Down an Unfamiliar Road

The great Jewish Rabbi, Moses Maimonides, points out that three Hebrew verbs raah, nabat, and chazah, denote “to perceive by seeing.” But he suggests that we know when they are used to imply ocular perception or intellectual conceptualization. Knowing the difference can be very helpful when determining if the thing being described was seen with the natural eye or the mind’s eye.  For instance, in Genesis 29:2 it says, “And he looked [raah], and behold a well in the field.” This clearly refers to seeing something with the natural eye. Then in Ecclesiastes 1:16 it says, “…yea, my heart had great sight [raah] of wisdom and knowledge.”  Wisdom and knowledge are abstract in essence; therefore, they can only be discerned with the mind. Then we see the same in Genesis 19:17 where we read, “…look [nabat] not behind you…” this was a warning to Lot and his wife not to use their eyes by glancing back at Sodom and Gomorrah. However, in Numbers 23:21 it says, “He (God) has not beheld [nabat] iniquity in Jacob, neither has He seen [raah] perverseness in Israel.”  Since God is not corporeal, His sight does not depend on the eye.  That’s why God can see what’s in our heart. Finally, in Micah 4:11 we find, “Let her be defiled, and let our eye look [chazah] upon Zion.” Clearly, this was an admonition for the people of Israel to envision looking toward Mt. Zion when their enemies came against them because they knew this was where God dwelled in their midst. So, it implies the use of the imagination.  Also, in Isaiah 1:1 it says, “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amos, which he saw [chazah] concerning Judah and Jerusalem…” relates to what God showed him through his spiritual eye. Maimonides warns that interpreting scripture requires more just reading the word on the page, but finding out how that word is used and in what context. This is something we should all take to heart.     – Dr. Robert R Seyda

WHAT IMAGE APPEARS IN YOUR LIFE?

A lady was participating in a house Bible study and they happened to read Malachi 3:3 where it says: “He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver.” No one seemed to know much about refining silver, so this puzzled lady and the other women wondered what this statement had to do with the character and nature of God.

One of the women offered to find out the process of refining silver and get back to the group at their next Bible Study. So, she called around until she found a silversmith and made an appointment to watch him at work. She didn’t mention anything about the reason for her interest beyond her curiosity about the process of refining silver.

As she watched the silversmith, he held a piece of silver over the fire and let it heat up. He explained that in refining silver, one needed to hold the silver in the middle of the fire where the flames were hottest so as to burn away all the impurities. The woman thought about God holding us in such a hot spot; then she thought again about the verse. She asked the silversmith if it was true that, he had to sit there in front of the fire the whole time the silver was being refined. The man answered, “yes”, he not only had to sit there holding the silver, but he had to keep his eyes on the silver the entire time it was in the fire. If the silver was left a moment too long in the flames, it would be destroyed. The woman was silent for a moment. Then she asked the silversmith, “How do you know when the silver is fully refined?” He smiled at her and answered, “Oh, that’s easy – when I see my image in it.”

If today you are feeling the heat of the fire, remember that God has His eye on you and will keep watching you until He sees His image in you. This refining process doesn’t happen quickly, it takes time to burn away the dross and impurities. According to the Psalmist, God’s Word has been purified seven times.[1][i] So it takes going through a trying process in order for us, as silver vessels, to be refined.[2] The more dross and impurities that are in us the longer it takes God’s holy sanctifying fire to remove it. But as the silversmith told the lady, all God is looking for in us is to see His image so that others can see Him in us. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1] Psalm 12:6

[2] Zechariah 13:9

[i] Psalm 12:6

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XL)

Arno Gaebelein (1859-1952) takes what Paul says here in verse eighteen as Peter’s possible response after he refused to eat with the Gentiles and went back to the Ceremonial Laws and was thereby attempting to be justified by works. It was he, not Paul, who was rebuilding the judicial mechanism of the Law. Previously, he abandoned the Law as a means of justification before God and believed in Jesus the Anointed One to be justified by faith in Him, not by the works of the Law but by faith. He found out that “by the works of the Law no one can be justified.” By building again the moral system of the law, which he gave up as unable to justify him, he made himself look like a Jewish backslider returning to his original faith. Inasmuch as it was the Anointed One who led him to do this, the question is, does this make the Anointed One a minister of sin? God forbid! It was the doctrine of the Anointed One which made him give up the Law which was powerless to forgive. Now, by going back he acknowledges that he was wrong when he rejected it, to begin with, as a means of justification.[1] That’s why Paul was so against what Peter was doing, even though he didn’t mean to project that image of giving up the Anointed One and returning to the Law for salvation.

The Contextual Bible gives us an excellent paraphrase of verses 17-18 that offers quite a bit of clarity to what Paul is saying here. It reads, “Now if we hold that our faith in the Anointed One and His death alone makes us guiltless, righteous, and holy before God, and not the keeping of the His Law, and then we find that just like the non-Jews, we’re judged guilty as sinners because we didn’t keep the requirements of God’s Law, wouldn’t we need to say that faith in the Anointed One is not only useless but has, in fact, ruined us, encouraging us not to live by God’s Law? That’s impossible. Obviously then, there is only one conclusion: God’s Law has been abolished for us who put our faith in the Anointed One, and there is no sin involved anymore in not keeping its requirements. The whole business of the Law has become irrelevant for us. Rather, we actually become lawbreakers if we now start insisting on being under the framework of the Law to find acceptance before God, going against the very intent of His Law.”[2]

Maybe Paul’s questioning was inspired by one of Plato’s dialogues entitled; “Euthydemus” in which a young boy is asked if when he and his classmates were in school learning grammar, did they consider themselves “students?”  The young lad said, “of course.”  Then Euthydemus continued by asking the young man, “As a student, do you admit that you did not know the things you were about to learn?”  “Of course,” he replied.  “So then,” continued Euthydemus, “did that make you “educated?”  “Of course not,” the student replied.  “In other words,” said Euthydemus, you were not a ‘student’ who was already ‘educated’ but an ‘uninformed student’?”  “For sure,” responded the lad.  Euthydemus went on, “Let me ask again since you were learning something you did not know, you still considered yourself an ‘uninformed student,’ right?” The youth nodded assent.  “So, we can conclude then,” mused Euthydemus, “it is the uninformed who learn, not those already educated?”

Are you shaking your head trying to understand this form of logic? Let’s look at it again. These philosophers were taking advantage of a young student in order to show how complicated their arguments could be. If you are a student and submit yourself to be taught, that is certainly a wise decision, even though you may not be educated in the subject being taught. Therefore, you cannot yet be considered educated until you learn the subject as a student. The Judaizers were like the boy in the story. Paul was telling them they needed to learn more about Jesus in order to be more submissive to the Gospel and the will of God through the Anointed One. The Judaizers were telling Paul and the Galatians they were already educated because they mastered the Mosaic Law and needed to learn nothing further.

Remember, Paul was talking to believers, and in today’s world people are often judged as sinful because they did not meet their church demands in order to maintain salvation. However, since we are in union with the Anointed One, such laws possess no jurisdiction over our salvation. Being in union with the Anointed One means it’s what He says that determines if we are following His will or not. Since the Anointed One reigns in our hearts and lives in our spirit, we seek to be obedient to Him first, not the religious rituals and regulations of the church. Therefore, if we become disobedient, we are noncompliant to the Anointed One not the church, even if the church supports what Jesus taught. That’s why, if we confess our sin to Him, not the church, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin, and cleanse us from all wrongdoing.

