Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

 CHAPTER THREE (Lesson IV)

English evangelical preacher Charles Simeon (1759-1836) does not hold back when he says that the method of a sinner’s justification is plainly revealed in the Gospel. Also, there is no other doctrine more worthy of attention. There are numerous disagreements among scholars on plenty of other points concerning our salvation. But to be mistaken on this point that Paul makes here in verse one is to destroy all hope of acceptance by God as being right with Him. That’s why Paul is ready to place a curse on even an angel from heaven who comes with another Gospel if it could even be imagined that anyone could be found who would introduce a Gospel different from that which Paul himself preached. Unhappily, however, the Galatians were misled. The Apostle writes this epistle in order to reclaim them: he tells them that he even criticized Peter himself, and that, too, before the whole Church at Antioch, for dissembling the truth. He then goes on to also accuse their attempts at worsening the situation between Jews and Gentiles.[1] I’m afraid that pastor Simeon would not be welcomed at an ecumenical ministers’ conference today.

John Brown (1784-1858) understands that when Paul speaks of the “truth” here in verse one, he means the truth as it is found in the Gospel of Jesus Messiah – that is, the true way to salvation through Jesus the Son of God. Some, says Brown, equate obeying the truth of what the Scriptures say of faith, much the same as obeying the Law should be equated with faith. But it is just the other way around. One obeys the truth of the Scripture because they have faith in the One who promises salvation, not the scriptures themselves. As Brown sees it, this refers to the complete transformation of character which results from accepting the truth and yielding to its power by letting it take full control over the mind. Apparently, as Paul saw it, the Galatians were not doing this. If they were truly walking by faith then their eyes would be fastened upon Jesus as the only One with the power and authority to save them.[2] That’s why they received the Holy Spirit as believers, not as workers trying to fulfill the Law, the same way that Abraham was given a right standing before God as a believer, not a worker.

German Protestant theologian Heinrich A. W. Meyer (1800-1873), notes that Paul begins to unfold to his readers that righteousness does not come from the Law, but from faith. But Paul wasn’t finished, after he censured the Galatians because of their surprising turnabout, he then asks them to look at their own experience, namely, to their reception of the Holy Spirit. You may be able to change a person’s mind about something, but they know what they personally experienced. In addressing his readers who allowed themselves to be carried away to that same strange intermingling of Law and Grace, Paul could not have built on any grounds more suitable or more natural. But Meyer finds the idea of Catholic scholar Jerome, who felt he discovered in this an expression tied to the natural weakness of understanding peculiar to the Galatians. However, the testimony offered on the other hand by Johann Jakob Wetstein (1693-1754) regarding the Galatian’s readiness to learn, and acuteness of understanding – the consciousness of which would make the reproach all the more keenly felt – is also to be set aside as irrelevant. By asking “Who has bewitched you,” Paul conveys his astonishment at how quickly this perversion succeeded in attaining such success.[3]

John Edmunds (1800-1874) wants to know what was it about these Judaizers and their message that fascinated the Galatians so much they became spellbound by them?  Couldn’t they see that they were allowing themselves to be victims of designing heretics who were passing off justification by way of a system of legal works which was entirely at odds with the Gospel Paul preached to them? Could it be that these false apostles knew how to casts spells? Were they witches in disguise? This doesn’t mean that the Apostle Paul believed in such things, but it was something most people of that age took for granted as being real.[4] While in our day such things still exist on the fringes of society, the biggest danger for Christians is to become fascinated by the world and their way of living. They seem to get by when committing even the most immoral conduct without penalty. Don’t let it fool you, they are the fools who live as if there is no God, no hell, and no eternal punishment. What a wake-up they will receive on God’s Judgment Day!

W. A. O’Conor (1820-1887), makes an interesting point here when he says that the works of the law are unarticulated, unconscious, amoral, and unauthorized results of a principle that resides in the law rather than in the minds of those who perform them. In other words, if the Law did not demand it those things would never be done. They do not warm the heart or enlighten the understanding. All the grand moral and spiritual truths which are the subject-matter of faith, enlarge man’s soul and render it a fit receptacle for heavenly impulses and illuminations. Since spoken language is on a higher level than sign language, so communication made by language must excel in dignity those made by signs. Sign language does not convey the tone or intensity of words. The whole rationale-thinking process, the mental activities, the wide illustrative knowledge, which faith employs and stimulates, are more conducive to the growth and inspiration of man’s mind than any system of law possibly can be. It might help us to fully understand Paul’s meaning by accepting Galatian’s and Roman’s experience as an element in Christian education. So, it is by hearing or reading those truths which faith receives are conveyed from mind to mind, heart to heart.[5] Now we see why in Paul’s mind, hearing the Gospel was so important.

Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) states that after having vindicated his claim to be an Apostle called by God and instructed by the Anointed One Himself through revelation, and recognized as a fellow Apostle by the elder Apostles, he is brought, by his protest and argument against Peter’s course in Antioch, to the deepest ground of his opposition to the Judaistic error, which is, that they are nullifying the grace of God by virtually pronouncing the Anointed One’s death as unnecessary. This appears so irrational to the deeply moved Apostle, that he cannot refrain from speaking frankly in addressing the Galatians. Their course suggests the influence of such fascination as is popularly attributed to “the evil eye.” It is a surprising, unaccountable course, especially when the Apostle recalls the clearness with which he portrayed to them the atoning death of the Anointed One.[6]

Alexander MacLaren (1826-1910), Scottish Baptist preacher wrote that he was struck by the metaphor of an evil eye that runs through the whole question of what caused the Galatians to so suddenly turn away from the truth to falsehood about justification and salvation, and the word-picture of Jesus crucified on the cross for our redemption. He concludes that what Paul was trying to do was get their eyes off the Judaizers and put them on Jesus. This was the only way to break the spell and loose them from the spell they were under. The power of the Anointed One on the cross is much greater than the eye of any magic hypnotist.

I like the way Maclaren ends one of his sermons on this text in verses 1-3. He exhorted all those who were listening; he encouraged them to get their eyes on Jesus; this is the secret of triumph over the fascinations of the world. And, the longer we look, then the sweetness we experience will destroy all the seducing power of lesser and earthy sweetness, and the blessed light of the sun will all but extinguish the deceitful gleams that tempt us into the swamps where we could be drowned. Turn away,  says MacLaren, from these things; grasp hold of Jesus the Anointed One; and although we may be as weak as a hummingbird before a cobra, or a rabbit before a tiger, He will give us strength, and the light of His face shining down on us will fix our eyes and make us insensible to the fascinations of the occultist. So, we will not need to dread the question, “Who bewitched you?” That’s because we are strengthened by the power of our answer: no one and nothing will separate us from the love of God through the Anointed One?[7] O Lord, prays MacLaren, we always want to be near You. So, turn away our eyes from being tempted by vanity, and enable us to keep You always before our eyes so that we be not moved.[8]

Marvin Vincent (1834-1922) Greek word study scholar, points out an interesting insight into what Paul says here in verse one about the “evil eye.” He notes that in the writings of Sirach “Ecclesiastucus”,[9] this same word is used to define being “envious.” And in certain Greek writings it is used as “slanderous.”[10] So we see that the two ideas of “envy” and “malice” and the “evil eye” are combined. We see this in what Jesus said in Mark 7:22. As a result, Paul’s metaphor here is “Who has cast an evil spell on you?” It follows that Chrysostom, followed by Lightfoot, think that the passage indicates, not only the baleful influence on the Galatians but also the envious spirit of the false teachers who envy them and their liberty in the Anointed One. Vincent is not so sure this can be proven in the text.[11]

