencies. And people are blindly abiding by these rules. even though they so obviously go against right and wrong, against righteousness and common sense. So people worship rules. They eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And that’s exactly why Paul is stressing this issue so much. So he talks about this covenant, which actually should be translated a will. He says, I speak in the manner of men, though it is only a man’s last will and testament. Now the word he uses there, diapheke, that word in common usage in Galatia, southern Galatia, among these cities like Derbe and Iconium, when they heard that will, that word, that’s what they would think of because that’s what that word meant. It was your will, your last will and testament. So he said, I speak in the manner of men, And he uses a word then that’s often used in the Bible of a covenant with God. But he’s not speaking biblically and spiritually of a covenant with God. He’s speaking in the context of men’s laws and man’s society. And he’s talking in verse 18 about an inheritance. So we know he’s talking about a will. And then in a couple paragraphs later, he states that we are adopted by God as sons. And he says, and if a son, then an heir. Because when you’re a son, then you inherit, when the father passes away, you inherit his lands and his wealth. You inherit that. Now, early on in the conception of, as I was saying before the break, in Israel… The sons inherited the land as a general rule. And with God clarifying a situation in the Old Testament, someone died. He had two daughters and no sons. And they didn’t know what to do. And so God said, well, let the daughters inherit the land. Generally, the sons inherit the land. And every 50 years… Now, you could sell land. You could sell land. But that was a bad idea. Because… God had set up Israel so that each of the tribes would have their own areas. And the Levites didn’t have their own land. They watched over God’s work like at the temple. And they collected the sacrifices and did work for the Lord. And they received the tithe two out of every three years. So the Levites didn’t have any land. And there was like a delicate balance. And for the most part, it was to stay that way. So God said that every 50 years, the year of Jubilee, if any land had been sold to another tribe, well, then it goes back. And when you inherit, you inherit from your father so it stays in the tribe. Now, your daughter might marry someone from another tribe. So if she inherited the land, then the land would get all mixed and that wouldn’t have suited God’s purpose as well. So as a general rule, the sons inherited, and if in fact, let’s say someone did sell some land or a daughter inherited and she married some other guy and the land sort of ended up belonging to people in another tribe, every 50 years the land would come back. But that idea wasn’t only in Israel, it affected much of the world, that there was an inheritance of the sons and that’s the way it worked. Well, in very ancient times, going back pretty much beyond our ability historically to trace it carefully, we know that there were wills. And the Greek concept of wills and the Roman concept of wills originally were very similar. And it was just that you leave your wealth to your sons. But if you adopt a son, then he also, then he receives your inheritance. If you had no other son, he’d receive it all. If you had one other son and you adopt another, then they would share your inheritance and you could not change that. Gradually, the Roman concept of wills changed. At the time of Paul’s writing, there was something called the Praetorian Testament, which is more like our last will and testament. And it was more a private matter and you could leave property to people who were not your children. You could potentially disinherit your own children, things like that. So it was more familiar to us. But the Greek concept of a will had not changed. The Greek concept was this. You didn’t leave things to strangers or to somebody who worked for you. The Greek concept of a will was you left your property to your son. And if you adopted someone, he was now, your inheritance would go to him. And you had no say in the matter. In fact, if you had your own son, you could disinherit your own son under Greek law. But you could not disinherit an adopted son. It was not possible. There’s one ancient story where a son was disinherited And then sometime later, he came back into favor with his father. So his father adopted him. And so he was in the will again. And then the son really blew it again. The father disinherited him. And the son appealed and said, you can’t do that because I’m not your natural son. I’m your adopted son because you disinherited your natural son. And that story has remained ancient writings and records of it for 1600-1700 centuries. Because it’s interesting and it points out exactly the way the law was. So when you adopted a son, that was in effect making a will. The adoption was a will. And that’s why the concept of adopt and the concept of bequeath, those were basically equivalent terms. In fact, the word childless and the word intestate, like