Down an Unfamiliar Road

WILL YOU HEAR YOUR NAME IN HEAVEN?

God’s Word often tells us to be still. And yet, in this busy world of ours, it’s hard to find time to just stop and reflect. For Brent Hairr, his moment of stillness came as he waited for a train to pass by at the railroad tracks. But in that time, God used a divinely timed song on the radio to send Brent a powerful message!

Brent was headed to a meeting for work when flashing red lights at the railroad tracks stopped him. He had plenty of time to get to the nearby appointment, so the delay didn’t bother him. But as he waited for the train to pass with the radio silent, he found his thoughts drifting.

The railroad tracks brought back the memory of a co-worker who’d been killed by a train. Brent was surprised to realize how many years had passed since the tragic accident. “We actually worked on opposite shifts, so he didn’t get to know him well enough to know if he had ever accepted the free salvation and grace offered by Jesus,” Brent recalled.

Brent continued to wonder about his friend. Was he a believer? Had he accepted Christ as his personal savior? Not knowing the answer to these questions started to nag at Brent. His heart ached, and his mood took a nosedive.

Considering he was about to head into a meeting for work, he flipped on the radio to try and improve his mood. And his spirits soared when he realized the song on the radio was a clear case of divine intervention! Brent’s friend, who was killed, was a big fan of Eric Clapton. In fact, Brent recalled a day when his co-worker told him how he thought Eric was the greatest guitar player in the world!

The moment Brent turned on the radio, the opening words to Eric Clapton’s song, “Tears in Heaven” that the musician wrote in memory of his four-year-old son, who in 1991 fell 50 stories to his death from a New York apartment building, greeted him: “Would you know my name if I saw you in heaven?” “I no longer wondered if my friend had accepted Christ,” Brent said. “Through divine intervention, I had my answer.”

God speaks to us in many ways — sometimes in ways, others call coincidence. And that’s why being still is so important. Otherwise, you just might miss it!

While growing up in church, I remember a song that spoke to me when I was confronted with choices. Some were good, and some were bad. The lyrics go as follows:

When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound, and time shall be no more,
And the morning breaks, eternal, bright and fair.
When the saved of earth shall gather over on the other shore,
And the roll is called up yonder, I’ll be there.

When the roll, is called up yon-der,
When the roll, is called up yon-der,
When the roll, is called up yon-der,
When the roll is called up yonder, I’ll be there.

So, it is no wonder that at times that the last line of the chorus became a question. “When the roll is called up yonder, will I be there?” If that has happened to you or someone you know, the Holy Spirit is here to remind us of what God gave the prophet Isaiah to say: “Listen to me, all who hope for deliverance— all who seek the Lord! Consider the rock from which you were cut, the quarry from which you were mined (Isaiah 51:1).”

This is undoubtedly the kind of message that keeps us going. As the Apostle John was told: “All who are victorious will be clothed in white. I will never erase their names from the Book of Life, but I will announce before my Father and his angels that they are mine (Revelation 3:5).”

So, this leaves us with a big question. Are we responsible for getting ourselves to heaven, or is the One who saved and redeemed us in charge? Can we make it on our own or do we need His help? In moments like this, you can expect the Holy Spirit to send you a message. Like Brent, it may come through a song on the radio or in church. You may also receive it through His Word or someone who gives you a word of encouragement. It can also be transmitted as a result of a tragedy or hardship. But whatever way God may choose, you’ll be able to say with confidence: “When the roll is called up yonder, I’ll be there!” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXXV)

5:14a In fact, God’s will for your life is summed up in this one statement: “Lovingly care for those around you the same way you care for yourself.”

 Just as Jesus summed up all the commandments into one,^[1] here, Paul sums them up in verse fourteen into one.^[2] Paul bases his statement on Jesus’ own words of saying that “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ^[3] But as Paul told Timothy, the goal of this command is to be fulfilled by a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.^[4] This reduction of the list of laws into a smaller number was no surprise to someone like Paul. After all, when Moses wrote down the ten commandments that God gave him on the mountain, it tells us that all he wrote in Hebrew was `eser dabar when translated means “ten words.” ^[5]

In a universally accepted paraphrase of the Pentateuch, we read: “And the Lord said to Moses write these words, for through the expression of these words I have etched my covenant with you and with the people of Israel. And Moses was there before the Lord forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread, nor did he drink water, and he wrote upon the tables the same ten words of the covenant written on the previous tablets [that he broke].” ^[6]

An interesting question was asked of Rabbi Akiba, “Why were the Ten Commandments not listed at the beginning of the Torah?” The Rabbis told a parable, said Rabbi Akiba, about a king who entered a province and said to the people, “May I be your king?” But the people said to him, “Have you done anything good to us that you should rule over us?” What did he do then? He built the city wall for them, he brought in the water supply for them, and he fought their battles. Then when he said to them, “May I be your king?” they said, “Yes!” Likewise, God. He brought the Israelites out of Egypt, divided the sea for them, sent down the manna for them, brought up the water for them, sent in the quails for them, fought for them the battle with Amalek. Then He said to them, “Am I to be your king?” and they said to Him, “Yes! Yes!” ^[7]

These words, “You should love your neighbor as yourself” taken from Leviticus 19:18 and which Rabbi Akiba, who was a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, says that this is “the grand general rule in the Law;” or “the grand encompassing of the Law.” The object of love – our neighbor, signifies not only, as the Jews explain it, those of their nation, or new converts to their religion; but all sorts of people, whether in a social, civil, or spiritual relationship.^[8]

