Down an Unfamiliar Road

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

THE DEVIL LOSES AGAIN – LUKE 4:9 [1]

Some ninety years after 80-90 AD, when Luke finished writing Acts of the Apostles, another follower of Christ, named Hegesippus, decided to write a similar chronology and bring things up to date. He wanted to include some incidents that Luke did not record. It ended up filling five volumes.  But over time copies were unfortunately lost from Near East libraries. But in a portion of the fifth volume, the only one to survive, Hegesippus tells a chilling story about one of the leading apostles still living in Jerusalem right before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. This apostle was approached by some priests, scribes, and Pharisees to help them out because so many of their comrades were becoming converts to Christianity. They asked this venerable Christian teacher, whom many Jewish leaders highly respected, to do something to stem the tide of their fellow Jews becoming Christians.  They asked him to go to the Temple area, climb up some 45 feet in one of the pillars above the Holy of Holies, look out the window where he could be easily seen and heard, and say something that would stop this erosion of their ranks.

Oddly enough, this close follower in the Anointed One agreed. When he reached the pinnacle someone who climbed up with him got everyone’s attention on the court below and with a loud voice yelled like an interrogator, “Oh, righteous friend, in whom we are able to place great confidence; the people are being led astray after this Jesus, the crucified one. So, tell us, what this Way is all about, and this Jesus?” This venerable Apostle did not hesitate, but cupped his hands around his mouth and called out his answer. “What can I say about Jesus the Anointed One, seeing that He sits at the right hand of God the Father in heaven, and will return in clouds of glory?”

Many in the Temple court below were so persuaded by this Apostle’s boldness that they began to glorify God and cry out, “Hosanna in the highest to the Son of David!” The scribes and Pharisees realized that their plan had backfired. Now, even more, may turn to Christ as the Messiah. So, they ordered that this Apostle be grabbed, and without thinking threw him out the window onto the ground below. When they climbed down, they found out that not only wasn’t he dead but had gotten to his knees. So, they picked up stones to finish the job. When they did, this servant of God folded his hands and prayed, “O Lord God, Father, I beseech you to forgive them, for they know not what they do.”[2] So, who was this early martyr for the cause of Christ?  He was none other than Jesus’ own brother, James the Just. The question for us is this: if confronted with the same situation today would we be as brave as James and give our all for Him who gave His all for us? – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1] Luke 4:9 – “The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here.” (NIV)

[2] Ibid. 23:34

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LV)

One of the leaders of the Puritan Movement in the Church of England and a Cambridge theologian, William Perkins, writes that when we see “Grace” in the Scriptures, it signifies two things: the free favor of God, and the free gifts of God in us. And while the Holy Spirit is the witness to our justification, it all starts with Grace. For we are first the recipients of God’s goodwill and favor by His pardoning of our sins, and granting us timeless life, all on the merits of the Anointed One, not our own.[1] Perkins then writes that when Paul states emphatically that he is not pushing aside the grace of God, he is implying that he would never frustrate the work of God’s grace with respect to his own life nor in respect to the lives of his fellow Jews when emphasizing that justification of a sinner is by faith alone. It must be remembered that the Anointed One died freely to satisfy the will of His Father in heaven. So why couldn’t the Jews understand that they too must die freely to the Law because it was the will of God for them to receive salvation through the Anointed One?[2]

Catholic scholar Cornelius à Lapide prefers the translation by St. Ambrose that reads, “I am not ungrateful to the grace of God.” This was Ambrose’ way of saying that anyone who frustrates the Grace of God does so by seeking to be justified through the Mosaic Law, as well as those who after baptism become polluted by sin. Lapide admits that this second cause is a moral interpretation, while the first must be taken literally. He goes on to say that anyone, therefore, who seeks to gain justification through the Law of Moses does so in vain. Lapide can’t imagine anyone being so insane as to say that the Anointed One suffered in vain. Our Lord did suffer for our justification; therefore, we are justified by the Anointed One not by Moses – by faith, not by Law.[3]

