Well, I’ve been reading Jeremiah for my devotional reading (and enjoying Jeremiah very much).  And I came across Jeremiah 39:16-18 which reads:

Go, and say to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will fulfill my words against this city for harm and not for good, and they shall be accomplished before you on that day. 17 But I will deliver you on that day, declares the Lord, and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. 18 For I will surely save you, and you shall not fall by the sword, but you shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have put your trust in me, declares the Lord.’

Ebed-melech had saved Jeremiah’s life earlier, pleading with King Zedekiah to remove him from the cistern of mud where he sure would have died.  And as a result, not of his work, but of his faith in the Lord, God has decided to save him.  This struck me considering that 1) Ebed-melech, as an Ethiopian, is a Gentile, 2) He’s a eunuch (Jer 38:7) and so he could never be circumcised even if he wanted to be, 3) His act of kindness and love towards Jeremiah seemed like a work, 4) and yet, God saw his heart and calls it trust (faith) in Him.  If there was ever an instance where Galatians 3:9 rings true, it would be in the case of Ebed-melech.  He is saved (‘For I will surely save you’) because of his faith and receives the blessings of knowing God along with Abraham.

For example, I argued that Gal 1:6a refers all the way to verse 10.  He saw it ending at verse 6 (Paul was astonished only that they were turning to a different Gospel).  I see  astonishment as what directs Paul to say everything he says from verses 6-10.  We see this same conundrum in Romans 3:21, where perhaps the most important use of the word, “but” (de [adversative] in the Greek), is used.  Here is the question, “Is the ‘but’ an adversative for the immediate context, Rom 3:19-20, the greater context, Rom 3:1-19, or the much greater context, Rom chapters 1-3?”  I (and most commentators) would argue that the ‘but’ refers to Romans 1-3 based on Paul’s logical flow of the three chapters.  That is, Paul is making the case that human beings are inherently sinners deserving of God’s wrath.  And therefore are without hope “BUT NOW the righteosuness of God has been manifested apart from the law (through Christ!!).”

So as you can see, making a decision as to how much a proposition refers to a text and provides context, is a very important decision.  Sometimes it is only the next verse, sometimes it can be chapters.  The same holds true for Romans 12:1 and the “therefore” in “I appeal to you THEREFORE, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.“ The inference is not just to the preceding pericope or verse, it can be (and often is thought of) referring to Romans chapters 1-11!

What do you think?  Here is Galatians 1:6-10:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.  10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.