This should help us understand that no church can save you; no denomination guarantees your salvation.  The church is the redeemed gather in one mind and of one accord to follow the teachings of the Anointed One. They support each other as they mature in the Word and in the Spirit. The stronger and more mature among them become pastors and teachers, apostles and evangelists. Those whom the Holy Spirit anoints with gifts are used to guide the believers and become a resource of the gifts of the Spirit in the body of the Anointed One. Their goal is to proclaim the kingdom of God and His righteousness so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but receive everlasting life.

Let’s go through this again. Paul is answering criticism by the Judaizers that if we forsake Mosaic Law to follow Jesus, then by following Him He leads us further into sin since obeying Mosaic Law is a requirement from God. Paul answers this way: if we say that we are going to accept forgiveness for our sins by faith in the atonement of the Anointed One on the cross, which does away with Mosaic Law, but then turn around and demand that believers observe the old religious rituals and regulations required under Mosaic Law aren’t we making the Anointed One’s death on the cross meaningless? Yes! But at the same time, if we accept the Anointed One’s atonement on the cross to be forgiven of our sins but then ignore His teachings and continue the life we were living, will that qualify us for heaven? No! We aren’t saved in sin; we are saved from sin.

Henry David Thoreau in his work “Walden” said, that the person with faith in God will apply that faith to everything they do. If, however, they put no faith in God they might continue living like they always lived by imitating those with real faith. We would call this a case of pretending; playing “make-believe,” saying something is yours that doesn’t exist. The Judaizers seem to be asking the Galatians to pretend. In other words, obey all the religious rituals and regulations under Mosaic Law, but make-believe that they were Christians by professing faith in the Anointed One, it can’t hurt anything.

It’s clear they showed no respect for Paul or his message; they did not want to change what they were already accustomed to. They insisted that the only way to be forgiven and stand before God pure and holy was by complying with the Law given to Moses. However, they refused to accept the fact that the Mosaic Law was written to prove the existence of sin. Didn’t they realize that through the Anointed One God wanted to provide a way out of sin into His forgiveness?

Paul arrived in Galatia preaching that you don’t need to follow the Law of Moses anymore because the work of the Anointed One completely fulfilled and answered all of God’s requirements, thereby becoming the true way to salvation. But the Judaizers responded by claiming that even though you believe in the Anointed One, by not following Mosaic Law anymore you remain a sinner. They insinuated that Paul’s teaching of salvation through faith in the Anointed One without Mosaic Law promoted sinful living.  “Absolutely untrue!” declares Paul. The Hammer was trying everything he could to help these stubborn know-it-alls to understand the truth.

Many of these various opinions and interpretations are confusing at times. But if we condense this down to its simplest terms it becomes clearer to those not versed in Jewish Law. For centuries it was taught that in order for someone to be counted among the children of God, they must obey Him by obeying all the laws given to them through Moses. But did that stop them from sinning? No! Even if they followed all the rules, participated in all the rituals, underwent all the rites, and joined in all the ceremonies, they still needed to bring sacrifices to the Temple to receive forgiveness for their sins. That was the Law. That was their creed of faith.

Now here comes Paul, a converted Pharisee to Christianity. He’s going around teaching the Jews that this adherence to the Law is no longer needed or valid. That the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth came. He was the only one who was able to perfectly obey the Law. So, God put all their sins on Him, and He became the sacrifice that provided forgiveness. Now, a person is called a child of God through union with the Anointed One, not the Law. Jews always considered themselves as children of God by birth, all the rest that they did was try to be good children. But Paul is not only teaching that the Anointed One is now the only way to God, but he’s also telling the Gentiles that they became children of God too without first becoming Jews through conversion. All they must do is believe in the Anointed One. All the demands of the Law are now unnecessary for both them and the Jews. The Jews resented that those born as sinners could so easily be born as children of God without having to go through all the rites, rituals, ceremonies, and sacrifices as they did.

So, some dissident Jews began a campaign to disprove Paul’s doctrine of being justified as a child of God without adherence to the Law. They began by pointing out that they were always warned not to abandon the Law because it made them sinners. So how could Paul persuade people to abandon the Law and then not call them sinners but true believers because they put their faith in the Anointed One, not the law? They accused Paul of teaching that sinners could be called children of God because of the Anointed One. Therefore, the Anointed One must be a minister of sin and sinners. Paul was quick to rebuke such thinking. He based his doctrine on the fact that Jesus the Messiah fulfilled the Law by completing its demands, therefore, to believe in Him is to fulfill the Law, not abandon it. He became their sacrifice for sin, so they didn’t need to bring any to God on their own. But there were those who were still not convinced. They argued that without the Law to guide them how were these children of God through faith going to be taught how to live an upright, moral life? Again, Paul answered. He told them they no longer lived because of their adherence to the Law; it was the Anointed One living in them. So, He was their teacher spiritually and the Holy Spirit was their guide.

But even today there are many believers who were never taught that once you are made clean through the blood of Jesus and born again, those sins do not need to be forgiven a second or third time. Do Christians still experience trouble with sinful tendencies? Yes! But it is not the original sin with its death sentence, that is already forgiven and under the blood of Jesus. When the Holy Spirit convicts us of something that is not pleasing to God, we are promised that if we confess our sins, He is fair-minded enough to forgive us of our sins each and every time. Does that mean we go on a sinning-streak because we know He’ll forgive us? No! Who would want to do that to the one who saved us from certain damnation and gave us timeless life?

[1] Arno Gaebelein: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[2] Aiyer, Ramsey. The Contextual Bible Galatians, Kindle Location 214

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXIX)

Methodist theologian Adam Clarke envisions Paul saying this to the Galatian believers, a message that is still apropos for Jewish messianic believers today. “You must unconditionally acknowledge that all must be justified by faith in the Anointed One since all sinned and came short of the glory of God.”[1] Even though in the past, before they were converted, they observed all the rites, rituals, sacrifices, and ceremonies of their Jewish faith, yet they were still sinners. All they did never could and never did justify them as believers before God. So, don’t let anyone tell a converted Jew that because they no longer observe these things at the Anointed One’s request, He made them sinners. That’s what Paul was trying to tell the Galatians. He should know because he was one of the most observant Jews of his day. Yet he came to realize that it was all for naught.[2]

William O’Conor looks at what Paul is saying in verse eighteen about rebuilding the framework, under the Law, for justification by works that were destroyed. The objection seems to be that Paul was assuming that the Anointed One abolished the law completely and without any reference to a person’s need to qualify for freedom. The truth is, the Law was left at the place where we rose into the region of spiritual holiness. The instant we fall down again into the region of sin we are again under the law’s condemnation. However, by faith in the Anointed One, we are liberated from the Law and sin altogether. Our deliverance from the Law is not a separate thing in itself; it is one of several connected things. Under the legal system, the Law compels righteousness. Under the Christian system, righteousness supersedes the Law. We must deal with either system as a whole, and not fragmentary.

O’Conor goes on to say that if a Jew is seeking to be justified by faith as a sinner, the Anointed One is not the reason for their sinning. Sin is determined by going back to the legal system to see what law was broken. If, however, after having disclaimed the legal system and adopted the Christian system, or system of faith, a believing Jew then seeks forgiveness under the old legal system which was destroyed, they then render themselves liable to the Law’s verdict. The way the believing Jews lived told which system they belonged to. Paul made it clear that they could seek forgiveness under the Law or under Grace of which God made available through the Anointed One. He made this perfectly clear to the Romans when he wrote them.[3] [4]

Alvah Hovey gives us an excellent explanation of what he feels Paul is trying to get at here in light of Peter’s hypocrisy and the Galatians’ need for instruction due to the influence of the Judaizers. He hears Paul saying that no one should suppose for a moment that in their and other believer’s seeking to be justified by the Anointed One without the works of the Law, that they somehow were found wallowing in sin on the same level as the lawless Gentiles. If that were the case, then it would follow that the Anointed One is a promoter of sin. No believer would ever accept that! No one is breaking the moral law of the Torah and committing sin just by looking to the Anointed One alone for acceptance with God. All it means is that they ceased keeping the Law as a means of justification. Hovey continues Paul’s dialogue. Just the opposite of this is true. For if I build up again the things which I destroyed and subjugate myself to them, then I make myself a transgressor according to the Law.