Matthew Poole sees Paul making it clear to the Galatians that he would never think of despising, rejecting, or making void the Grace of God. Poole points out that the Greek verb atheteō (“frustrate” KJV) Paul uses here is translated elsewhere in the Scriptures as “reject(s),”[4] “despises,”[5] “bring to nothing,”[6] “nullify,”[7] and “throws away.”[8] Not only does Poole feel that Paul is pointing to those who put the Law above Grace, but anyone today who responds to the free love of God in giving His Son to die for their sins then continues to live a loose life and exercise their liberty to sin shows contempt and despise their justification through God’s free grace in the Anointed One. This is another way of describing sinning against God.

Poole goes on to say that if there was a way to stand before God as being righteous through obedience to the Law of Moses, then the Anointed One did die for no reason. This conclusion is reached because it was the main principal purpose for which Christs died was to procure righteousness for those who could not find their way to be righteous through the Law. So, if His death is proven to be for no just cause and no real purpose, then it was all for nothing. But the opposite is true. There are none justified by obedience to the Law. God’s grace is the only factor that possesses the power to bring a sinner before Him so that because of their faith in the work that the Anointed One did on the cross they be made right with the Father.[9]

John Bengel hears Paul refusing to be lumped together with the Judaizers who manipulated their understanding of the grace of God and wanted everyone to know that he fully embraced God’s grace, apart from the Law, with all his heart and soul. Moses didn’t die for us; it was the Anointed One and the Anointed One alone who was worthy to die as a sacrifice to pay for our redemption. We need not worry about the Law anymore because living in the Anointed One fulfills the Law. The Law proved to be incapable of offering forgiveness and thereby justifying us to be called the children of God. To allow the Law of Moses to influence our justification and salvation is the make the Anointed One’s death as the Lamb of God an unnecessary and pointless event.[10]

Puritan preacher Johnathan Edwards suggest that anyone who uses their good works as the basis for being right with God, in spite of the fact that it was the Anointed One who died for them to buy their redemption, then they are saying that all God did for humanity in preparing the only way to God’s grace was all in vain. Such self-righteousness charges God with the greatest act of foolishness ever committed since eternity past. Edward is not finished, anyone thinks they get to God on their own to stand right before Him are the ones who are foolish, thinking that their poor polluted prayers and the little pains they take in following their religion is enough to do for oneself what the Anointed One did on the cross. Who would even think that they could appease God’s anger against sin through their own method of salvation is the same as telling Him that they didn’t need His Son the Anointed One, Jesus? Those who do so will be sinners in the hands of an angry God.[11] As Joseph Benson hints, if we live so that there exists no need for the Anointed One to die, then no reason existed for Him to die so that we might live.[12]

Adam Clarke summarizes his thoughts on what Paul is teaching here. As he sees it, no other well-grounded hope of timeless life exists but what comes through the Gospel. From the time of Adam down through the last 6000 years,[13] humanity sought to find a way of mending their broken heart: none discovered even came close to being effective. The Gospel of the Anointed One not only mend but completely cure and makes whole our infected human nature. Clarke wants to know if anyone fully understands the infinite excellency and importance of the Gospel? What was the world before its appearance? What will happen to sinners if this light is ever extinguished? Clarke prays, “Blessed Lord! let neither unfaithfulness nor false doctrine rises up to obscure this heavenly splendor!”[14]

James Haldane makes an interesting observation by noting that if a sinner could be justified by the Law of Sinai, then when the Anointed One raised the cup at the last supper with His disciples, He need not drink it, but rather, put it down still full of its contents. Why pretend that what He was about to do on the cross was of any consequence? Why go through with such a vain act in delusion? But Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit and saw a different picture. The Anointed One was the grand link of the chain by which God’s timeless purpose for salvation was secured. But to many, this truth was hidden in the treasures of wisdom and knowledge found only in the Scriptures. That’s why the Apostle Paul harbored no intention of lowering the importance of God’s grace and the Anointed One’s work on the cross, thereby setting aside infallible proof of Divine love – God purchasing believers with His own blood.