Bible scholar Joseph Beet (1840-1924), feels that it is only right to assume that the explanation of this Epistle is that in Galatia there were men who bitterly opposed Paul’s teaching that the good things of the Final Covenant are received by faith and in proportion to our faith, apart from obedience to the Mosaic Law or to any law; and that these teachers insinuated that Paul’s authority was inferior to that of the earlier Apostles because it did not come from them, and implied that he proved unfaithful to the teaching they committed to him. That his authority as a teacher, and his teaching, were not derived from them from any accredited source. So, they were making a personal attack on Paul, not just on the Gospel that he preached. No doubt, this would make the Galatians less sure that what he told them was the truth.[12]

[1] Charles Simeon: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[2] John Brown: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 106-119

[3] Heinrich A. W. Meyer: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 100

[4] John Edmunds: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 42

[5] O’Conor, W. A: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 44–45

[6] Alvah Hovey: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 36–37

[7] Romans 8:38-39

[8] Alexander MacLaren: Exposition on Scripture, On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 108

[9] Sirach 14:8

[10] Aristophanes: The Knights [40]; Plutarch: Moralia, 6:1, p. 24

[11] Marvin Vincent. Word Studies in Galatians, op. cit., (Kindle Location 550)

[12] Joseph A. Beet: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 72

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

 CHAPTER THREE (Lesson III)

Jerome makes it sound like Paul thought witchcraft was being used to pull the Galatians away from the Gospel. But the Greek verb baskainō must not be misinterpreted in such a way as to make Paul sound like he was legitimizing witchcraft as having such power. Rather, he used a colloquial expression that was adopted as a part of everyday speech. In other words, Paul was using “bewitched” as a metaphor, not in the literal sense. Instead, Paul no doubt meant that just as a small child may be dazzled by even the simplest magic trick, so too the Galatians, recently born in the faith of the Anointed One and nourished with milk, not solid food, had been fooled by some false teachers whose knowledge of the Anointed One did not exceed what they learned from Paul.

And since Paul, says Jerome, was using Holy Scripture to portray the Anointed One before their eyes, was using a whole chorus of First Covenant prophets who spoke of His suffering and passion, His blows and whippings, and the graphic picture of torture painted by the prophet Isaiah.[1] And Jerome doesn’t think it was the majority of Galatian believers who were led astray. Paul may have intended this letter as a reprimand for one particular church, along with instructions for them to pass the letter around to others as a warning. No doubt the reading of the prophets continually and recalling all the teachings of Paul that they were able to hold their ground against being deceived.[2]

Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) feels that Paul scolded the Galatians for being so foolish in leaving their faith-based right standing with God, but at the same time, he rebukes them for doing so with a mental word picture he painted for them of the Anointed One dying on the cross for their salvation. Aquinas uses the Latin Version of the Bible which calls the Galatians as “senseless.” But it isn’t common sense they are lacking, but a spiritual sense.[3] Aquinas then points to Paul’s accusation that they were bewitched. For him, not only did the Galatians lack spiritual sense but what spiritual sense they did possess became delusional. They thought that everyone would see them as Courageous Lions of the Truth, but instead, Paul saw them as Cowardly Liars of the Truth.

When Martin Luther read the opening verse here in Galatians, he remarked that Paul criticizes the Galatians rather sharply when he calls them “fools, bewitched, and disobedient.” Whether he is indignant or sorry, says Luther, he may be both. As far as Luther is concerned, it is the duty of any Christian pastor to scold the people committed to their charge. Of course, the pastor’s anger must not flow from meanness, but from affection and a real zeal for the Anointed One. And when dealing with believers who don’t seem to know how or don’t care to follow instructions, each pastor must remember that grace does not suddenly transform a Christian into a new and perfect saint. There are some small and some large deposits of the old and sinful nature that remain stuck to them.

The Spirit of God chooses not to overcome all human deficiencies at once. Sanctification takes time. Not because the Spirit is slow, but because believers are slow in giving up their old habits. Although the Galatians were enlightened by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of faith, something of their national trait of foolishness plus their original depravity clung to them. Let no person think that once they receive faith, they can presently be converted into a faultless being. The grime of old vices will stick to them, be they ever so good a Christian.[4] In another writing, Luther had this interesting thought about the subject here in Chapter three: The law, with its righteousness, is like a cloud without rain, which promises rain but gives none; even so does the law promise salvation, but never gives it, for the Law was not assigned for that purpose, says Paul.[5]

John Calvin makes a pointed jab at some critics here with regard to Paul saying that he pictured the Anointed One crucified right before the Galatian’s eyes. Calvin confessed that the way things were in his day there plenty of theologians who cannot bear it went books contain such images as the one Paul painted. So, he asks, how did they become so stupid? Was it the fact that they were cheated out of the only doctrine which was proper to instruct them? The simple reason why those in charge of churches gave up their office of teaching the Gospel and taught idols was that they themselves were dumb. Of what use, then, were the hanging in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and gold, if this doctrine was faithfully and honestly being preached, showing that the Anointed One died that He might bear our curse upon the cross, that He might wash away our sins by the sacrifice of His body, wash them in His blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this one doctrine, the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood and stone. As for crosses of gold and silver, it may be true that the covetous give their eyes and minds to them more eagerly than to any heavenly instructor.[6]

William Perkins (1558-1602) notes that there were many even in his day that could be labeled as “enemies of the cross.” However, when such a weighty and special part of the Christian religion is very much neglected, Perkin’s cries out: O man or woman, high or low, young or old, if you have been wanting to know the Way, begin though it may cause you embarrassment to learn, learning truly to know the Anointed One. That you may begin to behold Him often, not still on the wooden crucifix after the Roman Catholic manner, but in the preaching of the Word, and in the Ordinances, in which you will see Him crucified before your eyes, as Paul says here in verse one. Desire not only here upon earth to behold Him with the physical eye, but look upon Him with the eye of true and lively faith, applying Him and His merits to yourself as your own, and that with a broken and bruised heart, as the poor Israelites stung with fiery serpents even to death, looked up to the brazen serpent in the wilderness of Sinai. Again, you must look upon Him first of all as through a spiritual crystal, in which you will see God’s glory greater in your redemption, than in your original creation.[7]

Catholic scholar and priest Cornelius à Lápide (1567-1637 AD), in his commentary on Galatians, gives us an interesting picture of Galatia in his day. When Paul called them “foolish,” they gave him plenty of reasons to do so. Cornelius points to what some of the historians say about them. For instance, a philosopher from Crete named Epimenides (flourished in the 6th century BC), accused all Cretans of being liars; charges the Arabs with insincerity; the Dalmatians (Serbia today) with ferocity. All the poets condemn the cowardice of the Phrygians (Turks). Cicero asserts that the Greeks are frivolous by nature and empty by education. He agrees with Jerome who said each province forms its own characteristics.

In the same way, says Lápide, the Apostle Paul charges the Galatians with the defects inherent in their ethnicity in describing them as somber, stubborn, and slow to wisdom. Hilary of Poitiers (310-367 AD), calls the Gauls obstinate; and again, he insists that the stupidity of the Galatians can be traced to their inclination to believe to all sorts of foolish heresies. Lápide then tells how he once visited Ancyra (Ankara today), the largest metropolis of Galatia, will agree that they were torn with schisms. They can’t get along with each other, let alone foreigners. This is what Paul was dealing with, and to know this should help us understand why he was so frustrated with the sudden turn back to doing things the old way.