your last will and testament, well, to be intestate meant you had no will. And the word childless and intestate were basically synonyms. You had no one to leave anything to. So Paul says, I speak in the manner of men, though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, in other words, He’s writing to these four Greek cities, the churches he established in southern Galatia, and they are Greek cities, although they’re within a Roman province. When Rome came into a foreign country, they did not impose their law. They were not as violent as that, so to speak. They would incorporate people in somewhat of a pretty wise manner. They would let them keep their religion, keep their language for the most part, although they would gradually introduce Greek more often than Latin, and keep their laws. And there would just be some, like maybe the coins would be stamped with Roman words on them, perhaps, and perhaps not. They would be ruled by the Romans, but governed by their own laws. And in some cases, you’d have places like, well, say in Derby, where there might be people who lived there, their families went back many centuries. And they went by maybe some old Phrygian law. One of the peoples who came into Asia Minor centuries before the Gauls, the Galatians. So they went by that law, but then a Greek city was established and it had Greek law. Well, that city would have like two sets of laws. The Greek law and then especially people in the rural districts and some in the city, they would be judged by Phrygian law. And then Rome comes along and establishes a province and includes that city and some Roman citizens live in that city. Now you have people, Roman citizens, who are governed by Roman law, others governed by Greek law and others by Phrygian law. And that concept to us seems really strange, doesn’t it? But, you know, in America, everybody’s governed by our law. But I recall reading through the history of the law, of the development of law in Europe, the first time I came across this idea, and it was stated very bluntly that people, say in Britain or elsewhere, centuries ago, they wouldn’t be judged by British law. They would be judged by the law of their homeland. So if they murdered or stole, they would be judged and they’d find out what’s the law in your homeland and that’s the penalty. That’s the way we’re going to work this. And when I first heard that, I thought, that’s the weirdest thing I ever heard. How that state of affairs ever come to be. But it turns out that’s the way it was under the Roman Empire. That all different systems of law that were in effect at the same time within a group of people. And as I was reading through, just recently in fact, reading about ancient laws from 2,000 years ago in Asia Minor, I got to a paragraph, it’s like 12.30 in the morning, and I’m reading with the light on in the bedroom, and I said, hey Cheryl, and she’s like, what? Let me read this to you. And I read her this paragraph that they’re under different sets of laws, like, She couldn’t care less, you know. She was asleep. Baby’s probably going to wake up at 5 a.m. And she said, maybe that’s why some people are under law and other people are under grace and they didn’t have, you know, they couldn’t understand that. I’m like, wow, that’s pretty good, honey. That blew my mind. She was asleep when she came up with that. So at the time of the New Testament, that concept that there would be different covenants, different house rules, different sets of laws that different people would be under at the same time, that was an extremely common notion. Even in Jerusalem, some of them would be judged by Herod in the laws of Moses to some extent, although restrained in Israel’s laws. Others would be governed by Roman laws via Pilate. And back then, that was as common as could be. So that helped me to, you know, when I go through the plot of the Bible with people in seminars, that’s probably the number one sticking point. People say, but how could they have been two sets of laws at the same time? How could that be? And back then, that would not have been a hurdle. Maybe understanding the issues would have been, but the fact that there were different laws governing different people was completely natural. So the Roman law at this time, could be changed. And it would be more private and there’d be more flexibility. The Praetorian Testament. But Greek law, as in the churches of Galatia, when you adopted someone, that act of adoption is the same thing as making a last will and testament. And originally, you did it in the stone in the center of the city. In front, they would they would bring all these citizens together and you would publicly make an adoption and that would tell the whole town, now this person will inherit an equal inheritance from me with any of my other heirs. So when you adopt a son, you could not disinherit him and you could not change it. You can’t add conditions. You can’t later say, well, you’ll only get an inheritance if you do all this work You can’t do that. Now, you could adopt another son, but that doesn’t change at all the agreement with the first adoption. Because the agreement, you didn’t have to spell it out in detail. It was just, I’m adopting him. He is my heir. And you may have other heirs. You may have other heirs born to you in the future, or you may adopt. But it doesn’t change the contract that was entered into irrevocably that this is my son now, he is my heir. So that’s what Paul’s talking about. I speak in the manner of men. Though it is only a man’s covenant, or though it’s only a man’s last will and testament, yet if it is confirmed, or if it’s set in the record office, no one annuls or adds to it. