Galatians 3: Scripture With Scripture and In Context
Anderson and his goons have been trying to take this chapter to mean that the Church replaces Israel and that the Jews have been rejected by God. This flies in the face of the entire Bible, and so they seem to have honed in on Galatians 3 to prove their point instead of just going with the rest of the Bible and the context. This is typical of the Catholic Church from which they get their doctrines (and probably their marching orders). We shall look at the chapter and scripture with scripture and in context.
Context of the Book of Galatians: The book of Galatians was written to address the heresy that we today call the Hebrew Roots movement. This a form of Restorationism, like the Church of Christ (if you get baptized according to Acts 2, then you’ll have the powers in Acts 2) and the Charismatic movement (if you speak in tongues like in Acts 2, then you’ll have the powers of Acts 2). The idea in the Hebrew Roots movement is that if you act like the Jewish disciples of Christ in Acts 2, then you’ll have the power of Acts 2. Paul wrote the book of Galatians to demonstrate that things have changed since Acts 2. Getting back to Acts 2 should not be the goal. The goal should be to get in on what God is doing right now.
Yes, the disciples in Acts 2 were pork abstaining, sabbath observing, beard wearing, temple worshipping, Jewish men. But God revealed something new to Paul after Acts 9. Those characteristics that defined the disciples of Acts 2 (and much of the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ) are not profitable after the rejection of Stephen in Acts 7. These changes have been revealed gradually, but God has moved on from his dealings with national Israel. To go back and act like Peter, James, and John in Acts 2 is no longer profitable. Interestingly, this makes the Hebrew Roots Movement the only heresy that has an entire book of the Bible written to show it’s errors. If you really want the power of the book of Acts, go and do two things that are found through the book: preach the Bible and pray. Restorationism is just a short cut. It won’t work and leads to vanity, bondage, and foolishness. Church of Christ, the Charismatic movement, and the Hebrew Roots movement are vanity.
Context of Chapter 3: The Galatians have rejected Paul (4:16), much like Roman Catholics who claim to follow Peter, and started to go back to Judaism. A false teacher has come (5:10, 12) and taught them that works were necessary for salvation (1:6, 3:3). Paul starts by giving some testimony and history. 1:6-9 pronounces that anyone who teaches that works are necessary for salvation is accursed. Obviously the context is salvation and TODAY. That is, during Christ’s ministry, He Himself taught that works were necessary for salvation. See what Jesus taught the rich, young ruler in Luke 18 and the Sermon on the Mount. See how this is the same as the OT in Psalm 24 which is all about works. Christ and David are not breaking what Paul wrote in Galatians 1. So we see that Paul is talking about preaching the Gospel today.
Paul then shows how he didn’t learn about the Gospel from someone else, but he was shown it by Jesus Christ himself (1:12). This flies in the face of Anderson and how he teaches that everyone preached like Paul. How could it not have been taught if it had always been that way? He then gives his testimony (1:13-24).
In Chapter 2, Paul gives a history of his dealings with people who want to make Christians observe some of the Jewish rituals, whether they be found in the OT or not. He wouldn’t circumcise Silas (vs 3) even though God told the Jews to circumcise like the OT. Paul had to rebuke a bunch of Jewish Christians for continuing to try and observe the Law. He is saying that if it is unprofitable for Peter, James, and John to follow the Jewish rituals, then how much more vain for a Gentile Galatian? There is no justification of the flesh in the Law (vs 16) and so why try and go back to it (vs 18)? To do so would make yourself a transgressor.
The Christian is dead to the Law (vs 19, Rom 7:4) and so he is to walk by faith (vs 20, II Cor 5:7). But these false teachers are going against that and trying to bring the Galatian Christians into bondage and Paul is trying to free them (5:1).