But Lapide is also drawn to how this verse is interpreted by early church scholars. For instance, Jerome interprets the Latin verb præscriptus (Greek, prographō – “set forth” KJV; “portrayed” NIV) to mean that the death of Christ was, predicted by the prophets and in the sacraments of the Old Law. But Lapide says there is a third and better meaning. The Anointed One was put in writing, or by a picture, before their very eyes, crucified. The Galatians were not spectators of the actual Crucifixion, but by preaching and faith the Anointed One was represented to them as crucified. The sense, then, is: Though crucified at Jerusalem in fact, yet the Anointed One was presented as though He was crucified for them to see. O Galatians, by my preaching and your eyes of faith, says Paul, you saw Christ hanging on the Cross more clearly than did the Jews who stood at its foot. Who, then, has cast a spell upon those eyes which have so clearly seen Christ crucified?[8]

William Burkitt (1654-1703) seems filled with emotion as he describes what Paul remembers how it was when he taught the Galatians the story of Jesus. For him, the senseless and atrocious aggravation caused by this cowardly act of the Galatians occurred after Jesus the Messiah was evidently portrayed by Paul in order for them to visualize the scene as though they were standing there on Calvary to see the horror of His brutal suffering and agonizing death. Yes, the Messiah who bought their freedom from the bondage of the ceremonial law with great purpose and design for their liberty in grace. Paul made it so real that they could see the Messiah being crucified as they stood and watched.

Then Burkitt turns to the Judaizing professors, heretics, and false teachers and labels them with the infamous brand of being spiritual sorcerers, and calling their doctrines spiritual witchcraft: O foolish Galatians, who has made such fools out of you? As sorcerers, deluding the senses, made people believe that what they see can disappear by the sleight of hand in the same way an illusionist makes an object appear and disappear into thin air. Heretics are no better. They manipulate human reasoning so as to take what is half-truth and make them believe it is the whole truth. Sorcerers are able to do things beyond their own ability and skill by the help of Satan, and heretical spirits are often, with Satan’s cooperation, make their doctrines based on imagination so attractive that it draws multitudes of followers. O foolish Galatians, who has so successfully dazzled and deluded you with such success?[9]

I like the way Matthew Henry (1662-1714) puts it in what we often call, “plain English.” In other words, short, precise, and to the point. He sees the Apostle Paul here in verse one dealing with those who, after embracing the Messiah by faith, they still continued to seek justification through works of the Law, depending on their own obedience to the Law’s moral precepts as their right standing before God. But finding it inefficient, added sacrifices and the rite of purifications to make up for the difference. At first. Paul sharply admonishes them, and then endeavors, by telling them the truth, to go back to trusting in the Messiah alone for their justification. This, says Henry, is the right way to do it. Once we admonish someone about any fault or an error is to show them why it is a fault or error.[10]

[1] Isaiah 53

[2] Jerome: On Galatians, op. cit., Edwards, M. J. (Ed.), pp. 35–363:27.

[3] See Matthew 15:16

[4] Martin Luther: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 55

[5] Martin Luther: Table Talk, Of the Law and the Gospel, p. 281

[6] Calvin, John: Institutes of the Christian Religion, op. cit., Of the Knowledge of God the Creator, the Argument, Bk. 1, Ch. 11, p. 125

[7] William Perkins. Knowing Christ Crucified, op. cit., p. 633

[8] Cornelius à Lápide: Ibid, p. 261

[9] William Burkitt: On Galatians: op. cit., p. 313

[10] Matthew Henry: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

 CHAPTER THREE (Lesson II)

As Paul himself stated on occasions of being familiar with the classical writings of the Greek philosophers. Whether or not he took the time to read the Dialogues of Plato we don’t know, but living in a society influenced by these works, it’s possible to assume he was aware of their message. In Plato’s “Euthyphro,” there is a dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates in which they are discussing the good old days when people were honored for their righteous living and were thereby loved and favored by the gods. Socrates reminds Euthyphro: Remember when we talked about how people who are holy or dedicated are the ones loved by the gods, or did they forget? Oh no, replied Euthyphro, I still remember. And do you agree, Socrates continues, that the gods’ love and hold dear that which is holy? That’s true, said Euthyphro. Even to the Greeks, people who dedicated themselves to that which was holy were seen as desired role models and inspired great admiration.

Paul struggled with the fact that the Galatians forgot so quickly the very thing that made them new creatures in the Anointed One; it was not their piety or efforts that filled their hearts with joy but their love and faith in the Anointed One. Given the same phenomenon in today’s churches, when comparing them to congregations as far back as 100 years ago, what do we see that’s been lost over time?  Certainly we don’t recommend going back to wearing the same clothes, singing the same songs, following the same formats for worship services, enforcing the same strict codes of outward holiness to please church authorities instead of God, or holding the same biases and expressing the same animosity toward other denominations; but what about the fire, the revivals, the mighty move of the Holy Spirit turning villages, towns and even cities upside-down? Where did that go?

Was it the same thing that made Paul’s heartache? Is it the same that makes those who remember the church they belong to and the church they heard about from their parents, are teary-eyed with sorrow as they sit through church services today? If anything, it may be that the saints of days gone by were seen as totally, entirely, completely, and wholeheartedly sold out to God. The Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Word of God was the number one priority in their lives. Everything else took second place. Each time they attended church it was with the expectation that something miraculous was going to happen. They were laughed at and ridiculed as Holy Rollers but held their heads high. Not out of pride, but with courage and virtue; to honor God who reigned supreme in their hearts and minds, regardless of the consequences.

Paul delivered a similar message to the wavering Corinthians when he wrote: I preach that the Anointed One died on a cross to save people from their sins. These words are hard for the Jews to listen to. The Greek people think it is foolish. But the Anointed One is the power and wisdom of God to those who are chosen to be saved from the punishment of sin for both Jews and Greeks.[1] When Paul arrived in the province of Galatia, he aimed for the same goal as the one he aimed at when he went to the area of Corinth.[2]

Apparently, Paul also shared with the Galatians a very graphic illustration of how the Anointed One died on the cross for their sins.  It almost makes you wonder if Paul was in the crowd to watch Jesus die in order to make the crucifixion so detailed. Not only was Jesus the Anointed One the center of Paul’s revelation on the road to Damascus, but the Anointed One and the cross became the main theme of all Paul’s sermons. Since Paul never minced words, it appears he spoke of the Anointed One’s suffering and death with His beatings, hanging, bleeding, crying out, and dying on a cross made of splinter filled logs, which left little to the imagination.

One of the earliest Church writers, Tertullian (155-240 AD), thought it was incredible to think that the Apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they were to declare or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, as the heretics were claiming. They base their criticism on Paul’s rebuke of the Galatians.[3] They also offer what Paul told the Corinthians because of their constant quarreling.[4] So it may not be what the Apostles were preaching but that the churches, through their own fault misinterpreted what the Apostles were telling them. When these heretics raise their objection to the churches being rebuked, let them not forget that because of these rebukes the churches were also corrected. After all, it was over those same churches that Paul said he kept thanking God, through Jesus the Anointed One, for all of them because the whole world knew of their faith in the Anointed One.[5]

You would think that after this impassioned plea to the Galatians that they not turn away from their faith in the Gospel and also not turn toward each other in contention and debate that it would have quieted down. But we read in a letter by Basil, Bishop of Caesarea (329-380 AD), to Petrus II, the Bishop of Alexandria (c. 340-381 AD), that even up until his day there was friction and strife among the Churches in Galatia by outsiders. He wrote that the Arians[6] to the detriment of the Church has nevertheless been endurable to me, because of their being the work of open foes and enemies of the word of truth. It is when these men do something unusual that I am astonished, not when they attempt something great and daring against true religion. But I am grieved and troubled at what is being done by men who feel and think like me.