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. But God does not say, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to your seed, who is Christ. Now here’s a place where Paul is being a stickler on the exact word used. He’s saying way back in Genesis, when God made this promise to Abraham in Genesis chapter 12, he didn’t say, and to your descendants, plural. He said, and to your seeds, singular, one. Now, you could say, come on, Paul. I mean, your seed, that means all your descendants. And normally, that’s what it would mean. But if you want to be technical, and sometimes God does, and sometimes Paul does, you can say, hey, that word is singular. And even though for 1,900 years, the Israelites took it to mean their whole nation, they could have looked more closely and saw it was singular. and maybe intuited that there’s something more to it. And Paul points out that the real promise is to Christ, because it’s through Christ that all the nations will be blessed. So Paul says that to… Oh, and in this case, you know how we said back in verse 10, Paul was paraphrasing, and he was actually quoting from the Septuagint. But when Jesus or the apostles, they quote from the Old Testament, often they’ll paraphrase. If they’re saying now verbatim, it says this exactly, then it better say it exactly. Otherwise, I think people would have a valid complaint and say, look, here, there’s a contradiction. If we went back into the Hebrew and it said seeds plural, then we as Christians would have a problem. We’d really have a a contradiction on our hands to deal with. But of course it doesn’t. It says seed singular. So usually when the Bible’s quoting itself, it has the freedom to paraphrase. God can paraphrase himself if he wants to. But if he’s being verbatim, then of course it’s word for word. So the promise was to one that is to Christ. Verse 17. In this I say that the law which was 430 years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ that it should make the promise of no effect. So we have two things going on. We have the promise that came first and then the law. And Paul is saying that the promise was made to Christ and to Abraham And so when the law was added 430 years later, that doesn’t change the promise because speaking to the Galatians who understood it, this was God’s will. When God said that all the nations will be blessed, it was like God adopting the nations. And that’s not going to be changed regardless of what happens in the future. So as to this detail of the law being added 430 years later. It’s an interesting thing to work through. It says here 430 years later, and that’s a quote from Exodus 12, verse 40, where Israel was just coming out of Egypt, just ready to get the Ten Commandments and all the law. And it says, and Israel had sojourned for 430 years. So that’s where this 430 years comes from. But then there’s a little bit of an argument, especially among people who try to discredit the Bible, because in the book of Acts, Stephen, is it Stephen, I believe? Yeah, I think so. Stephen says it was 400 years. And that goes back to a prophecy in Genesis, I think chapter 15, where there’s a prophecy that says, thy seed shall be a stranger 400 years. So they say, look, there’s a contradiction in the Bible. Is it 430 years or 400 years? See, there’s a contradiction. The Bible’s not true. That’s how it’s often presented, the argument. And that’s a bit of a weak argument, although it does deserve an answer. Moses wrote the books of Genesis and Exodus. Moses, he was there when they left Egypt. So he’s the one who did the calculation. It said for 430 years, Israel’s been out wandering around. Or it’s been 430 years since this has all started. And he’s also the one who wrote in Genesis 15 that your seed will sojourn 400 years. So why the discrepancy? Was Moses unable to remember what he wrote from one book To the next? Well, obviously not. The 430 years, when does it start? According to Paul in his passage in Galatians, when would that 430 years begin? Well, it ends when they come out of Egypt. When does it begin? Well, let’s see. The law came 430 years later. 