Notice no where in the context is Paul showing that he is leading up to teach that God is done with the Jewish nation. Anderson and his goons are ripping the text out of the context. The book of Galatians teaches nothing about God breaking his everlasting covenant and rejecting Israel. See Gen 17:7,13, 19, I Chron 16:17, Ps 105:10, and especially, Jer 31:35-37 and 33:25,26. In Genesis 15, God makes the covenant, which is usually between two parties, by himself while Abram is sleeping. There is nothing conditional about this everlasting covenant just like there is nothing conditional in God’s agreement with a sinner who has come to God through Christ. They are both called ETERNAL. If one is really conditional, then we can lose our salvation. See the hole Anderson digs himself into?
1, ¶ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
After studying the Hebrew Roots movement, I can say that it is the most “supernatural” of the heresies. That is to say, that it is the most demonic. But since that is not the subject of this article, I will just put the information out there.
Notice how Paul calls the Galatians “foolish” which would be a breach of Matt 5:22 and would make Paul in danger of Hell. That is, unless, Matt 5 and the whole Sermon on the Mount is about the Millennial Kingdom. Which it is. Which would make dispensationalism true.
A Christian can be “foolish”, “bewitched”, and “not obey the truth” and still be saved. Andersonites think that if you believe in more than one gospel that you can’t be saved. That isn’t the requirement. It’s John 1:12.
Paul preached Christ crucified and so do dispensationalists, even though Anderson refuses to believe that we do…
2, This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Put it this way: “Did you receive the Spirit by works or by Romans 10:17?” When a sinner hears the Bible and the Gospel preached and then ACTS on it by “receiving” (John 1:12) Jesus Christ as his Saviour. No works involved. Also look at vs 14. They did not receive the Spirit or the promise of the Spirit through the works of the Law, but by faith.
3, Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
This is the problem with the Hebrew Roots guys, they think they are better because they follow the Law. It doesn’t work that way. They are not “made perfect by the flesh” although they want to think that they are. We are made perfect by the Spirit. Complete in Him (Col 2:10).
4, Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
The Galatians used to stand and preach faith in Christ. For that they were persecuted much like the Philippian Church. Paul saw that and now he’s asking if they did all that in vain and that they should have been preaching works. What a waste. Paul was concerned about not being a waste. Solomon rejected God and the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastes and ended up thinking that it was all in vain. Paul didn’t want that for himself or his converts. If Paul was wrong, then their suffering was in vain. But Paul wasn’t wrong.
5, He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Interesting that in the NT, false prophets can have miracles. Much like the magicians in Egypt in Ex 7,8, just because someone can do a miracle doesn’t mean that they are with God. See Deuteronomy 13 (notice the 13s…) and see that all this culminates in the Tribulation (II Thess 2:9) that is designed to damn people who reject the truth (vs 10). This also shows up in Revelation 13:13 (notice the 13s).
6, ¶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
This is a reference to Gen 15:6, “And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” But the obvious question is, “what did he believe”? Look in Gen 15. Vs 5 says, “Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.” When Abraham believed that, God gave him righteousness. There is nothing about the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. He got righteousness by believing something different that what we believe today. You can believe what Abraham believed about what his seed will be like and still go to hell. If you believe the Gospel, you will go to heaven. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. That is important, no matter what any cult leader in Arizona would have you believe.
7, Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
There has to be a distinction between Abraham’s literal seed and his spiritual seed. Literally, Abraham’s seed is Ishmael, Isaac, and six more named in Gen 25:2. Clearly, Paul is talking about something besides literal and physical. We are of faith and so we are the children of Abraham, spiritually. That is a theme throughout the chapter, no matter how much Anderson wants to pretend it isn’t.
Anderson will bring up Matt 3:9, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” But how does that apply to us except spiritually? We are not literal rocks and we are also not literal children of Abraham. But spiritually, we are.
Also, he will also go to John 8:39-44, where the Jews claim to be sons of Abraham and Christ corrects them and says that they are sons of the Devil. Sounds good? One problem though. In vs 37, Jesus says, “I know that you are Abraham’s seed.” and totally negates the way that Anderson tries to teach the passage. Spiritually, they are NOT Abraham’s seed. Physically, they are.
8, And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Anderson says that the Jews haven’t been a blessing, therefore this cannot be talking about physical Israel. Although this is not true, he is correct that this is not the context.