In verse eighteen the Apostle substitutes, with great delicacy of feeling, the first-person singular for the first-person plural. For the act supposed was precisely that for which Peter now stood condemned. What he did by his example caused the wall of ceremonial observances to be erected again, which he destroyed by testifying that they as Christians were no longer obligatory as the ground of justification, and were a means of condemnation rather than of justification. The true purpose of the Law was to convince people of sin and drive them away from it to the Anointed One. That’s why those who turn back to legal works as a condition of forgiveness and life, transgress the very nature and purpose of the Law. This thought is explained and justified in verse nineteen.[5]

J. B. Lightfoot sees it this way: In order for believers in union with the Anointed One to be justified before God, they first must sink to the low level of the Gentiles and admit they were sinners without any hope of salvation. Only then could they receive the message of salvation by grace. But that didn’t make the Anointed One a “sinner maker.” That is a ridiculous thought and not worthy of consideration. There is no guilt in understanding that the Law only convicts but does not convert. The Law shows one guilty of sinning against God’s ordinances but offers no forgiveness. So, it made sense to turn away from the Law and seek salvation by grace in faith through the Anointed One. Lightfoot goes on to offer several interpretations of verse seventeen. But the one he sees as most acceptable is this: “It cannot be sinful to abandon the Law because it is necessary to abandon the Law in order to be justified before God as acquitted in the Anointed One.”[6]

Charles Spurgeon goes at this from an evangelistic point of view. Paul is arguing against the idea of salvation by works, or salvation by rites, rituals, or ceremonies; and he shows, beyond all question, that salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus the Anointed One. Paul will make a strong point concerning this in verse twenty-one. Spurgeon then goes on to say, the true Christian carries the cross in their heart. And a cross inside the heart is one of the sweetest cures for a cross on the back. If a cross is in your heart – you are crucified with the Anointed One – all this world’s troubles will seem to you light enough, and you will easily be able to sustain it. If you say with Paul that Jesus loves you and gave Himself for you, you are expressing yourself far beyond what the Greek orator Demosthenes or the Roman orator Cicero was ever able to say with all their eloquence of speech.

Paul is telling Peter and the Galatians that it was never his intention to frustrate the grace of God. This would be a sin so gross that even the heathen could not commit it. They never heard of the grace of God, and, therefore, they cannot break it even slightly. Spurgeon then gives this warning. Heathens will perish and face far less sinister doom than those who were told that God is gracious and ready to pardon, and yet they wickedly boast of innocence and pretend to be clean in the sight of God by what they’ve done, not what the Anointed One did. This is a sin which devils cannot commit. With all the obstinacy of their rebellion, they never reached this level. They never heard the sweet notes of saving grace and dying love ring in their ears, and, therefore, were never given a chance to refused the heavenly invitation.[7]

In another place, Spurgeon quotes David Griffiths (1792-1863),[8] as saying that travelers in Turkey carry with them lozenges of opium, on which is stamped “mash Allah,” the gift of God. Too many sermons are just such lozenges. Grace is preached but duty denied. Divine predestination is promoted, but human responsibility is rejected. Such teaching ought to be shunned as poisonous, but those who by reason of use grew accustomed to the sedative, now condemn all other preaching and claim their opium lozenges of high doctrine to be the truth, a precious gift from God. It is to be feared that this narcotic-laced doctrine put many souls to sleep who will awake in hell.[9]

Church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893) gives his detailed view of Justification. He begins by saying that the doctrine of justification by faith is one of the fundamental doctrines of Paul, and is presented fully in this Epistle and in that to the Romans. How will a sinner be justified to stand as right before a holy God? This was a vital question in the Apostolic age and came very near splitting the congregation. It shook Western Christendom again in the sixteenth century and divided it into two camps. It is no idle theological dispute, but involves the peace of conscience and affects a believer’s whole conduct It is almost like asking: “What must I do to be saved?”

To this question there were two answers, notes Schaff. The Pharisaical Jews and Christian Judaizers were teaching that a person is justified by doing good works to satisfy the Law’s demands. Paul is teaching just as emphatically that a person is justified by faith without works by the Anointed One. The Judaizers would not deny the importance and necessity of faith in the Anointed One, but they practically laid the main stress upon works, and that’s why they demanded circumcision as a term of membership in the congregation, and a sign and pledge for the observance of the whole Mosaic law.

Now Paul reasons in this chapter that to return to the Law for justification is virtually to abandon the work the Anointed One did on the cross or leave Him rotting in the grave. Schaff offers what he calls chief points to be considered. The Greek verb dikaioō (to “justify”) may be used both in an efficient and in a judicial sense, namely, (a) to make just, to transform a sinner into a saint; (b) to declare just, to acquit. In Hellenistic Greek, and especially in Paul’s Epistles, it has the judicial or forensic meaning. This appears – From the equivalent terms “to reckon,” or “to account for righteousness.”[10] From the phrase to be justified “before God,” or “in God’s sight,” for example,  before His tribunal.[11] (c) From such passages where God or the Anointed One is said to be just. God is just and cannot be made just, but He may be accounted or declared just by mankind.[12] (d) From the opposite phrase to condemn.[13]

So, concludes Schaff, consequently “justification” is seen as a judicial act of acquittal, in opposition to condemnation.[14] Now there may be two kinds of justification, legal and by grace. The first would be a reward of merit, the second a free gift of lovingkindness. We may be justified and accepted by God on the ground of our good works, the observance of His law, that is, because we are really righteous and deserving of acceptance; or we may be justified by grace on the grounds of the merits of the righteous Anointed One, as obtained by a living faith. But justification by works has proven to be impossible because we are all sinners by nature and practice and, therefore, justly deserving of God’s wrath. We cannot in our own strength observe the divine law with perfection. If that were possible, there would have been no need of a Savior and His death to atone for our sins. The more we try to keep the Law, the more are we driven to a conviction of sin and guilt and to a painful sense of the need of redemption. This is what the Law was given to teach us. While the Law itself is holy, just, and good, it offers no forgiveness or salvation. The best it can do is to bring the moral decease to a crisis by revealing sin in its true nature, and thus to prepare the way for the cure through the blood of the Anointed One.[15]

[1] Romans 3:23

[2] Adam Clarke: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Romans 6:15-16 – NIV

[4] O’Conor, W. A: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 37–38

[5] Hovey, Alvah: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 33

[6] J. B. Lightfoot: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 243-244

[7] Charles Spurgeon: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[8] Welsh Congregational missionary and translator in Madagascar

[9] Ryle, J.C.; Exell, Joseph; MacLaren, Alexander; Moody, D.L.; Spurgeon, Charles. The Biblical Illustrator – Vol. 48 – Kindle Locations 4938-4942

[10] Galatians 3:6; Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 23, 24; James 2:23

[11] Galatians 3:11; Romans 3:20

[12] Romans 3:4 (from Psalm 51:4); 1 Timothy 3;16; cf. Matthew 11:19; Luke 6: 29, 35.