So, I was not agitated, says Basil, at the recent disorderly proceedings because I preferred to wait for somebody else to give you such disagreeable news. Also, I did not think it reasonable that I should show indignation at such proceedings, as though I were annoyed at being ignored. To the actual agents in the matter, I have written in encouraging terms, exhorting them, because of the dissension arising among some of the brethren there, not to fall away from being kind, but to wait for the matter to be set right by those who have authority to remedy disorders due to ecclesiastical problems. I am grateful to the Lord that you are a staunch supporter of ancient discipline, and that the Church has not lost her own might in my persecution.

Though aggravated again by the Galatians, I was never able to give them an answer, because I waited for your decision. Now, if the Lord so will and they will consent to listen to me, I hope that I shall be able to bring the people back to Church. It cannot then be thrown back in my face that I have sided with Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (c. 300-374 AD)[7] and they will not become limbs of the body of the Church of Christ. Thus, the disgrace caused by such heresy will be made to disappear by the method I adopt, and I shall escape the condemnation of having gone over to their side.[8]

Gregory the Great (540-604 AD) sees Paul’s calling out the Galatians for being so foolish, is because it appeared that having begun in the Spirit, they were now claiming to be perfect through the works of the flesh. But the faults of those who are ashamed he reprimands as though sympathizing with them, saying, rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last you have succeeded again in wanting to care for me, as indeed you do care, even though an opportunity to do so was lacking.[9] Paul did this says Gregory so that hard scolding might uncover the faults of those who have turned away from the truth, and a milder scolding to somewhat hide the negligence of those who were still faithful, even though there were unstable in their faith.[10]

As Chrysostom sees it, after having established himself as a trustworthy teacher, Paul now speaks with great authority in comparing the Law and Faith. Having chided these foolish Galatians earlier for having departed so quickly from his teachings,[11] he questions their capability to comprehend what he told them about the Anointed One dying on the cross since before their very eyes he clearly portrayed Yeshua the Messiah as having been put to death as a criminal! In doing this, says Chrysostom, Paul does not transgress the Anointed One’s law, which forbids calling his brother a fool.[12] No one deserved more to be called foolish than the Galatians after hearing and seeing so many great things they still held onto their former Jewish ways as though nothing happened!

Then Chrysostom asks since the Anointed One was not crucified in Galatia but in Jerusalem, what did Paul mean by this phrase “before whose eyes?” The answer, he was illustrating the power of faith, which is able to see even those things far off. And he said not “crucified” but “portrayed as crucified,” showing that with the eyes of faith they saw more accurately than those who were there and witnessed the events. This was said in an attempt to both reprimand and to commend them. He praises them for having listened to his messages with enthusiasm but reprimands them because, having seen the Anointed One stripped, crucified, nailed, spat on, mocked, drinking vinegar, insulted by thieves, and pierced with a spear, they forsook Him with such haste in order to run to the law. How could they not be moved by seeing the Anointed One suffering on their behalf?[13]

And in another one of his homilies, Chrysostom points out that although Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, not in Galatia, still they were able to see the events from a distance. That’s because they were looking at the scene of the crucifixion Paul displayed for them through their spiritual eyes. Says Jerome, “They saw more distinctly than some who were present as spectators.” As such, the Galatians became eye-witnesses by faith. It is sad that rather than what Paul said to them about their seeing the crucifixion was expressed as praise, it was, unfortunately, placing blame on their lack of faith and dismissal of the Anointed One’s death on the cross on Mount Calvary as less important than Moses’ receiving the Ten Commandments on Mount Horeb in the wilderness of Sinai.[14]

[1] 1 Corinthians 1:23-24

[2] Ibid. 2:2

[3] Galatians 3:1

[4] 1 Corinthians 3:3

[5] Tertullian, Part 2, Bk. 1, A Treatise on the Soul, Ch. 27, p. 462

[6] Arianism in the doctrine of Christ the Anointed One, is that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325).

[7] Marcellus of Ancyra was a staunch opponent of the Arians. St. Epiphanius observes, that there was a great deal of dispute with regard to the real tenets of Marcellus; but as to his followers, it is evident that they did not own the three hypostases; for Marcellus considered the Son and Holy Ghost as two emanations from the divine nature, which, after performing their respective offices, were to return again into the substance of the Father; and this opinion is altogether incompatible with the belief of three distinct persons of the Godhead.

[8] Basil of Cæsarea: Letter to Petrus, Bishop of Alessandria, Letter 266, pp. 676-678

[9] Cf. Philippians 4:10

[10] Gregory the Great, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 12, The Book of Pastoral Rule, Part 3, Ch. 7, p. 539

[11] Galatians 1:6

[12] Matthew 5:22

[13] Chrysostom: Homily on Galatians, op. cit., Edwards, M. J. (Ed.)., p. 35

[14] Chrysostom: The Complete Works of St. John Chrysostom, (Kindle Location 64083)

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson I)

3:1 My foolish friends in Galatia, are you that naïve? Has some strange power confused your thought process? I made the meaning of Jesus the Anointed One’s death as clear as if you were there yourself to see Him dying on the cross.

 We are not told by Luke in his Acts of the Apostles or the Apostle Paul in his Epistles what happened in Galatia after this incident, but we are able to take a look at how the church there eventually dealt with such turning away from the faith. English historian and member of the British Parliament, Edward Gibbon (1737-1749), writing about the progress of the Christian religion in the Roman Empire, tells how wayward believers were treated by the Church.

Gibbon concurs that it is the indisputable right of every society to exclude from its membership and benefits those who reject or violate those rules and regulations that are established by mutual consent. So, it is not out of order for the Christian church to take similar action against what he calls scandalous sinners, and particularly those who were guilty of murder, or fraud, and especially those who authored or followed heretical doctrines. This especially involved those who whether from choice or compulsion polluted themselves after their baptism by any act of idolatrous worship.

This, says Gibbon, resulted in excommunication, whether it proved physical as well as spiritual in nature. The fallen Christian against whom charges were brought were deprived of any part in the worship, communion, and sacraments provided to faithful. There were even cases where both religious and private friendships were dissolved. As such, they found themselves considered an abomination to the persons whom they most highly esteemed, or by whom they were the most tenderly beloved.

So, the situation of these unfortunate rejects proved to be very painful and grievous. Nevertheless, the door to reconciliation always stood open. However, Gibbon tells us, with regard to the treatment of these repentant souls, two opposite opinions were taken, one of justice and one of mercy divided the primitive church. The very rigid and inflexible members of the Church refused them forever, and without exception, leaving them to suffer their remorse of a guilty conscience on their own. On the other hand, a milder opinion was embraced in practice as well as in theory, by the humblest and most respectable of the Christian churches. For them, the gates of reconciliation and of heaven were seldom shut against the returning backslider; but a severe and solemn form of discipline was nevertheless instituted, which, while it served to offer forgiveness for their failure, was also devised to become a powerful deterrent to those who might follow their bad example.

Gibbon then tells us that they were first humbled by a public confession, then they were ordered to fast wearing sackcloth as they lay prostrate at the door of the sanctuary, imploring with tears the pardon for their offenses, and requesting the prayers of the faithful. If their backsliding resulted in some very atrocious acts of immorality, then one whole year of penance was considered inadequate to satisfy the divine justice they deserved. According to the circumstances or the number of the guilty, the exercise of the Christian discipline was varied based on the discretion of the bishops.

At this same time, one ecclesiastical council convened in Galatia in the city of Ancyra (Ankara, the capital of Turkey), and another in Spain in the Archdiocese of Seville, but the outcomes were conducted in a very different spirit. If a Galatian who went back into idolatry after their baptism might obtain their pardon by a penance of seven years. Unless, however, they seduced others to imitate their example, three more years were added to the term of their excommunication. But if a Spaniard committed the same offenses, they were deprived of the hope of any reconciliation. In fact, idolatry was placed at the top of the list of seventeen other failures as a Christian, against which a death sentence was also pronounced. Among these were the unpardonable guilt of defrocking and defame a bishop, a presbyter, or even a deacon.[1]

We do not know to what degree Paul’s admonition of the Galatians for their sudden and unadvised turn from Grace to the Law affected the churches at this time, but it does seem to have tempered it into a much more compassionate approach than what the church in Rome order in Spain. Perhaps this is because Paul never made his desired trip there and so was unable to share his approach to forgiveness and reconciliation.