The Jews have been a blessing to every country that has been good to them. The Islamic country of Andalusia, which we call today, Spain, is a prime example. People say that Andalusia is an example of how good Muslims can be, but it is really an example of a short period of time when they were nice to the Jews and so God blessed them based on Gen 12. Same with America. God has blessed this country for its support of Jewish people everywhere. When Anderson claims that the Jews run Hollywood and the banks, he makes a grave error. He needs to study the idea of hofjuden. The people who are really running everything is the Catholic Church and they use their hofjuden to keep the heat off them. Why would Anderson blame the Jews instead of the people that really should be blamed? Maybe he takes his marching orders from them…
In context though, the spiritual blessing of Abraham goes on all nations in the form of the gospel. True, but in another video, Anderson uses this verse to say that God preached the gospel, that is the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Christ, to Abraham. Nothing could be further from the truth. The verse says what God preached to Abraham. That is that, “In thee shall all nations be blessed.”
This is “another gospel” which causes Anderson to go nuts, but that is what the text says.
9, So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
This is just like vs 7. Anderson uses these verses to teach that the real children of Abraham are the church not the Jews. But this fails when we actually look at what is promised to Abraham. Anderson goes to Genesis 12 and part of chapter 22. Those are the places that fit Anderson’s interpretation, but it leaves out some important parts. This is the MO of a heretic.
Look at ch 15:18-21, “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” Whether Anderson says so or not, Abraham is given a physical piece of land. This also shows up in Zech 2:12, Is 14:25, Deut 32:43, I Kings 8:36, Hos 9:3, etc…
Anderson says, “How carnal are these people that they care about a stupid piece of land…” I care about what God cares about and He says that He gave Israel some land. Call that carnal if you want. Deut 11:12 says, “A land which the LORD thy God careth for: the eyes of the LORD thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.” He doesn’t give a flip about what God thinks or cares about, if it goes against what he thinks.
Anderson continues by saying, “God is not a racist and he’s not a respecter of persons.” This is a half truth. Today, any Jew gets saved the same way as any Gentile (Rom 1:16). But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t what people would call racism with God. The first does say, “to the Jew first.” There is some subtle racism in that they get the Gospel first. But more than that, of course God has a special relationship with Israel that he has with no other group of people. Call that racism if you want, I call it racial exclusivity. You’ve got to deal with the fact that, “salvation is of the Jews.” John 4:22. Romans 3:2 says that God gave them the oracles of God. That is special and it means that he didn’t give them to anyone else. I don’t see how a guy couldn’t see at least some form of racial exclusivity in Ephesians 2. That is not to say the Jews get a pass on God’s judgment. Often they are the first to feel God’s wrath especially in places like John 8 and Matthew 23 not counting the physical judgments in the OT. Folks, Israel is the “apple of his eye” that is, the most precious part. Israel is special to God and when Peter gets sent to Cornelius in Acts 10, it is a revelation. That was a new thing to go to these Gentiles, and then and only then, Peter realizes “that God is no respecter of persons”. Acts 10:34.
Anderson has left out part of the story.
10, For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
This is a quote of Deut 27:26 and it shows the folly of a saved, born again, son of God trying to put himself back into the OT. You can’t continue in the Law. You will screw up at one point. In the OT, you could lose your salvation like Samson in Judges 16:20. Why would a Christian go back to that? Its foolish, vs 1.
11, But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
No one was justified by the law. Ex 23:7 says that, “ I will not justify the wicked.” But God justifies the wicked (us) all the time in the NT. Something changed. This forms the basis for dispensationalism. So what happened to saints in the OT after they died? They ended up in Abraham’s Bosom (Luke 16) which is where Jesus Christ went after the cross (Matt 12:40) in order to free the OT saints and justify them and get them out to heaven (Eph 4:8). But all this is too much for an Andersonite.
It is interesting to note here that a word has been left out of the quotation of Habakkuk 2:4. It reads “The just shall live by his faith.” This omission has serious implications. It illustrates the required works of the OT and shows that there are no works in the NT. Again, something CHANGED after the cross and in the book of Acts. This change is obvious to anyone who has their eyes open.