[13] Matthew 12:37; See Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15

[14] Romans 4:14; 5:18

[15] Philip Schaff: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 314-315

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXVIII)

Medieval Catholic scholar, Thomas Aquinas, gives us his assessment of what was happening here and the charges being made. Someone could say, he argues, that the Apostles sinned by abandoning the Law and turning to the faith in the Anointed One for salvation. But Paul shows that this would lead to the following unwelcomed conclusion, namely, that the Anointed One is the author of sin in calling men and women from faith in the Law to faith in Him. Paul responds adamantly, “God forbid!” the Anointed One is the minister of justice; the Anointed One is not the minister of sin in leading someone from the First Covenant to the Final Covenant. This should be plain to see because if Paul himself, by wanting to glory once more in the Law, were to build up again the things he tore down, namely, his pride for glorying in his obedience to the Law, he would make himself a liar and fraud by putting trust back into what was already destroyed. He was not speaking of the Law itself, but his pride in being a servant of the law. This is what the Manicheans[1] were teaching because the Law is holy, but pride in having knowledge of and in keeping the Law is not holiness.[2]

The great Reformer Martin Luther shares the agony he went through on both sides of the issue when it came to salvation by works instead of faith.  To him, Paul was crying out: “What are these false Apostles doing?” Paul saw that they were turning Law into grace, and grace into Law. They were changing Moses into the Anointed One, and the Anointed One into Moses. By teaching that besides the Anointed One and His righteousness, the performance of good works under the Law was necessary for full salvation. In doing so, they advocated the Law in the place of the Anointed One, they attributed to the Law power to save, a power that belongs only to the Anointed One only.

Luther then goes on to explain his situation: Catholic priests quote the words of the Anointed One: “If you want to obtain timeless life, keep the commandments.”[3] But they don’t realize that with their own words they deny the Anointed One and abolish faith in Him by placing emphasis on the commandments. By doing this, the Anointed One is made to lose His good name, His office, and His glory, and is demoted to the status of a law enforcer, reproving, terrifying, and chasing poor sinners around. The proper office of the Anointed One is to raise sinners, and extricate them from the clutches of sins. But Luther wasn’t finished. He accuses Catholic Priests and Anabaptists[4] of being critical of him and his followers because they so firmly require faith. “Faith,” they say, “makes people reckless.” What do these law-workers know about faith, Luther wants to know, why they are so busy calling people back from baptism, from faith, from the promises of the Anointed One to the Law?[5]

John Calvin disagrees somewhat with Chrysostom’s conclusions. For him, Chrysostom, and some other commentators make the whole passage to be an affirmation of the fact that if, while we seek to be justified by the Anointed One, we are not yet perfectly righteous but still unholy. If this is true, then the Anointed One is not sufficient for our righteousness which makes Him a minister of a doctrine which leaves people in sin. By supposing that anyone accepts such an absurd proposition, Paul is calling for a charge of blasphemy against those who attribute any part of justification to the Law. However, Paul does not hold back in saying that when it comes to justification, it’s like making the dead try to continue doing good works in order to comply. He puts a question, in his usual manner, into the mouth of his antagonists. “If, in consequence of the righteousness of faith, we, who are Jews and were sanctified from the womb, are reckoned guilty and polluted, shall we say that the Anointed One makes sin to be powerful in His own people and that He is, therefore, the author of sin?”[6]

Calvin goes on to explain that this all arose from the fact that Paul indicated that the Jews, by believing in the Anointed One, renounced their inherited righteousness under the law. As such, even before they became believers, and having separated themselves from the Gentiles were never called sinners, are they now being placed on the same level with Gentiles, therefore, becoming sinners? Paul’s conclusion that the Jews were mistaken in claiming any holiness for themselves in the Law apart from the Anointed One. As a consequence, the Anointed One did not bring sin, but unveiled it; He did not take away righteousness but stripped the Jews of a false righteous disguise.

Paul insinuates a charge of blasphemy against those who attribute a part of justification to the Law. His “absolutely not!” says all that is needed to say to quash such a notion. Calvin takes the rest of what Paul says here as setting aside an absurd conclusion which some thought Paul’s doctrine appeared to warrant. He puts a question, in his usual manner, into the mouth of his antagonists. “Are you saying, that if, as part of obtaining righteousness by faith in the Anointed One, we, who are Jews and were ‘sanctified from the womb,’[7] are still reckoned guilty and polluted because the Law is not involved? Are you charging that we are saying that the Anointed One makes sin so powerful in His own people who give up the Law as a source for justification, that He is, therefore, the author of sin?” I think we all join Paul in saying that such an idea is ridiculous!

Catholic scholar Cornelius à Lapide questions that if we are still in sin and are looking to faith in the Anointed One for forgiveness but find that there is no forgiveness in Him but in the Law, as the Judaizers were teaching, does that make the Anointed One a preacher of sin? After all, He’s the one who says we must forget the Law and believe only on Him. Lapide points this out as the interpretation of early church scholars Jerome, Chrysostom, Primasius, Anselm, and Theophylact. Lapide examines two other interpretations but settles on this first one as the best to define what Paul was saying because it is less forced.

One of the biggest criticisms that Paul received was that he was making the Law void and that any good works done to help others was needless. They concluded that he was preaching a spiritual philosophy that said once God declares you to be in right standing with Him, you may go on living in sin the way you are living now because God loves nothing more than forgiving a sinner. So, sin more so that God will show how great is His love, grace, and mercy.

Of course, that was ridiculous. For John Owen, there was only one way to answer such a fool-hearted idea. Our own personal righteousness and obedience to the Law in order to be justified before God would be something purchased by the work of our hands. But the justification that we receive as a gift was purchased for us by the blood of Jesus the Anointed One. But there was another factor, even some who were justified before God through the Anointed One, believed that their personal righteousness, holiness, and works could enhance their right standing before God. However, if it didn’t get us there, it can’t keep us there. There is a place for good works and holy living because it shows the evidence of our true nature as a born-again believer living in union with the Anointed One. Paul’s message here in verse eighteen to the Jewish believers in Galatia was that if they insist on working toward being made right with God by keeping the Law, they were only making themselves out to be sinners.[8]

Matthew Poole believes that some interpreters of verse seventeen think that Paul begins his discourse to the Galatians by picking up again the main theme of his Epistle, mainly, that justification by faith in the Anointed One is the only valid way to receive a right standing before God. However, he does admit that there were some who contended that by making the Anointed One alone the foundation of one’s faith, thereby forsaking the Law requirement for obedience in performing good deeds, that not only does one become a sinner but makes the Anointed One the minister of sin.

However, Poole notes that there are still others who think that the Apostle Paul hereby eliminates a common objection which was made back then, and also made during Poole’s day, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone in the Anointed One opens a door for believers to live any way they desired without any moral or ethical laws to control their behavior and conduct. To them, that was the role of the Law. So, by adopting this understanding it would make the Anointed One liable for their sinful behavior. Not only does Paul disavow any such idea by saying, “God forbid!” But to suggest that Christians mistake their faith in the Anointed One for justification as a license to do anything they want is to say that believers possess no sense of what is right or wrong in God’s eyes. Pleasing God by loving Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and loving our fellowman as ourselves will keep all the laws that are written in God’s Holy Word.[9]

Joseph Benson shows us a neat way of expressing this argument that Paul is making. It’s as if Paul was being accused of saying that the Gospel promises justification to those who continue in sin. But that’s not what the Apostle was getting at. Therefore, if any, who profess the Gospel, do not live according to it, they are sinners but not justified in doing so. The Gospel is very clear, live God’s way or you will be living the wrong way. Benson sees Paul making this point: Through the Law, he understood, in its spiritual sense, the extent and obligation applied by the Holy Spirit to his conscience, enough to convince him of his utter sinfulness, guilt, and helplessness in trying to acquire salvation through the Law. Therefore, he considers the Law as a dead thing when it comes to being justified by it to a right standing before God.