The New Century Version (1976) renders this first verse as, “You people in Galatia were told very clearly about the death of Jesus the Anointed One on the cross. But you were foolish; you let someone trick you.” This same verse from the Aramaic Version reads: “Oh! You foolish, deficient Galatians! Who bewitched you from your faith after Yeshua the Messiah, crucified, was shown before your eyes?” Paul uses the Greek adjective anoetos (“foolish” KJV) to describe the Galatian’s dealings with the Judaizers. It actually means “without understanding” and refers to someone who didn’t get the point. We would say today, “They don’t have a clue about what happened!”

But Paul was not alone, even Moses encountered the same thing with the Israelites in the wilderness of Sinai. The prophet was stunned that while he was worshiping with God up on the mountain, they were worshiping a golden calf down in the valley. So, when Moses came down with a shine on his face, he noticed the shame on the faces of his brother Aaron and the people bowing before the golden calf. So, he said to them, “Is this the way you repay the Lord for all He has done for you? You are stupid, foolish people. He is your Father and your Creator. He made you, and you are what you are because of Him.”[2]

Now, since King Saul was not in the wilderness to learn this lesson, God taught it to him and people who were following him. When Samuel didn’t show up to make a gift offering of lamb and grain, Saul took it upon himself to do so. When Samuel did finally arrive, he said to King Saul, “You committed a foolish act. You did not keep the Law that the Lord your God gave you. If you would have, the Lord would have made your rule over Israel last forever.”[3] It wasn’t that offering a sacrifice of praise for their victory over the Philistines was wrong, nor were the sacrifices chosen out of line, it was because Saul was not the one chosen by God to offer sacrifices. He acted “foolishly.”The same way with the sacrifice on the cross for our sins. It would have been a gallant deed if any of the disciples offered to do such a valiant thing, but it would not have worked because only Yeshua Messiah was ordained by God to do so.

Then the Lord Jesus told a story about two men who built houses, one on low sandy soil and the other on higher solid ground. A storm came and the house on the sandy soil was blown over and carried away by floodwaters, while the house sitting on the higher solid ground remained standing. In explaining His parable to the people, he called the man who built on low sandy soil, “foolish.” His whole point was that those who hear his teachings and do not build their lifestyle based on His words are like this foolish man.[4] Later on, when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he called Lazarus’ two sisters and their neighbors, “foolish” because not only did they doubt His word, but the words of Moses and the Prophets who foretold about the Messiah coming and the wonders He would perform.[5]

No wonder then Paul called the Galatians “foolish” for turning their backs on Paul and the Gospel he was sent to deliver to them. What they didn’t realize was that by turning their backs on Paul, they were turning their backs on the One who sent him. That’s why Paul warned the Ephesians not to forsake the security and guidance that comes from the light of the Gospel and begin wandering around in the darkness of worldly living as they did before.[6]

Then Paul uses another fascinating word to describe what happened to the Galatians. The Greek verb baskainō translated as “bewitched” in the KJV and NIV may be used in several ways. It was also known in Paul’s day among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans as the “evil eye.” In Hebrew, it is called ayin ha’ra. As a matter of fact, in the Jewish Talmud, it is mentioned in one paragraph six times.[7] When we read its history and definition, we could come away with a feeling that this is what we call today “hypnosis.”

That it may be employed to define how one’s mind is changed by defaming another person’s reputation, even someone you once admired and respected. It may also be used to gain favor with someone by flattery and false praise. Then, it may be utilized to charm or spellbind someone into doing or believing something they normally would not do or believe. It appears that the Judaizers did all three to the Galatians in fooling them to accepting their point of view instead of Paul’s.

I’m not inclined to believe that these Judaizers weren’t anything like what Philip faced when he evangelized in Samaria, Luke tells us that a man named Simon practiced witchcraft there. The people of Samaria were surprised at the things he did. He pretended that he was a great man.[8] All the people watched and listened to him. There didn’t seem to be any magic performed like that to get the Galatians to believe the Judaizers. Rather, he was thinking of what he warned the Ephesians about thinking like children whose thought process is like boats blown around on big waves by a strong wind.[9]

Paul then points out what he feels is an obvious barrier in being made fools of like the Galatians were by the Judaizers. It was simple, just believe what’s true! By obeying the truth there comes spiritual prosperity, but by believing what is untrue may only bring severe punishment.[10] Not only that but then a person becomes vulnerable to the power of sin. To hold on to the truth will allow a person to be victorious through the power of God.[11] And with that power it allows the believer to, “…break down every thought and proud thing that puts itself up against the wisdom of God. We take hold of every thought and make it obey the Anointed One.”[12]

[1] Gibbon, Edward: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, Progress of the Christian Religion, Ch. 15, Part 7, pp. 428-430

[2] Deuteronomy 32:6

[3] 1 Samuel 13:13

[4] Matthew 7:26

[5] Luke 24:25

[6] Ephesians 5:13-15

[7] Talmud: Tractate, Berakoth, folio 55b

[8] Acts of the Apostles, 8:9-11

[9] Ephesians: 14-16

[10] Romans 2:8

[11] Ibid. 6:17

[12] 2 Corinthians 10:5

The venerated Jewish teacher Moses Maimonides, tells the story of a young rabbi who was born in Jerusalem around 70 AD – that would put him on the scene just a few years after the death of the Apostle Paul, and in the year the Temple was destroyed by Roman general Titus.  And just like Saul of Tarsus, this young rabbi was known as Elisha ben Abuyah who sought to educate himself on all things profound and intellectual. Elisha, whose nickname was “Aher,” was mentioned in the Jewish Mishnah, Tractate “Aboth” (4:20), as having a unique view of education. It reads, “He that learns as a child is like ink written on a new piece of paper. He who learns as an old man is like ink written on used paper with many erasures.”  Aher was a student of Greek.  According to Jewish tradition, as written in the Jerusalem Talmud, “Aḥer’s tongue was never tired of singing Greek songs,” which, according to some, caused his eventual leaving the Jewish faith. But his most famous tactic, for which he acquired an embarrassing reputation, was promoting himself as a self-appointed authority on all questions concerning righteous living.

One such incident occurred when a disciple, Rabbi Meir, sat in the synagogue in Tiberias on the Sabbath expounding to his students. Word reached him that his mentor Rabbi Aher was riding around in the marketplace on a horse. So, Rabbi Meir stopped his class and ran over the marketplace to see for himself. When he arrived Aher looked at him and asked, “What verse have you been expounding on today?”  Rabbi Meir replied: “So the LORD blessed Job in the second half of his life even more than in the beginning.” (Job 42:12).  Aher then asked: “How did you explain this to your students?”  Rabbi Meir responded: “The Lord gave Job twice as much at the end as he had before. In other words, God doubled his possessions.”  Aher smugly remarked, “Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph, who alas is gone and not alive, would have explained it differently.  He would have said: ‘The Lord blessed the latter end of Job because of his observance of precepts and good deeds that had been his from the beginning’.”

By using such tactics, Aher hoped to elevate himself above others as an infallible wise man. Rabbi Moses Maimonides uses this story to warn those who try to pretend that they know more than they actually do.  By doing so they end up making gibberish out of what should be a clear explanation. He then points to Proverbs 25:16 which says, “If you find honey, eat only what you need; for if you eat too much, it will make you throw up!” Too much of a good thing is always lurking when people stuff themselves with more information than they can comprehend and end up simply regurgitating gibberish. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

DO WE REALLY GO TO GOD’S HOUSE FOR WORSHIP?