12, And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
This is a quotation of Lev 18:5. Again it is showing the difference between the way things worked in the OT and now in the New. Galatians 3 is one of the clearest passages showing that there is a new dispensation in the NEW.
Why would God even write, “The man that doeth them shall live in them”, if no one did them and no one lived in them? Anderson would answer that even in the OT it was to point a man to Christ, but show me the cross reference in the OT. If you can’t then you just made the doctrine up out of thin air. Which is what the Funnymentalist Baptists have done for the last 100 years. I’ll stick with the Bible.
13, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Here we are in vs 13 (watch the 13s…) and we see a great doctrine: “Made a curse for us.” Cross references are to II Cor 5:21 and John 3:14. In some way, Christ became sin on the cross and this is the cup of Matt 26:39. Charles Wesley called this the “Great Transaction.” Salvation is free for us, but cost Christ everything. So much could be said about this, but we are focusing more on Replacement Theology so we’ll move on.
14, That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
As we have said before, the context is the spiritual blessing of Abraham. The physical blessing of Abraham are still for the Jew and that’s what Steven Anderson believes or else he would have to believe that the Church of God owns the Holy Land. That is the teaching of the medieval knights that we call the Crusaders. They thought, “God gave us this land, so we’ll take it and God will bless it.” It led to a bloodbath. When Christ comes back he will settle the issue of who owns the land by killing people until the blood runs up to his horse’s bridle. See Isaiah 63 and Revelation 19. This has nothing to do with the church.
So Steven Anderson says that the Land doesn’t matter and pretends that all that matters are the spiritual blessings. Abraham was given two promises. Look at vs 16. Its says promises. Plural. The context of this verse is spiritual blessings, but you have to deal with the physical blessings of the Land. Anderson just ignores its existence. That is the action of a deceiver.
Finally, notice the means of getting this promise. It is through faith, not baptism. This verse is a direct cross reference to the great stumbling stone verse of Acts 2:38. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” We see that in Acts 2, those Jews received “the gift of the Holy Ghost” by baptism. In Galatians 3, we received “the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Notice the difference? The Church of Christ didn’t. And if you don’t look at the book of Acts dispensationally, you have got trouble explaining away Acts 2, or else there are contradictions or else words don’t really mean what they mean. Obviously, Acts 2 is a message to the Jews before Paul’s revelations. You can follow Acts 2 all day and still end up in hell. It is “faith” today and not baptism.
15, Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Notice, “no man disannulleth.” That means the actions of the Jews for the last 2000 years have in no way diminished their promises given from Abraham to today of physical blessings. It has been confirmed. Look at vs 17. See also, Luke 1:71-73 and Rom 15:8. Christ confirmed the promises. Now, this opens up a whole new can of worms because you run into another cross reference that even Larkin and Scofield missed.
Daniel 9:27 is almost always interpreted as being the Antichrist. But look at the verse with the preceding cross references in mind. “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week”. Who does the confirming? It is Christ himself. But this is deep stuff that SLA never even touches because he is trying to read the Body of Christ into Dan 9 even though the text says, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people” vs 24. The implication is that only 42 months (3.5 years) are left in the Tribulation which also is an answer to some of Anderson’s other objections, but we will forbear to go into that here.
16, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
This verse is one of Steven Anderson and his goons’ favorite objections to dispensationalism. He demonstrates two of the greatest techniques of that heretics use to pervert sound doctrine. The first is to make the text very literal when there are questions about the text. The prime example of that is the Roman Catholic use of Matt 26:26-29 to teach the Mass and Matt 16:18 to teach that the church was founded on Peter. Again, this is not the place to flesh out the true teaching on those passages, but needless to say, there are a great many questions about those texts. To say them loudly over and over again does not dismiss the many clear and obvious questions to a literal interpretation. Now, we all know that literal is better, and we should be as literal as possible, but we must not ignore the issues in the literal teaching of the text.