Therefore, to all dependence upon the Law must be canceled. All dependence now falls on the Anointed One and His work on the cross. That’s why Paul said he wanted to live for God sake. So, he lacked any interest in continuing in sin. For this very end, he was delivered from the death sentence pronounced by the Law on all did not follow its rules. It was only by his faith in the Anointed One that he was justified and brought into a state of favor and acceptance with God. And for what reason? That he might be motivated by nobler views and hopes than the Law could give, and engaged, through love to God, his people, and all mankind, to a more generous, sublime, and extensive obedience than the law was capable of producing.[10]

[1] Manicheans were followers of a 3rd century Persian named Mani who was also known as the “Angel of light.”  They were long considered a Christian movement.  Mani taught a dualistic doctrine that offered salvation through special knowledge (gnosis) of spiritual truth.

[2] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Matthew 19:17

[4] The Anabaptist Movement began in 1525 with those joining the Reformation of Luther, Zwingli and others felt it wasn’t going far enough and insisted on more purity including being re-baptized in order to seal one’s salvation. Luther saw this as works.

[5] Martin Luther, On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 44

[6] John Calvin, Commentary on Galatians, loc. cit.

[7] Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15

[8] John Owen: op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 525

[9] Matthew Poole on Galatians: op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Locations 665-678, Kindle Edition

[10] Joseph Benson: 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 XXXVII)

This is similar to what Paul shared later with the Roman believers. When talking about how God preserved some true believers among the Jews so that when Jesus came, He would find those willing to believe in Him while the others rejected Him. So, in the place of those who would not receive Him, He allowed the Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles through Peter and Paul. That’s why Paul’s question to the Romans is, “What are we to say about these things?” The Apostle then answers his own question by saying that the Gentiles were not made right with God by the Law. They were made right with God because they put their trust in His Son. The Jews tried to be right with God by obeying the Law, but they did not become right with God on their own. Why? Because, unlike the Gentiles, they did not put their trust in God’s Son. They tried to be right with God by working for it. In doing so, the very important building block in their path became their stumbling block as they tripped over the Anointed One trying to get to God on their own.[1]

However, some Jews took Paul’s message the wrong way. Since the Gentiles were born sinners and possessed no law to show them right from wrong, yet God forgave them on the spot because of grace, they offered nothing to God by way of good deeds or participation in holy rites and rituals. In their eyes, this made sin and sinning more important for salvation than obedience to the law and good works. So they asked the obvious question, if being a sinner causes God to love and forgive you, then why not then sin and be a sinner as long as possible?

There were some in Rome who asked the same question. Does this mean that we are to keep on sinning so that God will give us more of His loving-favor? Paul’s response to them was a quick emphatic, No! Not at all! We are dead to sin. Why then keep on living in sin? All of us were baptized to show we belong to the Anointed One. We were baptized first of all to show His death. We were buried in baptism as the Anointed One was buried in death. As the Anointed One was raised from the dead by the great power of God, so we were raised to enjoy a new life as a new creation in the Anointed One.[2]

This echoes Paul’s answer here to the Galatians. Even the Apostle John dealt with this. So, he wrote the following in his first letter, “The person who keeps on sinning belongs to the devil. The devil sinned from the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. No person who became a child of God keeps on sinning. This is because the Holy Spirit is in him. He cannot keep on sinning because God is his Father. This is the way you can know who are the children of God and who are the children of the devil. The person who does not keep on doing what is right and does not love his brother does not belong to God.”[3]

Not only was Paul’s argument against mixing salvation by works, but he emphasized that salvation by grace was the most important way and will remain critical as long as the believers exist.  Some 300 years later, Augustine of Hippo gives his assessment of this argument in his day, especially Paul’s contention that by dropping salvation by works it makes everyone a sinner. Augustine makes it clear, there is no way that Paul’s opponents could accuse him of being soft on those who insisted on continuing to work for their salvation. After all, even those who were unwilling to entrust the Gospel to the Gentiles unless they were circumcised, still trusted the Anointed One for their own salvation. Paul destroyed the ego of those who boasted about works of the law – a false pride that should and must be annihilated. If this wasn’t done, then the Gospel of faith by grace becomes an option. So, in Paul’s mind, the person who after being saved by grace sets out to rebuild salvation by works again is the one at fault. What gives them the right to say that works by the law justifies without grace?[4]

In Augustine’s mind, the thing that bothered Paul the most was that he spent years tearing down the wall of legalistic belief between man and God, so if he did not confront Peter’s hypocrisy now, it would appear as though he too was rebuilding that wall. This is exactly what he saw Peter doing.  God broke down that wall so He might send Peter to the Gentile Cornelius’ house. And did not Peter eat and worship with the Gentile believers in Antioch before these visitors from Jerusalem arrive? Therefore, in Paul’s eyes, Peter was the transgressor here, not the Gentiles.

Early church commentator Marius Victorinus asks the question, suppose that we, after receiving faith in the Anointed One, did to the Anointed One what the Judaizers tried to do? They taught that after putting our faith in the Anointed One and wish to be justified, even though we know that no one justified by the works of the law, we still insist on doing all the works that the law demands, will that mean we will be counted as sinners? If so, then after we believe in the Anointed One for salvation and are ordered not to sin, simply by observing the law, will that make us sinners? In that case, the Anointed One, whom we accepted in order not to sin, would Himself become a minister of sin. Victorinus does not hesitate to announce that if after receiving the Anointed One we return to sin – that is depending on the Law to save us – the Anointed One is not responsible for making us sinners. Paul would declare such a thought as being far from what he was teaching. No right-minded person would think this way. It doesn’t make sense that the One who suffered and died to free us from sin would turn around and cause us to sin.[5]

But Bishop Theodoret of Cyr turns the tables on those who think this way. He sees them proposing that once a person forsook the law and turned to the Anointed One as their Savior in order to enjoy a right standing with God through faith in Him, that by forsaking the Law the Anointed One made them sinners. If proven true, then the Anointed One Himself became a minister of sin. So, any fault that would be incurred, could be laid at the feet of the Anointed One. And by bringing us the Gospel of the Final Covenant, He inadvertently did away with the First Covenant which abolished all the laws and thereby made everyone a sinner. The Bishop says, “Far be it from us to tolerate such blasphemy!”[6]

In Chrysostom’s quite a lengthy exposition on verse seventeen in his homilies he begins by saying that Paul is speaking about Peter. And he questions what if Peter put his faith in the Anointed One but did not receive justification, would it be necessary for him to again embrace the Law? If so, it reasons then that once Peter forsook the Law for the Anointed One’s sake but was still not justified but condemned for such abandonment – then Peter would find out that the One for whom he forsook the Law and went over to in faith really became the author of his condemnation. Chrysostom feels that Paul resolved the matter of Peter’s hypocrisy with an absurd argument. And he points out how earnestly and strongly he argues. For if, he says, it was in Peter’s interest not to abandon the Law, and since he abandoned it for the Anointed One’s sake, he was being harshly judged. So, Chrysostom asks, how could Paul put such a burden upon Peter who was more intimately acquainted with it than anyone?

In the end, Chrysostom does not believe that it was Paul’s objective to correct Peter, but that his censure was directed to him for the sake of Galatians and all those who followed this erroneous teaching. In other words, since Paul was writing to the Galatians who were so easily been fooled by the Judaizers into going back to obeying the Law as a safeguard to their faith in the Anointed One, he wanted to use what Peter did in separating himself from the Gentiles to eat with the Jewish contingent that came down from Jerusalem at the Apostle James’ bidding to show how false such thinking was.