430 years later than what? Later than the promise that God made to Abraham. So that goes back to Genesis chapter 12, verses 1 through 4, when Abraham is in Haran and God promises him that through his seed, all the nations will be blessed. And then God says, now go, your father’s dead, go, move on. And he left the land of Haran. And Abraham began a journey and Israel never got to their promised land. And it was 430 years after that after Genesis 12, when they departed from Egypt. So where does the 400 years come from? Well, some years after Genesis 12, we get to Genesis 15. And that’s where the prophecy is given that your seed will be a stranger for 400 years. You see, Paul… And the statement in Exodus goes back to Abraham when he received the promise. But three chapters later in Genesis, there’s another view of it. And it doesn’t include Abraham. God says your seed will be sojourning for 400 years. So that begins not with Abraham, but with Isaac. And it’s interesting the time in his life that it began when… After Isaac was weaned, Abraham had a celebration. And sometime after that, then Sarah was jealous and didn’t like the fact that Ishmael was around. And she said, hey, this kid is joking and making faces. Abraham, send him away. And Abraham was upset. It was his son by a bondwoman, but he didn’t want to do it. And God said, Abraham, do what your wife is telling you. Because in Isaac shall your seed be called. So if we take that point in time when God… Now, Ishmael had been circumcised just as Isaac had. And they were both sons of Abraham. But God had wanted to use Isaac. So when God separated the seed and set Ishmael aside, even though he would become a great nation… And he took Isaac and clearly established that Isaac is the one. From that time, that was 30 years after Abraham was called in Haran. So that’s the prophecy, your seed, starting with Isaac from that point until Israel was delivered from Egypt, was the 400 years. So there are almost, in most of the apparent contradictions in the Bible, there’s almost always really solid explanations. And the reason it looks like a contradiction is because we just don’t know the circumstances well enough or the language or the context. But it is somewhat egotistical to think that, oh, you know, Moses had no idea what he was talking about and he couldn’t get the number right from one book to the next. I mean, the Bible is obviously an elaborate book. And to think You know, like the creation accounts in Genesis 1, and then a bit of a retelling in Genesis 2. And to think, oh, it’s a totally different story, they totally contradict, and they just put them together because they were too dumb to realize they contradicted. I mean, that’s absurd. It’s just absurd. Just like they used to say, oh, there was no such person as Pontius Pilate. I mean, these arguments are just ludicrous. Because the people who wrote these books were trying to get multitudes to realize that they were valid and reliable and true. And they would not have just indiscriminately put contradictions into the book. So generally, when you come to something that looks like a contradiction, why does it say 400 and 430, rather than critics, rather than running off at the mouth, they’d be wiser to say, well, let’s investigate this and see if really it’s not telling us way more than we thought we knew. All right. But the promise was made to Abraham, and when the law was added, the law did not annul the promise. It could not annul it. That it should make the promise of no effect, that was not going to happen. Verse 18. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise. And again, that is true for us and not for Israel in the Old Testament or under the 12 apostles. Under the 12, it was of law. Under the prophets, it was of law. But in the body of Christ today, for everyone in the body, whether Jew or Gentile, it’s not of law. It’s only of promise. What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. And it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now, what purpose then does the law serve? Now, Jesus said something really interesting in John 5, verse 20. A lot of times people will ask, well, why did God put the tree in the garden? Why did He even do that? Why did He leave it out? And so we wouldn’t have all these problems. Well, Jesus said in John 5.20, not about the tree. Do I have that verse right? Let me see. John 5.20. I’m looking. I have written down the wrong verse. So, since I wrote down the wrong verse, it would probably be hard for me to find it right now, but I’ll describe it to you. And maybe somebody knows where it is.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hey, this is Nicole McBurney jumping into the broadcast. We are out of time for today, so be sure to come back next Thursday to hear the rest of this study. To find other resources and Bible studies, be sure to go to kgov.com slash store. That’s kgov.com slash store.
Embark on an enlightening exploration where historical context meets theology. Pastor Bob Enyart discusses with Nicole McBurney the evolution of will and testament concepts from ancient civilisations, comparing Greek, Roman, and early Christian interpretations. This conversation illuminates how different people were governed by various legal systems within the same region—a concept mirrored in biblical teachings. The episode sheds light on seemingly contradictory biblical timelines, unraveling their complexities to reveal deeper truths embedded in scripture. With thoughtful insights, this discussion provides perspectives on the nuanced relationship between promise and law in the context of Christian faith.