In addition, Haldane also points out that this conclusion to chapter 2 corresponds exactly with Romans, chapters 6 and 7. He says much more, but the essence of which I’ve summarized as follows: Not only was the Anointed One’s death the basis for the immediate work of redemption, but also the foundation for the progressive work of sanctification. We must remember, the Anointed One died a lingering death on the cross. He lived in pain for hours before bowing His head and surrendered His soul to God. So it is that the Anointed One’s pain, as with the pain of Adam’s sin continues to live in us.  Thus, our sinful tendencies are at war with our spiritual needs – the mind against the soul. Only when our Adamic nature is given a burial in baptism do believers receive the power to overcome such tendencies. It’s like being raised from the dead! This is so much better than yielding to the demands of the Law and continue to serve as slaves in its bondage.[15]

Johann Lange advises that we should never let our practice of self-devotion become more important than our faith in the work of the Anointed One on the cross when it comes to our justification and sanctification. He also includes five-fold reasons on how we may knowingly or unknowingly reject the grace of God as the all-sufficient means to justification and salvation. First, by a denial of the perfect satisfaction of the Law provided by the Anointed One. Secondly, by setting alongside Grace our own merits, worthiness, and righteousness. Thirdly, by abusing this Grace to favor any presumptions we may make of our own worthiness and, thereby, supersede sanctification. Fourthly, when even sincere souls, in feeling unworthy, are much too timid upon conviction to accept God’s grace because they think they must first on their own arrive at some degree of holiness before grace offers them salvation. Fifthly, when one is tempted to lean more upon feelings rather than the facts of God’s Word, they conclude that they somehow fell out of grace again and must start all over, again![16]

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.[17]

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.[18]

[1] See 2 Timothy1:9; Ephesians 2:8

[2] William Perkins: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 219

[3] Cornelius à Lapide: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 257

[4] Mark 6:26, 7:9; Luke 7:30; John 12:48

[5] Luke 10:16; 1 Thessalonians 4:8; Hebrews 10:28; Jude 1:8

[6] 1 Corinthians 1:19

[7] Galatians 3:15

[8] 1 Thessalonians 6:12

[9] Matthew Poole: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Location 720-731

[10] Johann Bengel: On Galatians, op, cit., p. 583

[11] Jonathan Edwards: op. cit., On Galatians 2:21, History of the Work of Redemption, Containing the Outlines of a Body of Divinity, Including a View of the congregation History, in a Method Entirely New, Period I, Part III, Sec. I, Kindle Location 7759-7763

[12] Joseph Benson: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[13] Clarke’s Commentary was first published in 1810.

[14] Adam Clarke: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[15] James Haldane: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 99-101

[16] Peter Lange: On Galatians, op. cit., a quote from Starke, Volume 8, Kindle Location 4187-4192.

[17] See Ephesians 2:4-9

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson LIV)

Early church scholar Ambrosiaster offers his interpretation of what Paul says here about the grace of God being nullified if justification could be obtained through the Law, thereby making the Anointed One’s death on the cross purposeless. He concludes that because future life is promised to Christians, the person who lives in this life is armed with the help of God and lives in the hope of the promised life to come. Such a person meditates on their new spiritual image, which they received as a token of their future existence, which through God’s grace is granted by the Anointed One’s love. Therefore, the person who perseveres in the faith of the Anointed One shows that they are not ungrateful to Him for this, because they know that they will receive no such benefit from anyone other than from Him and that they will only insult the Anointed One if they compare Him to someone else unable to do anything to help them.