Chrysostom then concludes by saying that this was Paul’s way of asking the Galatians, “Do you not understand what these Judaizers were trying to prove?” They wanted to make the Anointed One, who is the Author of our righteousness, and turn Him into the Author of sin. As Paul says, this makes the Anointed One the minister of sin. Having thus reduced the proposition to an absurdity, Paul saw no further reason or way of dealing with it. He felt that he adequately handled this subject by protesting what Peter and his fellow Jews did.[7]

Ambrosiaster, a contemporary scholar of Chrysostom and Augustine’s, asks: “How can the Anointed One who forgives sin be an agent of sin?” He sees this charge against what Paul is saying as nonsense. He goes on to explain that anyone who wants to be justified by faith in the Anointed One and yet still obeys the law to earn their salvation are admitting that they are still under sin, because faith in the Anointed One delivers a person from the law so that they are justified by grace. However, if we must still surrender ourselves to the Law with the intent of maintaining our righteous standing with God through good works because we are still sinners, then those who stay under the law stay under a curse.

In other words, if someone in prison claims they received a pardon and allowed to go free, but decides to continue to live in jail to serve out their sentence, and be forced to abide by all the restrictions and conditions, they are thereby classifying themselves as still being a prisoner. No matter how many times they wave the pardon around, they are still a prisoner. Ambrosiaster concludes that it is essential that whoever comes to the Anointed One must give up the law as a means of salvation because it frees the slave. Therefore, if he goes back to the law, he will be his own accuser, because he is condemning what he is doing.[8]

One medieval Christian scholar named Peter Lombard who showed great interest and expertise in Jewish law, gives us his insight on what Paul is saying. For him, when speaking of building up again those things which he destroyed, he was referring to the pride he exhibited in boasting about doing the works of the Law. And by doing so, he would make himself a transgressor because the Anointed One’s grace would be abandoned. However, some might contend, that if Paul was now building up the very same faith in the Anointed One that he attacked, he makes himself a transgressor against the Law which he is deserting. This is an argument that only a former Pharisee would understand.

Lombard goes on to argue that Paul did not destroy this faith in the Anointed One since it cannot be destroyed. What really got destroyed was pride. If he then built back up what he destroyed he would indeed become a transgressor? One is a transgressor when one destroys a false idol and then builds it up again for worship. One is not a transgressor, however, when one attempts to destroy a true thing and then later comes to realize that it is true and cannot be destroyed. For then that person holds on to the true thing in order to be maintained by it.[9]

[1] Romans 9:30-32

[2] Ibid. 6:1-4

[3] 1 John 3:8-10

[4] Augustine, Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[5] Marius Victorinus: op. cit., loc, cit., On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 31

[6] Theodoret of Cyr: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 31

[7] Chrysostom: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Homily 2

[8] Ambrosiaster: On Galatians, Ancient Christian Texts, op. cit., p. 13

[9] Peter Lombard: The Letter to the Galatians (Medieval Bible Commentary series, 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 XXXVI)

For the casual reader, there is a subliminal message in this text not easily perceived.  The word Paul uses here for “faith” is also translated as “faithfulness.” Paul points out to the Jews that their faithfulness in keeping all God’s Law cannot substitute for Jesus’ faithfulness in fulfilling all God’s Law. So, in other words, either God may accept your efforts as fulfilling Mosaic Law, or He accepts the work of the Anointed One as satisfying Mosaic Law. Which will it be? Your ongoing efforts or the Anointed One’s finished work? If you insist on God accepting your acts for piety, then you are claiming to be saved by your own efforts. If, however, you accept the work of the Anointed One, then you are saved by faith in what the Anointed One did for you in His crucifixion and resurrection.

What upset Paul so much, were these born-again Jewish brethren saying to their born-again Gentile brethren: look, if you want to stay saved and really be counted as a part of God’s congregation then you need to wear this, pray like this, stop doing that, start doing this, don’t play that game, and don’t watch this, have devotions every morning, pray an hour each day, fast on Fridays, etc. Does this sound familiar to any of you? If all of those things could qualify as keeping our salvation alive, then there would be no need for continued faith in the Anointed One as Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit would be out of a job. Let’s face it, says Paul, you cannot keep the whole Mosaic Law by just keeping one law, or nine out of ten, or even ninety-nine out of a hundred. To be perfect you must keep them all. Now, who does that? Yet, the Anointed One. He is perfect in everything. There was no fault found in Him.

Augustine of Hippo gives us insight into the Roman Catholic thinking during his time on this issue of faith and works. In commenting on verse sixteen he notes that all believers came to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of their legalistic observance of the Law. So why in their weakness are the Jews, not aided by their own justification and imperfection but by the grace of God, now demand from the Gentiles fleshly observance of the Law? They should be aware that both they and the Gentiles fulfilled spiritual works of the law through the grace of faith. By works of the law, Augustine says this means laws of their own making and not to the grace of the merciful God. That means no person, especially none who think in a physical manner, will ever be justified. And, therefore, those who believed in the Anointed One when they were already under the Law, added faith by grace, not because they were righteous but in order to become so.[1]

However, Jewish writer Kohler Kaufmann feels that Paul pushed his denouncing of the Law too far. For him, the greatest harm of all was done to Judaism itself. Paul made a caricature of the Law, which he declared to be a rigid, external system, not elevating life, but only inciting to transgression and spawning a curse. He sees Paul arousing a feeling of hatred toward the Law, which grew in intensity until it became a source of untold cruelty to the Jews for many centuries.[2] But what my good Rabbi friend seems to have missed is the fact that all of this came as a result of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Messiah and His Word as the only source of a new covenant relationship with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To change their views of the Law and the Cross required that they do what all other Christians did. We know this from what happened to Peter, James, John, and Paul.

Another Jewish writer, Avi ben Mordechai, sees some hidden truths that come with having faith in Jesus the Messiah. From a Jewish point of view, “faith” signifies putting one’s trust in Yahweh and who He is, and “faithfulness” is keeping His commandments.[3] In fact, the Hebrew noun ’emuwnah gives us many English words such as “truth, faith, faithful, faithfully, faithfulness, and stability.” But none of them are used to denote any intellectual exercise. In their Hebrew sense, they always point to something that involves demonstrating one’s “faith.” And this is confirmed, of course, by obeying Yahweh’s Word and His Will. Therefore, it is obvious that having faith in Yeshua the Messiah means to put our faith in His Gospel by doing what He said we should do.[4] That’s why Mordechai believes that when we see the term “works of the law,” we should take that as doing what the Rabbis instructed the Jews to do in their oral teachings as found in the Mishnah and Talmud.[5]

Adam Clarke (1760-1851), whom we referenced earlier, points out that Paul locates the origin of justification in believing the Gospel rather than believing in what the Law demanded. In so doing, they felt that for it to be justified is to be treated as righteous despite disobedience to the Law, not to be righteous by virtue of obedience to it. Since Paul’s use of the Greek noun sarx (“flesh” – KJV) here in verse sixteen, it implies human frailty and moral frailty in particular. In most Greek Lexicons it is taken here as pertaining to humanity itself. In other words, “no human on their own will be declared right with God.” The statement that “no flesh at all will be justified because of works of the Law” roundly rejects the Law as a means to acquire justification. That’s why Paul was so upset with Peter. Before the Jewish contingent from James arrived, the Jews and non-Jews were recognized as equal Christians because of what they believed, not what they did in complying with Jewish Law. But now Peter and his cohorts turn this on its head by focusing on what they do rather than what they believe. In other words, Paul was accusing Peter of saying one thing but doing the opposite.

No wonder why so many in recent decades who were raised as churchgoers, but when they started to “stray from the church’s ways,” not only felt like they were no longer a part of the faith they grew up in, but also that they were no longer saved and could call themselves Christians. On top of that, how many in the church knew that some of those who strutted their holiness in dress, prayer, Bible reading, church attendance, taking communion, singing, shouting, speaking in tongues, dancing in the Spirit, were the same ones who criticized, gossiped, cheated, told little white lies, and would not associate with people of less stature in society. They were not judged by their attitude but by their attire.