From the earliest of times, as chronicled in Near East documents, Egyptian writings, Hebrew Writings and even in the Acts of the Apostles, temples were understood to be temporary residences of the gods.  King David certainly had that in mind when he bemoaned the fact that his palace was one of luxury, but Yahweh had no place to dwell.  It was also understood, that an earthly temple was a symbol of, or even a shadow of, that particular god’s heavenly abode. That is why many temples were made as ornate as possible, so they could reasonably compare to the real temple in the cosmos. But never was a temple considered as a house of worship. The worship was most often done at an altar in front of the Temple.  Prayers were said in front of the image at the Temple. It served as a bond, or link, or portal between heaven and earth for the god to use. This would provide a place for the god to go once he left his celestial dwelling place to visit earth. That would prevent him from having to roam or be homeless without a place to dwell.

So, when their god was present in his or her temple, then the people could come to the shrine and worship them. That’s why we call our church a “House of God.” This means that the house belongs to God. That’s why we go there to worship Him. However, Jesus said that all true worshipers must worship God in “spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24.)  That is, true worship takes place on the inside, in the heart or spirit of the worshiper, it does not require a building (cf. Psalm 45:1; 103:1-2). In order for our worship to be pleasing to God, it must be genuine and transparent, offered with a humble and pure heart (Psalm 24:3-4; Isaiah 66:2.), not merely visiting a building. Therefore, we gather there to praise Him and pray to Him. When we go, we should already have the mindset that God is meeting us there at His house.

Although the following are beautiful melodies, I sometimes wonder why we sing, “Holy Spirit, thou art welcome in this place,” or “Holy Spirit You are welcome here, come flood this place and fill the atmosphere.” The Jews had a different perspective.  Habakkuk said in 2:20, “The Lord is in His holy temple, so the whole earth should be silent in His presence and show Him respect.” We must remember, the earth is not the center of our galaxy, the sun is. Likewise, we are not the center of our spiritual universe, the Son of God is. And did not Jesus say in Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am with them.”  Would it be out of line if we sang, “Holy Spirit make us welcomed in this place,” or “Holy Spirit we feel welcomed here, you flood this place and fill the atmosphere.” I believe that if more people thought this way, they would act differently, dress differently, and conduct themselves differently in God’s house.  You are not there for your sake; you are there for His sake. He did not come because you drew Him there, you came because He drew you there. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

By Dr. Robert R Seyda

GALATIANS

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER TWO

Galatians Chapter 2 shows how the Apostles accepted Paul’s gospel message concluding he had been sent by God to preach to the Gentiles. Paul opposes Peter and the brethren who had distanced themselves from the Gentiles and fell back into Jewish customs and laws. He cites that no one will be justified by observing the law and concludes that if righteousness could be obtained by the law, Christ died for nothing.

In this chapter, we also get to perhaps the very heart of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. It comes as a result of the question of whether a Gentile must first become a Jew, and follow Jewish law–dietary and other–to be a real follower of Jesus.  According to Paul, James, brother of Jesus said yes, and Paul said no. Paul won the argument.

Then we run across this issue in Mark 7:5-15, in which the Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples eat with unclean hands. Jesus’ response is that ‘it’s not what goes into a person that makes him unclean, but what comes out.’ Jewish dietary laws are not necessary.

But, ask yourself, did Jesus really say that?  If He did, why did Paul and James have to have an argument over it? Why didn’t the James Gang in Jerusalem follow the teaching of Jesus on this point? The answer, because Jesus didn’t say that. It was Paul who made it OK for new members of the Jesus community not to follow Jewish dietary laws, but, more importantly, that adult males would not have to submit to circumcision. This was a huge development. It removed a major barrier to getting non-Jews to accept the word of Jesus.

There is a reason for taking the following in chronological order in which they were written. What came first?

• The ideas encountered: A revelation tells Paul to go to Jerusalem after 14 years.
• The revelation may be the reason he’s able to stand up to the controversy he encounters there
• A significant rift between Paul and James about remaining Jewish.  It seems that James sent agents to spy on both Paul and Peter, to undermine the freedom these two had. Freedom, presumably, from maintaining all the Jewish dietary and other laws.
• They reach an agreement: Paul is the Apostle to the uncircumcised, while Peter is the Apostle to the circumcised
• Peter liked to live like a Gentile until James’ agents caught him. Paul uses this to push his point that if Jews can’t live like Jews, how can Gentiles be expected to do so?
• What is this about Justification by Faith!!!
• The Law vs Faith
• Christ living in Paul. Rather a novel concept, don’t you believe
• If we are justified by the Law, why did Christ die?

So the confrontation between Paul and Peter and between Paul and the Gang from Jerusalem was more than just ethics. Salvation by faith hung in the balance. Had Peter and James won, Christianity would be nothing more than an extreme Jewish sect. But because Paul won, Christianity is a separate vine on the holy olive tree. Thank God for giving Paul the courage to stand firm with the help of the Holy Spirit.

But Paul is far from finished with admonishing, instructing, and motivating the Galatians. Next in line will be his discourse on “God’s Righteousness by Being Faithful,” “Mankind’s Unrighteousness by Being Unfaithful,” and “Real Righteousness by Faith.” It will be an exciting time of discovering more nuggets of spiritual wisdom and spiritual nutrition in order to grow stronger and more in the image of the Anointed One.

So, one Monday, October 7, we will begin our journey through Galatians Chapter Three. I am so proud of all of you who are God-loving, Bible-loving, and faithful readers of God’s Word. I’m sure that if I feel that way, God must also feel the same, the Holy Spirit is overjoyed at your willingness to take time out of your day to hear from the Lord. So we will see you on Monday! God bless you! – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LVII)

This then leads to another question: “How can someone die to the Law through the Law?” Ryken says it may make more sense if Paul died to the Law so he might live for God. Instead, he declares that it was the Law itself that persuaded him to abandon the law as though he died. This could mean that Paul saw the futility of the Law in providing justification before God and salvation for the punishment due to him as a lawbreaker and thus a sinner.[1] It wouldn’t make sense for the Law to die because those commandments were meant to last forever. So, it dawned on Paul that the Law could not save him, all it could do was condemn him. Ryken then quotes from the writings of the Scottish Puritan minister John Brown (1784-1858), who said that the sinner must, therefore, cease to expect justification and salvation by obedience its requirements. I like what else John Brown says; when it comes to God’s grand manifestation of His free sovereign love as the way to salvation through the sacrifice of the Anointed One and faith in the Gospel, “If we act in such a way as to lead to the implication that this display of God’s love and Grace on the cross was either unnecessary or insufficient for its avowed purpose,” we are frustrating the Grace of God.[2] Since the Law cannot promise life it is only threatening sinners with death. So, it is not surprising that Paul decided to declare himself dead to the Law.[3]

Duncan Hester makes the point that when we frustrate the Grace of God, we are also frustrating the Will of God. It is a total waste of the blood of the Lamb of God poured out for sinners such as we. Paul wanted the Judaizers to know that he gave up on the Law, not the Grace of God. To waste God’s Grace would be to make everything the Anointed One did for us nothing more than rubbish. Such a thought should not only have been unthinkable for the Apostle Paul but for us as well.[4]