So what are the issues with being literal here? First, it says there is one seed, but we know that is not true. Abraham had many sons. They are Ishmael, Isaac, and six more named in Gen 25:2. So Abraham literally had 8 seeds not one. Beyond that, the text says that Abraham’s seed is Jesus Christ. Again, he most certainly is not… literally. The text is clearly a spiritual teaching and has nothing to do with the literal fulfillment of anything physical. That is not the issue here. Paul is teaching the spiritual fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and it would be foolish to apply this passage to the literal promises given to Abraham and now awaiting fulfillment in the Millennium in the Jewish Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
The next heretical technique is to start on a text about which there is some question. The heretic will proceed to interpret the verse the way that he likes and then use that verse as a framework or a foundation to interpret all of Scripture through that lense. We have already shown the questions that the text brings up. However, the text is still true, but it cannot be used to interpret every teaching in the Bible about the promises to Abraham. To do so would be no different than the Charismatics and Church of Christ interpreting everything in the NT in the light of Acts 2. What a Bible Believer should do is to take clear passages like Rom 11:25-29 and John 18:36 and Luke 1:32 where we see national Israel coming back into importance and then we can understand that Paul is making a spiritual application in Gal 3.
So what is going on here? Paul is reinforcing the idea of vs 14 that we Gentiles are getting in on the promises of God, not the physical promises (that would lead to Crusades), but the spiritual blessings promised to Abraham due to us being “in Christ”. To use this verse to teach that God has dumped the Jews is to wrest the scripture to your own destruction.
17, And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional. See Gen 15. But the next covenant, the Mosaic Covenant is conditional. To demonstrate this, turn to Lev 26. If the Jews keep the Law nationally, they get all the blessings of vs 3-13. If they don’t, they get the curses of vs 14-39. It is conditional on them. But finish the chapter and see that none of the Mosaic Covenant overturns the Abrahamic Covenant, vs 40-46. This reinforces the teaching of Gal 3. The Jews should have used their “schoolmaster” of Gal 3:24 as a reason to accept Christ. They didn’t and so they have been getting all the curses of Lev 26 for the last 1900+ years. But that doesn’t mean that the Abrahamic Covenant is no longer valid as Steven Anderson teaches.
18, For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Had the promises of the Jews been a part of the Law given to Moses, they would have lost it. But the promise was unconditionally given to Abraham and that took place, in time, before Moses’ time, therefore Abraham’s covenant physically and spiritually is still in effect.
19, ¶ Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
We see here, that the purpose of the Law and the Mosaic Covenant was to keep the Jewish people clean and free from sin. We see they were to be a people obsessed with cleanliness in a way that no other people was until about 200 years. That was to keep things pure for Christ to show up. See how in the OT Moses is called a “mediator”. Things have changed and now there is only one “mediator” that is the Lord Jesus Christ I Tim 2:5. As I have said, Galatians 3 is one of the most dispensational passages in the Bible.
20, Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
To have a need for a mediator you need two parties. During the Wilderness Journeys of Israel the two parties were God and Israel and Moses was the mediator (Deut 5:5). Now the two parties are God and all men (I Tim 2:5) and the mediator is the Lord Jesus Christ.
21, Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Now Paul is starting to make a more personal application. The law is holy, just, and good, but it can’t give life. You can keep every jot and every tittle of the OT law, but the requirement is something else, you must be born again. That only comes through Jesus Christ and explains, once again, why OT saints had to go to Abraham’s Bosom and couldn’t get into heaven until Christ rose again. The only exceptions were Enoch, Elijah, and Moses who are the types of the Pre, Mid, and Post trib raptures. No one had life until Christ showed up, they had to be born again, but they weren’t and couldn’t. Along with our new life in Christ, we are also given Christ’s righteousness. Rom 10.
Now, a technical distinction must be made here. People in the OT were righteous, but in context, we see that that righteousness was not enough to get life. John the Baptist’s parents were righteous (Luke 1:6) and they were OT saints until the cross, then God wouldn’t accept that anymore. Something changed. Paul was righteous (Phil 3:6) but it wasn’t enough to bring him to God. Only Christ could do that (John 14:6). So there was a righteousness from the Law, but not enough for life and that is what Christ brings.