In one church I pastored, the piano player informed me that he was quitting and going to another church.  When I asked why, so I could inform the congregation, he stated that we didn’t sing out of the traditional hymn book any longer. All we sang were new praise and worship songs. I told him that while I certainly believe he should go where he’s more comfortable and feels fulfilled, that as Pastor my main aim in the song service wasn’t so much what song we sang, but who we sang it to, for what reason we sang it, and what the song had to say. We weren’t singing to the congregation, nor were we weren’t singing just to keep a certain tradition. But any song that praised, glorified, magnified, thanked, and worshiped God our King and Redeemer, Jesus our Lord and Savior, and the Holy Spirit our Comforter and Guide were the ones I desired.

There are some people who read the Bible every morning, over every meal and say a prayer before going to bed each night because they believe that’s what’s expected of a good Christian. However, they are at a loss to explain what reading their Bible and saying their prayers are intended to accomplish for their spiritual life. By the same token, how many believers do you know who are deeply into the Word and attend each worship service and Bible Study, and listen intently to every speaker, but when it comes to applying what they read and heard and studied to their everyday life they don’t know where to start?

To emphasize and illustrate what Paul was trying to say about not standing on his good works to achieve justification for being forgiven by God of his sins and canceling the death sentence the Law demanded that hung over his head, J. L. Nye, British Sunday school teacher in the 1800s offers this illustration:

2:17-18 Do you suppose that after we get right with God through faith in the Anointed One, we still end up sinners just because we didn’t perform every religious ritual and obey every regulation? Is it possible that following the Anointed One makes sinners out of us? Absolutely not! Just the opposite, we only remain sinners if we keep using the old outdated system of religious rituals and regulations instead of following the Anointed One.

I imagine the Judaizers might be thinking, “Isn’t Paul finished yet?” Oh no! What else is he going to say that makes us look so foolish? Since Peter is known as “The Rock,” I’ve given Paul the nickname “The Hammer.” I remember at the university when I studied Basic Logic, we were taught to watch for “p’s” and “q’s.” No doubt this is because the lowercase “p” looks like the “q” written backward. We used these symbols to identify parts of a statement that were either premises or conclusions. Depending on how the p’s and q’s were lined up as p → q or q ← p would determine whether or not the logic in the statement was true, flawed, or false.

At this point in Paul’s letter, he gives the Judaizers and Galatians something to really think about that sounds a lot like an exercise in logic.  Paul asks them, when you came to the Anointed One, was it because you were a sinner? Yes! So, as a sinner, you needed to be saved? Yes! Once you are saved, were you saved as a sinner? Yes! However, if after the Anointed One saves you and someone tells you that you are still a sinner because you don’t measure up to the standards of Mosaic Law, does that mean that the Anointed One really didn’t save you? No! The only way you end up being a sinner is if you let yourself be judged by what Mosaic Law demands, instead of being judged by what the Anointed One did for you. Upon being born again you are a sinner saved by grace. But after being born again you are in God’s grace that saves you from being considered a sinner any longer. If you sin after being born again you are a disobedient child of God and ripe for discipline.

[1] Augustine: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[2] Kohler, Kaufmann, Jewish Theology, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Deuteronomy 32:20; Hosea 4:1-3; Daniel 9:13; Jeremiah 11:1-17; 2 Kings 17:13-15

[4] John 1:14

[5] Avi ben Mordechai: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 23

[6] The Poetical Works of William Cowper: “The Task – ‘The Winter Morning Walk,’”, Published by William P. Nimmo, Edinburgh, 1863, Bk. V, p. 116

[7] J. L. Nye: op. cit., pp. 109-110

Some years ago, my wife and I stood in front of the Stephen Sondheim Theater on West 43rd Street in New York City, waiting for the doors to open so we could attend a Broadway Performance about songwriter Carole King. When I looked across the street, I noticed a four-story red brick building. But what really caught my eye was the large stone plaque above the marquee. It read: TOWN HALL, THE LEAGUE FOR POLITICAL EDUCATION. Then beneath this were these words, “YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.” I immediately thought of what Jesus said in John 8:32. But then it hit me! If only the American public, every politician, every school administrator, and teacher in the United States would subscribe to this motto, how much better our nation would be today. This Town Hall was opened on January 12, 1921, but its message has not only faded somewhat on the plaque over the years but in the minds of America’s educators. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

WHAT SEASON OF LIFE ARE YOU IN?

The individual who wrote this story did not give their name. But I’m glad they did share it with us. So, let it speak to your heart and mind as it did to me.

There was a man who had four sons. He wanted his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly. So, he sent them each on a mission. They were each to go at different times of the year and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away from their farmhouse.

He sent his first son in the winter, the second in the spring, the third in summer, and the youngest son in the fall. When they all completed their mission, he called them together to describe what they had seen.

The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted. But the second son said no it was covered with green buds and leaves. The third son disagreed; he said it was full of blossoms that smelled so sweet and looked so beautiful, it was the most graceful thing he had ever seen. The last son said they were all wrong, he saw a pear tree that was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment.

The man then explained to his sons that they were all correct because they had each seen but only one season in the tree’s life. He told them that you cannot judge a tree, or a person, by a particular season in their life, and that the essence of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that come from that life can only be measured at the end when all the seasons are up. If you give up on them when it’s winter, you will miss what they are like in the spring, their beauty during the summertime, and their accomplishments in the autumn of their life.

What can we learn from this? Don’t let the pain of one season destroy the joy of all the rest of your life. Don’t judge life by one difficult season. Persevere through the difficult patches and better times are sure to come. As King Solomon said so clearly, There’s an opportune time to do things, a right time for everything in life.[1] And the Scriptures say that there is a time when old things will be gone and new things will come.[2] In other words, life does not stand still, it keeps moving every day.

So, don’t let a bad Friday destroy your joy for the coming Sunday. Remember, that’s what the disciples went through. When they looked at Jesus on Friday, hanging dead on a cross, they thought their dreams of the Messiah were over. What they forgot was that Sunday was coming when they would see Him again in all His resurrected glory. The same is true for us. Don’t let some disappointing season in life ruin your hope and joy of one day seeing Him when He comes again. As the old hymn goes: “What a day that will be!” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1] Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

[2] Isaiah 42: 9; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Revelation 21:5

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXV)

British theologian James D. G. Dunn presents an interesting point of view in his commentary on this second chapter. As he sees it, the term “Works of the Law” are not the subject here, not by the Judaizers who flooded into Galatia or by Paul himself, as works, which earn God’s favor, as merit-amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what membership of the covenant people involves, what identify the Jews as God’s people; given to them by God for precisely that reason, that they serve to demonstrate a covenant status with Him. They are the proper response to God’s covenant grace, the minimal commitment for members of God’s people. This is a historical conclusion of some importance since it begins to clarify with more precision what were the connections and disconnections between Paul, his fellow Jewish Christians, and his own Pharisaic past, so far as justification and grace, covenant and law are concerned.

Dunn is disappointed that some dismissed the “works of the Law” because they see them as “good works” done to earn or enhance one’s salvation. In fact, these regulations prescribed by the law are what any good Jew would follow simply to define what a good Jew would do. To be a Jew was to be a member of the covenant, was to observe circumcision, food laws, and sabbath. In short, once again Paul seems much less a man of sixteenth-century Europe and much more firmly in touch with the reality of first-century Judaism than many thought.[1]

Andrew Roth gives us his translation of verse sixteen from the Aramaic Version. It reads: “For we know that the sons of men are not justified by the works of the Torah, but by faith in Yeshua the Messiah. Even we who believed in Him know that it is from the faith in Messiah that we will be justified and not from the works of the Torah. For from the works of the Torah no flesh shall be justified.”[2] This should help us understand that from the Jewish perspective, the “works” spoken of here by Paul were the works required by the Law for any Jew to prove themselves as a true Jew. This does not eliminate the good works reflected in the Fruit of the Spirit or the high moral standards that Jesus taught on how we should love each other and our fellowman.