So, for this early church scholar, there is nothing clearer than this – if a person could be justified by the Law, the Anointed One need not suffer and die. But because the Law could not grant forgiveness of sins nor prevent the second death from being carried out on its captives being held hostage because of sin, the Anointed One died to achieve what the Law could not do, and for this reason, He did not die in vain.  His death is justification for sinners being pardoned by God.[1]

Early church preacher Chrysostom asks how could an act so great on the part of the Anointed One, so awesome it surpasses human reasoning, be of no purpose? How could a mystery so indescribable, for which the prophets yearned in earnest expectation; the patriarchs foresaw and the angels were astonished to behold, acknowledged by all as the crown of God’s loving care – how could anyone say that this was for show and useless? Therefore, how exceedingly absurd it would be for them to say such a deed of great significance and importance proved pointless? Paul adopts an indignant tone toward them saying, “O foolish Galatians.”[2]

As early church scholar Haimo of Auxerre sees it, in spite of what some were saying about Paul version of the Gospel, he was not trying to nullify the grace of God. In other words, he exhibited no signs of spurning the faith he treasured in the Anointed One’s work on the cross and what the Gospel taught about the forgiveness of sins. The problem was, some didn’t want to believe that these were all gifts from God. Certainly, there were somethings people needed to do in order to deserve such blessings? But Paul was quick to respond by saying, “If righteousness could be achieved through the Law, that is, if the Law was able to justify a person as being right with God, then the Anointed One came and died for no reason; His passion was neither advantageous nor detrimental.”[3]

Then Bruno the Carthusian points to the fact that it is evident the Apostle Paul was not trying to nullify the grace of God just because he argued against restoring the Law as the rule by which Christians should live. He said clearly that to restore the Law would be to falsely believe that being right with God would be achievable through the Law. And if anyone could prove that to be true, then he would be willing to admit that the Anointed One died unnecessarily when He came to justify all those who believed in His work of the cross to be forgiven and called children of God by His Father in heaven. So, Paul was more or less asking if there was anyone who would come out and say that the Anointed One died in vain?[4]

Medieval scholar Peter Lombard comments on Paul’s adamant statement that he has no intention of nullifying God’s grace by pushing the Law out of the picture when it came to justification and a right standing before God. Only if he accepted the Law as a contributing factor, then that would certainly be nullifying God’s grace. Lombard suggests a paraphrase to repeat what Paul is saying here, namely, “I am not so ungrateful for the grace of God that I would compare it to something else that might do the same work.” So, if Paul were to admit that the Law possessed the power to make a person right in the eyes of God at the required for justification, then the Anointed One died in vain, having no purpose and without any valid reason.[5]

You would think that with such a compelling argument establishing the grace of God through the Anointed One for complete salvation, that congregations who profess to be the shining light for the Gospel of salvation in the world would simply let grace do its work. But hold on!  Did your grandparents or parents, or, did you yourself ever see or hear of someone who fell at the altar and confessed their sins and received salvation by way of God’s grace in the Anointed One, being told later that if they want to come back and join that congregation and worship with the other believers then they must change the way they dress; take off the jewelry they are wearing; remove their make-up; and change their hairstyle, stop going to movie houses and playing cards?  Did you ever try to persuade someone like that to return and become a member but they told you it would be too hard; they didn’t think they could measure up or become holy enough to make it, so why even try if they were only going to fail?

When this happens, that person equates keeping the church’s laws and customs with keeping their salvation.  So not only did they lose becoming a member of the church but figured that they also lost their place in the Anointed One.  Every congregation should encourage their members to be examples of right living, telling the truth, being fair and honest, helping one another, lifting up the Anointed One and living their lives in honor of Him. But why tell a new believer that because they didn’t measure up to man’s standard of external holiness, they lost all their inward holiness? Does this sound harsh and straightforward to you? Doesn’t Paul really confront that type of mindset? Wonder how the Galatians and Judaizers were feeling now?

Early church theologian Thomas Aquinas says Paul not only denies trying to put away the grace of God, but he uses its principal as part of his conclusion. First, he draws the conclusion, then secondly, he explains it. He begins by saying that because he received such marvelous grace from God, yes, so great was that grace given to him by God Himself, it made it possible for him to place his faith in the Son of God for salvation. Something not available under the Law. So why would he now disown the grace of God? That would make him out to be a liar and an ungrateful fool. As he told the Corinthians: “I am different now. It is all because of what God did for me by His loving-favor. His loving-favor was not wasted. I worked harder than all the other missionaries. But it was not I who worked. It was God’s loving-favor working through me.”[6] Aquinas refers to another version (which he does not identify) as saying, “I am not ungrateful for the grace of God.” He then points to the Book of Hebrews that quotes: “Looking diligently, lest any man is wanting to [misses out on] the grace of God.”[7] Paul knew what would happen if he showed himself to be unworthy because of ingratitude.