Don Garlington observes that for the Jews, the Torah was the embodiment of God’s Grace. Therefore, by making a shipwreck of the Torah Paul was frustrating the Grace of God. But, says Garlington, this is precisely what Paul does not do, because “if righteousness is through the law, then the Anointed One died for no purpose.” Paul’s vocabulary now shifts from “grace” to “righteousness” because “righteousness” is the outcome of “grace.” If God’s grace represents His giving of Himself to His people in His election and nourishment of them, then Israel’s expected response should be righteousness and being faithful to the terms of the covenant relationship established at Sinai. Righteousness, therefore, speaks of Israel’s obligations and privileges under the law. This being so, Paul’s logic is clear enough: if their relationship with God is unchanged by the coming of the Messiah, then the death of the Anointed One is of “no purpose,” because of Paul’s use of the Greek adjective dōrean, (“in vain” KJV). Because the Jews believed that the Sinai covenant made every provision for salvation and timeless life needed why switch? Therefore, God’s people might as well continue under that covenant. But as we see, Paul objected to such thinking vigorously by arguing from both history and prophecy.[5]

For most of us, it is so hard to shake off the addiction of getting applause and compliments by being good, doing what’s right, and pleasing those in authority in order to be favored, treated special, and loved. Truth is, many of us were raised that way. From infancy we were told by our parents, “Mommy will love you if you drink your milk from a glass; daddy will love you if you sit there nice and quiet and let him watch TV; mommy will love you if you keep your room clean; daddy will love you if you get good grades in school.” The list is almost endless. Without being conscious of it, we were trained to “earn love.”

Marriages are often built on this same platform. So, it is no surprise that some churches also adopted this same scale for rewarding those who are faithful and hard working. That’s why it seems so hard to accept the love of God as a “gift.” Truth is, we can’t earn it, merit it, beg for it, bargain for it, or receive it as an award just for participating. This seemed to be one of the sticking points among the Jewish believers. They worked their whole lives to merit God’s love; how could they now be convinced they didn’t need to keep earning it anymore? As the contextual paraphrase puts this verse: “Therefore, I do not reject God’s free offer of a guiltless and righteous standing with Him based on the Anointed One’s death and by trying to obey His Law. For if we could be guiltless and righteous by obeying His Law, then the Anointed One’s death was utterly useless.”[6]

God wants to help us understand that doing all we do – such as reading the Bible, praying, going to church, worshiping, serving in the congregation, and volunteering for church ministries should not be intended to make Him love us more and bless us more. He wants us to do it because we love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength for setting us free from sin’s bondage. “Whom the Son sets free is free indeed!” Those who worship Him will worship Him in spirit and in truth! God loves us because of who we are in the Anointed One, we don’t need to earn it. Ask yourself honestly, how much of your Christian life and activities are performed because you believe that God will love you more because you are being so good? Would you accept this instead: “Everything you do for God is intended to honor Him and glorify Him, not to please Him?” As Paul told the believers in Rome: “He did not spare even His own Son but gave Him up for us all, won’t He also give us everything else?”[7]

Early church writer Victorinus gives us a well-constructed summary by saying that Paul reached a conclusion about the errors of the Galatians and those who add the legality of Judaism to the grace of Christianity. It is obvious that if justice is through the Law, the Anointed One died for nothing. However, if the Anointed One died because justification does not depend on the Law then we ought to follow the Anointed One and Him alone. If after the coming of the Anointed One, however, we still believe that we are justified through good works, then the Anointed One did not die on our account but died in vain – that is, died for no reason. To believe in the Anointed One and follow the works of the Law is inconsistent and self-contradictory. Since the Law consistently failed to justify humankind on the basis of its works, the Anointed One came, so that there would be justification for humankind by His death. To return now to the Law after faith in the Anointed One will make it seem as though the Anointed One died in vain and achieved nothing for us, as the Law was already supposedly doing so. But in fact, the Law was not doing it, and that is why the Anointed One came to do it Himself. Therefore, the Anointed One did not die in vain; rather, through the Anointed One Himself, justification came to us. If this is the case, there is no justice on the basis of the works of the Law. So, we might as well die to the Law as a means of salvation.[8] However, once justified by the work of the Anointed One on the cross, then the Law becomes a guideline for following Him in a way that is pleasing to Him.

END OF CHAPTER TWO

[1] See Romans 7:9-11

[2] John Brown: An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Published by William Oliphant and Sons, Edinburgh, 1853, p.98

[3] Ryken, Philip Graham: op cit., Kindle Location 1300-1313

[4] Duncan Heaster: On Galatians, op. cit., loc., cit, Kindle Location 596-602), Kindle Edition.

[5] Don Garlington: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.,

[6] Aiyer, Ramsey, The Contextual Bible Galatians, loc. cit., p. 88

[7] Romans 8:2

[8] Marius Victorinus, Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LVI)

John Eadie wants his readers to know that the “Grace” of God is not to be confused with the “Gospel,” nor the “Work of the Anointed One” on the cross. The fact that the Anointed One died for sinners is proof positive God’s Grace preexisted, and His sovereign kindness was manifested in the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus the Anointed One. All of this was spontaneous on God’s part and was not based on any merit we may think we earned by good works.[1] I would be more inclined to say that all of this was preplanned when it happened instead of spontaneous. But, in its preplanned stage, it was spontaneous.

Eadie goes on to say that Paul’s realization of being in union with the Anointed One, dying with Him, and rising with Him, and his conscious possession of the Anointed One as his life within him that was put into motion and sustained by faith in the Son of God were proof enough for him that he was not being ungrateful for the grace of God. By trusting in the Anointed One, and in Him alone, he was magnifying the grace of God. This no doubt was why Paul was frustrated with Peter’s conduct in Antioch in which he seemed to be setting aside the grace of God. Paul wanted the Galatians, and all believers, to know that if anyone puts their faith in good works in any way, either completely or in part, as a way of affirming their place in justification before God as His child, is either opposed to faith or supplementing it. Grace is a gift from God, not a wage or earned merit. To do anything apart from the grace of God to secure salvation is making a mockery of the Anointed One’s work and death on the cross.[2]

William O’Conor makes the point that after refuting suggestions that the Anointed One might be the minister of sin if we were justified by faith, and not by the works of the law, Paul now establishes the doctrine of justification by faith by showing that the rival doctrine would leave the leading principle of the Christian religion without a motive or end. There is no alternative to fulfilling the Law outside of the Anointed One who was the complete fulfillment of the law. This was something our Lord did far better than even the most dedicated saint could accomplish. So, it is clear, the Anointed One did not die without a cause. But if righteousness, and consequent justification and sanctification, were attainable by the Law, the Anointed One risked being put to death for no reason or cause. Righteousness is, therefore, not attainable by the Law, and consequently, we must seek it through faith in the Anointed One’s death. The attainment of righteousness is the end of all that God did for us. The superiority of the Gospel to the Law is that the Law failed to make anyone righteous while God’s grace made that possible to even the lowest sinner. The Law fails because it knows no mercy, and produces a disposition also lacking in mercy. The Gospel succeeds because it presents to us a Savior who, by faith, becomes our Inward Life perfected in righteousness because of the Anointed One.[3]

Then Alvah Hovey concludes it is worthwhile to remember that God’s providence is a factor of history. A man named Paul was present in Antioch by the will of God who could meet the emergency in such a way that even Peter’s misrepresentation of grace was overruled for good. Humanly speaking, it was just the place and the time for this occurrence. A great and heretofore unsettled question could now be answered in such a manner as to satisfy the Gentiles, if not the Jews. It was answered in strict agreement with the spirit and genius of Christianity. If the divine hand is ever discernible in human affairs, it is in this sad but important transaction in front of the congregation at Antioch. And it was a transaction, the recital of which could not fail but to impress the Galatians the high authority of Paul as an Apostolic Christian teacher, and the perfect clearness and truth of the Gospel he preached. It introduced, therefore, in a most effective manner the argument which he was about to make in support of the doctrine of salvation by the grace of God through faith in the Anointed One.[4]

Charles Spurgeon, in a sermon on this twenty-first verse which he titles, “Salvation by Works, A Criminal Doctrine,” says that no one was more explicit than Paul in conveying the doctrine that we are not justified before God by works of any kind, but solely by the Grace of God. This loud trumpet alert does not go out with an uncertain sound, it is a clear and recognizable note: “By Grace, you are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”[5] We should never tolerate any tampering with this matter of Grace over Works, no should there be any redaction of its true meaning. When this is detected, there should be a call to war, to pull out our sword of the Spirit,[6] and never yield to the enemy’s attack.