22, But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
We know the cross references in Rom 3 that all are sinners and we as always rejoice that we are saved by faith alone. These truths are familiar to us and common teaching in most Baptist Churches, even Andersonites. Salvation is simple, unless, according to Andersonites, you are a dispensationalist, then you have to repent of bad OT doctrine in order to be saved… This truth has been found out by emails from a big name Andersonite pastor.
None of this contradicts the previous comments. OT saints were sinners, but in mercy, God kept them out of hell based on their faith and works. They still couldn’t get into heaven, though.
23, But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
The OT Law was the best there was, but it was bondage. The Galatians are foolishly trying to go back to the bondage. When Christ came, things changed. This is dispensationalism.
24, Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
When a guy tries to get saved by following the Law, if he is honest (most aren’t) they would have to admit that it was pointing them to something greater. If he was keeping the sacrifices and reading the OT like he was supposed to, then he would have seen Christ and when he showed up 2000 years ago, he would have seen him like Simeon and Anna in Luke 2. As I said though, most weren’t honest and when Christ showed up, most Jews had gotten self-righteous and they missed their Messiah (John 1:11).
25, But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
If you really want to find a hyperdispensationalist, you will see them taking verses like this and the fact that I John 1 is not a Pauline book and see them teach that holy living is not necessary. This is a half truth. We are not hyperdispensationalists. Holy living is not necessary for salvation, but it is for fellowship. We are no longer under the Law, as the verse says, but we need to stay clean for our own benefit, not as a means of salvation.
This also partly explains why we don’t keep the Sabbath and require circumcision. Those are national regulations given to a people that will inherit a bunch of land someday. We are no longer under these rules. How will a nondispensationalist explain this? He can’t.
26, For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
The Liberal will leave out the words “by faith” and teach the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man. But keep those words in there and you see the requirement to being a son of God is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. If you receive Him (John 1:12) then you are a son, if not then you are a child of the world and the devil (Eph 2:2,3).
27, For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
This verse will be abused by the Church of Christ and all them that teach the heresy of Baptismal Regeneration. They will make the baptism to mean “water baptism” and nothing else. There is no reason to think that this baptism is anything other than the spirit baptism of I Cor 12:13. John the Baptist talked about 3 baptisms in Matt 3:11. There are many different kinds of baptism in the Bible. Water doesn’t “put on Christ” it puts on water.
28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
This verse is also used by Steven Anderson to wrest the Scriptures. He teaches that DNA and races don’t matter (half truth) in an effort to make the Jews seem not important. But Paul is talking about saved people here. He says, “in Christ Jesus.” Lost people aren’t in Christ Jesus.
But beyond that, this must be limited to a spiritual application. Why? Because it also says, “neither male nor female.” Is Anderson willing to put that into practice? Of course not, he is so busy railing against homosexuals that he didn’t notice he was teaching homosexuality is ok. If there is neither male nor female, then anyone can marry anyone because gender doesn’t matter. If DNA doesn’t matter from the first part of the verse, then gender doesn’t matter either.
The truth is that spiritually and in Christ, all of us Christians are nothing more than saved sinners. Christ is all. Distinctions of race, gender, and slavery don’t matter spiritually in the Body of Christ. To use this verse to prove that Jews aren’t important is to destroy the verse.
29, And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
According to the passage, the church fulfills a spiritual application of the Abrahamic Covenant. This does not negate the physical promises. Once again, if you think that all the promises given to Abraham are given to the church now, then get your gun and go take your land. Abraham was given land in Gen 12:7, Gen 13:14-18, Gen 15, Gen 17:8. This land is given to Isaac, Jacob, and the 12 tribes. See Num 27:12. See Ps 105:8-11. Jeremiah preached to a people that had broken the Mosaic Covenant that the promises of Abraham were still in effect. Jer 33:19-26. This covenant awaits its literal fulfillment in the Millennium NOT, NOT, NOT the Church Age. If you believe the King James Bible you will reject the heretical teachings of Steven L Anderson and the New IFB.