Paul also knew that such an act would be a form of repudiation and of ingratitude if he were to say that the Law is necessary in order to be justified. That’s why he says, that if justification came by way of the Law, then the Anointed One died in vain. Did not the Apostle Peter also say, “The Anointed One also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might offer us to God?”[8] Now if this could be done through the Law, the death of the Anointed One would be pointless. But He did not die in vain or labor for no purpose, as Isaiah complained,[9] because through Him alone came justifying grace and truth, as it is said in John’s Gospel.[10] Therefore, if any were justified before the passion of the Anointed One, this too was through the faith of the Anointed One to come in Whom they believed and in Whose faith they were redeemed.[11]

Martin Luther minces no words in his objection to the way the Roman Catholic church in his day seemed to frustrate the grace of God from being fully implemented as part of one’s salvation.  He reads this twenty-first verse as Paul’s way of getting ready for the second argument of his Epistle, namely: that to seek justification by works of the Law is to reject the grace of God. In Luther’s mind, there was no sin more disrespectful than to reject the grace of God and to refuse the righteousness of the Anointed One? It is bad enough that we are wicked sinners and transgressors of all the commandments of God. On top of that, to refuse the grace of God and the remission of sins offered to us by the Anointed One is the worst sin of all, the sin of sins. That is the limit.

Luther goes on to say, there is no sin which Paul and the other apostles detested more than when a person despises the grace of God through the Anointed One Jesus. Still, there is no sin more common. That is why Luther became get so angry at the leadership of the Catholic church because they snubbed the Anointed One, rebuffed the grace of God, and refused the merit of the Anointed One. For Luther, this was like spitting in the Anointed One’s face, pushing the Anointed One to the side, seizing the Anointed One’s throne, and saying: “We are going to justify you people; we are going to save you.” And how do they plan to do it? By daily masses, pilgrimages, pardons, merits, etc. For this is Antichrist’s doctrine: Faith, they claim, is no good unless it is reinforced by works. By this abominable doctrine the benefit of the Anointed One is minimized, and in place of the grace of God through the Anointed One and His Kingdom ended up spoiled, darkened, and buried. In doing so, established the Doctrine of Works and the Kingdom of Ceremonies.[12]

For John Calvin, since there was no formal congregation in Paul’s day, his great emphasis on how dreadful is the ingratitude manifested in despising the grace of God, so invaluable in itself, and obtained at such a price was in response to the heinous offense by the false apostles, who were not satisfied with having the Anointed One alone, but introduced Jewish rite, rituals, ceremonies, and observances of feasts and holy days as an aid towards securing their salvation in the Anointed One. As Calvin sees it, if we do not renounce all other hopes, and embrace the Anointed One alone, we reject the grace of God. And what resource is left to the person who “pushes away” the grace of God, “and thereby makes themselves unworthy of everlasting life?[13] [14]

[1] Ambrosiaster: On Galatians, Ancient Christian Texts, op. cit., p. 14

[2] Chrysostom: On Galatians, Homily 2:21, Edwards, M. J. (Ed.). p. 34

[3] Haimo of Auxerre: On Galatians, The Bible in Medieval Tradition, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle location 1275

[4] Bruno the Carthusian: On Galatians, The Bible in Medieval Tradition, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle location 2006

[5] Peter Lombard: On Galatians, The Bible in Medieval Tradition, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle location 2811

[6] I Corinthians 15:10

[7] Hebrews 12:15 – The Douay-Rheims Version

[8] 1 Peter 3:18

[9] Isaiah 49:4

[10] John 1:17

[11] Thomas Aquinas: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[12] Martin Luther: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 53

[13] Acts of the Apostles 13:46

[14] John Calvin: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.