Spurgeon goes on to define what he calls the two great crimes committed by those trying to replace Grace with the Law. First, is the crime of frustrating the Grace of God, and the second is that such self-justification makes a mockery of the death of the Anointed One. Spurgeon also admits that there are some who think that they are too great a sinner to be saved at all. That their sins are indelible and cannot be washed away. Without knowing it they are voiding the Grace of God by making its power and limiting its might. It’s another way of saying that our Redeemer’s blood and our Father’s grace are not enough. Spurgeon then quotes from a song sung in his day that goes: “Who is a pardoning God like Thee? Or who has grace so rich and free?”[7] [8]

Vincent in his Word Studies points out that the Greek noun charis used by Paul and translated as “grace” (KJV), is that which brings us “joy.” As used in Scripture it reveals a higher meaning as something based on the fact that it is a free gift or a gracious favor. It cannot be earned. It is free, spontaneous, and signifies the absolute loving-kindness of God toward humanity. As such, it is in contrast to the ideas of debt, law, works, and sin. This free gift of Grace is given to us through God’s gracious gift of His Son who died to redeem us.[9] This was also something no other person could do.[10]

Jewish writer David Stern writes about how God’s Grace is a gift. First, the death of the Messiah Yeshua on our behalf was a gift from He and the Father. It provided the believer with a proper righteous standing before God. Secondly, the Messiah living in the believer allows them to be righteous in their behavior. This is also a gift in that it cannot be manufactured by the believer on their own. This was especially true of the Jews who through a legalistic following of the Torah tried to be right with God based on their obedience to the Law. Stein finishes by saying that having the Anointed One in us helps in our progress toward holiness. But this does not result from putting one’s trust in God followed by a lifetime of legalism. Rather, it results from trusting God through a growing faith that endures until death.[11]

Another Jewish writer, Adriaan Liebenberg, hears Paul talking to the Judaizers who infiltrated the congregation in Galatia, as well as to the Galatians themselves, that if being right with God involved some adherence to the Torah, the possibility existed for them to declare themselves righteous without needing the help of a Messiah a long time ago. So, Yeshua died on the cross for no reason. However, even those who believed in Yeshua as the Messiah was told by the Judaizers that they were not completely saved until they learned to obey the Torah by being circumcised. But Paul is telling them that they were all saved the moment they chose to repent and put their faith in Yeshua. And what good news that is! Their hearts were purified by faith the moment they repented and believed. It is just as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost.[12] Even the prophet Ezekiel prophesied what happened on Pentecost.[13] So what the Judaizers were telling the Galatians was a contradiction of what happened in the Upper Room in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost.[14]

Then, Avi ben Mordechai presents the Jewish perspective on what Paul is talking about here. He begins by pointing out that long ago, Yahweh chose to show mercy to Israel for their adultery with idols.[15] It’s part of God’s plan to reconcile after their divorce and capital crime, pay what they owed to the Law, and forgive their sins.[16] It was all designed to prevent the punishment that God decreed in their being exiled, leaving the door open for the nation as a whole to repent[17] and be restored.[18] However, if anyone should rebuild a path back to the very things that caused judgment in the first place,[19] then they would, of course, be guilty of frustrating the Grace of God. It would be their way of saying, “No thank you, God. We don’t want Your Law or Your Mercy. We prefer doing it our own way instead of Yours.” To say this, would be to trample upon Divine Grace and open ourselves to an even greater timeless judgment.[20] [21]

Dr. Philip Ryken, President of Wheaton College, begins by asking, “What does it mean to ‘die to the Law.‘” He wants us to notice that it is not the Law that does the dying. Rather, it was Paul who died to the Law. Considering the fact that Paul was a staunch Pharisee at one time, this no doubt proved particularly hard for him to do. As a Pharisee, he lived for the Law and by the Law. But now that he is a Christian, he no longer shares any relationship with the Law. In other words, Paul is no longer under contract to the Law. Ryken quotes John Calvin who said: “To die to the law is to renounce it and be freed from its dominion so that we put no confidence in it and it does not hold us captive under the yoke of slavery.”[22] [23]

[1] See Ephesians 2:4-9

[2] John Eadie: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 194-195

[3] W. A. O’Conor: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 41–42

[4] Alvah Hovey: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 36

[5] Ephesians 2:8-9

[6] Ibid. 6:17

[7] Great God of Wonders: by Samuel Davies, 1884

[8] Charles H. Spurgeon’s Sermons on Galatians: Book by Book Sermons, Kindle Edition, Location 2348-2550

[9] See 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:6, 19; 1 Peter 1:10, 13

[10] Vincent, Marvin. Word Studies in Galatians (Kindle Location (519-522).  Kindle Edition.

[11] David H. Stern: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Location (15464-15473), Kindle Edition.

[12] Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39

[13] Ezekiel 36:27

[14] W. Adriaan Liebenberg: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 46

[15] Hosea 1-2; Ezekiel 39:25-29

[16] Jeremiah 31:34

[17] Deuteronomy 30:14

[18] Jeremiah 29:11-14

[19] Ezekiel 20:23-25

[20] Hebrews 20:28-31

[21] Avi ben Mordechai: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 26

[22] John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, trans. T. H. L. Parked, editors, David W., and Thomas F. Torrance, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996, p. 42

[23] Ryken, Philip Graham: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Location 1436, Kindle Edition.

Anyone having read the Medieval work of Geoffrey Chaucer entitled “Canterbury Tales,” might still remember the tale told by the Miller.  A miller was one who ran the mill where the people brought their grain to be ground into flour. I have to admit, that while interesting, it was not quite as gripping as the writings of Zane Gray about Indian fighters, Jonathan and Wetzel, even though this Miller was quite a character.  He tells a story about a carpenter, and one line reads: “This carpenter wedded new a wife, which that he loved more than his life: Of eighteen year, I guess, she was of age.  Jealous he was, and held her in a narrow cage, for she was wild and young, and he was old and deemed himself a cuckold.” That means she may just go out and find a younger man who is more her type.

During Medieval times, they used the English word “soke” (pronounced “soak”), borrowed from the Latin “soc,” to define an early English law that permitted holding court and administering justice with the authority to receive certain fees or fines arising from its findings.  Thus, this word “soke” became synonymous with fines and penalties.  At the same time over at the mill, the Miller would withhold a certain amount of the grain in payment for the millwork that was done, and this also became known as his “soke.”  Therefore, when an individual would go to court and have to pay a fine, or the Miller extracted his portion of the grain for payment, the involved person would say, I’ve just been “soked.”

So, it is obvious that this old carpenter felt he might be soked for marrying a very young girl for the sake of having someone to look after his needs. Over time, because “soke” and “soak” are homophones, the meaning has changed while the concept remains the same.  Today, when someone refers to having been “soaked,” they imply that something deplorable happened to them – not that they were drenched with water.  So, the next time you do something that you later regret or feel that you took advantage of someone, remember that you too might be “soked” for doing so. But even God understands when we make foolish mistakes. So when we go to Him to ask for a pardon, we can say to Him, “Lord forgive me, I’ve just been soked. – Dr. Robert R. Seyda