In their Exposition on Galatians, several writers take the words of David as something Paul alluded to here in this verse. David prayed: “Adonai, hear my prayer; listen to my pleas for mercy. In your faithfulness, answer me, and in your righteousness. Don’t bring your servant to trial, since in your sight no one alive would be considered righteous.”[3] They then go on to note that David is at the end of his rope and he knows that no one is righteous before God, nor is there anything in any person that makes them right before God. Nothing in us warrants, merits, initiates or causes God to save us. Justification is all about grace, which means that faith itself is evidence of grace. Therefore, we must be careful not to make faith into a work of the law, so to speak. Yet, this is what is being done with things such as conventional prayers which, when recited, are supposed to result in a conversion. If we’re not careful, “Do this work and you’ll be saved” is what we’re communicating to people. But faith is not a work we muster up. Faith itself is evidence of grace. Justification is a gracious act of God that we need Him to take.[4]

Ronald Fung tells us that verses fifteen and sixteen form a single, overloaded sentence in the Greek; and aptly described as “Paul’s doctrine of justification in a nutshell” and must be examined in considerable detail. Speaking “from the provisional standpoint of the Jews” Paul describes himself, Peter, and the other Jewish Christians as “Jews by birth, not sinners like Gentiles.” This characterization at once focuses attention on the sharp distinction between Jew and Gentile. What made the Gentiles sinners, in the estimation of the Jews, was not only that they did not observe the law but also that they did not even possess it and consequently lacked the possibility of obtaining righteousness through it.

Fung then goes on to provide an extensive examination of what Paul is saying here about the role of knowledge in acquiring justification to stand before God as forgiven and redeemed. There are both negative and positive aspects of this concept. On the negative side, Paul is asserting that no human being is justified by doing all that the Law demands in order to live a righteous life. Positively, Paul states that there is a way and that is only through faith in the Anointed One Jesus. So, when we look for the middle ground between what is negative and positive factors, it boils down to two words, “not,” and “but.” People are not to depend on their good works to gain a right standing before God, but trust in the work of the Anointed One on the cross to make that possible. The Law is good in telling you what to do and not to do, but the Law cannot forgive or wash one’s sins away. Only the blood of the Lamb of God possesses that power. So, put your trust in Him, not in yourself.[5]

Don Garlington gives us a lengthy discussion on these two verses. But here are some of the salient points he makes. First, the concluding verses of chapter two appear to be disconnected from Paul’s autobiography. However, on closer examination, it is clear that Paul does not leave off talking about himself. Repeatedly in this closing on the first major segment of the letter, he refers to himself, along with other like-minded Jewish Christians, either in the first person singular or plural pronouns. The convictions at which he arrived about the justification of the people before God were forged on the anvil of his own experience as he made the painful transition from zealot persecutor of the congregation to proclaimer of the Gospel. But not only does this bring to a close what went before, it also forms a transition into chapters 3-4 in which Paul will expound in detail salvation’s historical grounding behind his Christian certitude that the Anointed One ended the law, fulfilled the promise to Abraham, and procured the gift of the Spirit for the reborn people of the final covenant.

Paul is basically saying to those who were “Jews by birth,” that they must understand that they only become Christians by a new birth. But their new birth would be very much like that of Nicodemus who came to Jesus at night to find out he could become part of the Kingdom of God. He was told that he lacked the knowledge he needed to understand the truth. So in order for him to gain that understanding, he must experience a complete overhaul of his mind and thinking.[6] Garlington points out that this was also a factor in Paul’s illustration about the Jewish believers being the natural branches in the Holy Olive tree and the Gentile believers being the wild branches that were grafted in.[7]

Garlington also points out the difference in how various English translations parse the participle “knowing” in verse sixteen. The New American Standard Bible reads: “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in the Anointed One Jesus.” On the other hand, the New International Version renders the participle as a finite verb and provides a somewhat smoother reading: “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus the Anointed One.” Either way, Paul’s point is that God’s method of justifying both Jews and Gentiles was a matter well-known to every Jewish believer.[8]

Duncan Heaster also shares an interesting insight as to why Paul is emphasizing the fact that once a person knows they cannot be justified by works, there’s only one choice, and that is to put their faith in Jesus the Anointed One. After his call by the Anointed One on the road to Damascus and his years spent in the wilderness, Paul was deeply touched by the inability of the Law to save. This realization led him to throw himself on the mercy of God by placing his faith in Jesus for justification. Therefore, the motive for believing in Jesus is not some impressive argument interlinking Jewish and Christians theologies. Instead, it is the stark realization that apart from the Anointed One, no one saves themselves from the penalty for their sins. Not through obedience to the Law nor in an abundance of good works.

Grant Osborne joins in the chorus in helping us understand the importance of this critical juncture in Paul’s doctrine of justification. Here in verse sixteen, we are introduced to the language that will dominate the doctrine of salvation for the rest of human history. The two key phrases are found in the antithesis between “justified by faith” (which occurs three times) and “works of the law” (also three times). Osborne says these would become the primary concepts for Paul’s understanding of salvation by faith in the Anointed One alone, with “justify” appearing twenty-seven times in his writings.

There are three levels at which this justification takes place: Because of the atoning sacrifice of the Anointed One when He took our place and carried our sins to the cross. (1) We are declared righteous by God and forgiven and our sanctification process expands. (2) Then we are made righteous by the Spirit, and the ethical side is born. (3) We then live rightly (“in righteousness”) before Him. All three elements are indicated in the “righteous” word group. All this means is that we are justified entirely by faith in the saving blood of the Anointed One – in no way by the works of the law. This phrase is found eight times in Romans and Galatians, always in connection with the issue of justification. While obeying the law could never bring salvation, it provided enough light to maintain a right relationship with God under the First Covenant. But now that the Anointed One came, both salvation and relationship with God result from the cross. The works of the law cannot justify a sinner, cannot produce forgiveness of sins, and cannot make a person right with God.

Osborne finishes by saying that our faith and trust cannot be in the Law or in our inherent goodness and good deeds, for it’s impossible for them to keep the Law perfectly enough or perform without error and often enough to overcome sin and purchase salvation. We are like the rich young ruler who came to Jesus claiming that he observed the law from childhood and hoped that his record would be sufficient, only to go away crestfallen because he couldn’t overcome his lust for wealth.[9] It would take a morally perfect person to earn salvation, and there is no such person apart from the Anointed One.[10]

In our modern context, this means that just being born in a Christian family, being baptized as an infant, and going to church during your youth years and continuing thereafter does not make one right with God nor qualifies them to be called a born-again child of God. Like the Jews and Gentiles, it only comes with a person’s recognition that sinners remain, sinners, unless they put their faith and trust in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Believing in their heart and confessing with their mouths that He is the Son of God and they are now in union with Him.[11]

[1] James D.G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2008), Section II.

[2] Andrew G. Roth: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Psalm 143:1-2 – Complete Jewish Bible

[4] Platt, David; Merida, Tony, on Galatians: op. cit., loc. cit., p. 46

[5] Ronald Y. K. Fung: On Galatians, op. cit., loc., cit., pp. 112-118

[6] John 3:1-17

[7] Romans 11:21-24

[8] Don Garlington: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 71-74

[9] Mark 10:17-22

[10] Osborne, G. R. On. Galatians, op. cit., pp. 71-73

[11] Romans 10:9-10