Cyprian (200-258 AD), the Bishop of Carthage, wrote on the subject of how Love and brotherly love are to be religiously and steadfastly practiced by all believers. In recalling what the Apostle Paul said about love never failing,^[9] ties it to what Paul says here in verse twenty-four. In other words, Paul is saying that it does absolutely no good to do such good deeds when we do them without Love. In that case, it also applies to how we love our neighbor as ourselves. Because things not done in Love, rather than bringing harmony and peace, it leads to backbiting and accusations that end up ruining everyone involved.^[10]

Kenneth Wuest has some enlightening things to say here about the basis of freedom into which believers were called. Paul’s statement becomes intelligible and consistent when we recognize the following points; first, that believers, through their new relation to the Lord Jesus, are released from the whole Law and from the obligation to obey its statutes. Second, that all which God’s law as an expression of His will requires, is included in love. And third, when believers act on the principle of love, they are fulfilling in their actions toward God, their neighbor, and themselves. That’s all the Mosaic Law requires of them in their position in life was that Law to be enforced.

The believer will normally obey the statutes of the Law so far as love itself requires such a course of action for them, and in no case will they follow them as compulsory decrees. The individual is thereby released from one Law consisting of a set of ethical principles. To these principles was the attached blessing for obedience and punishment in the case of disobedience. Such a law that gave them neither the desire nor the power to obey its commands, and is brought under another law, the law of love. This law is not a set of written commandments but an ethical and spiritual dynamic, produced in the heart of the yielded believer by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit then gives them both the desire and the power to live a life in which the dominating principle is love. Not just any love, but God’s love, which exercises a stronger and stricter control over the heart and is far more efficient at putting out sin in the life than the legalizers think the thunders of Sinai ever were.^[11]

Christian Jewish writer Ariel ben Lyman HaNaviy takes note of what Paul says here in verse fourteen about reducing the whole Law into one sentence – “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If Paul thought that the Torah was done away with in Yeshua, as the prevailing Christian interpretation would have us to believe, says Lyman, then how in the world is it also fulfilled (summarized) in a single command to love our neighbor as ourselves? First, in stating that we can fulfill the entire Torah by a single command, Paul follows in a tradition not uncommon among Jews of his day, a culture Yeshua Himself seems to have also observed. Recall that when questioned about the greatest commandment, Yeshua stated that to love God was the greatest and that a second is just like it: love your neighbor as you love yourself. He went on to explain that on these two hang the entire Law and the Prophets – namely the fulfillment/summary.^[12]

Mark D. Nanos doesn’t want the reader to miss a somewhat hidden point in what Paul is saying here about loving their neighbor. For Paul, this was a traditional declaration that lay at the center of a Jew’s life in being obedient to the Torah. Even though the Gentiles were not under the Law, they were still being called upon to follow this commandment. But here is the irony, the moral authority of the Judaizers broke down over the fact they were not seeking the welfare of the Galatians, but only themselves. Paul is doubtful that these Judaizers were keeping all the ceremonial laws. So instead of just telling the Galatians what they ought to do, he instructs them to exemplify it with their behavior.^[13] Unfortunately, this attitude is still prevalent among some Christian leaders to this day. As the old saying goes, “Practice what you preach!”

Another Christian Jewish Bible scholar, David Stern,^[14] and Messianic Jewish writer Tim Hegg^[15] say that Paul is not negating the Torah, or reducing it to just one command, as though the other claims of the Torah are now no longer applicable. Anyone aware of the prevailing tendencies of Rabbis to summarize the Torah would acknowledge Paul’s point. For instance, consider the well-known passage from the Talmud, which speaks of summing the Torah commandments:

It is apparent that the Talmud did not record that the Messiah came and also agreed that the fulfillment of the Law could be accomplished in one commandment. When asked what were the greatest commandments, Jesus replied to the inquirers: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” [18] This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.[19] All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” [20] So, here it appears that the Apostle Paul uses the first and greatest commandment that the Master gave – love.

In the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, we find the quotes from Jesus about the two great commandments. But it is buried in Part Three, Section Two, Chapter Two. This is not a criticism of the Catholic Church. In the Catechism of the Episcopal Church, it is found in Part IV, The Ten Commandments, Number 260. But look at the teachings of any Church or denomination and see if loving God and loving one’s neighbor is even included.

[1] Matthew 7:12; See 22:39-40

[2] Also see Romans 13:8

[3] Mark 12:31, 33; see Leviticus 19:34; Luke 10:27-37

[4] 1 Timothy 1:5-7

[5] Exodus 34:28

[6] Targum on the Pentateuch: Onkelos and Jonathan, op. cit., Exodus 34:28

[7] Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael by Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Vol. I, Ch. 5, (Exodus 20:2), Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1933, pp. 313-314

[8] See Rabbi Rashi Commentary on The Complete Jewish Bible, op. cit., loc. cit.

[9] 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

[10] The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5., op. cit., The Treatises of Cyprian: Treatise 12, Third Book, Testimonies, p. 1092

[11] Wuest, Kenneth: Word Studies, op. cit., loc. cit.

[12] Matthew 22:36-40

[13] Mark D. Nanos: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 228

[14] Stern, David H.. On Galatians, op. cit., Kindle Locations (16112-16120)

[15] Tim Hegg: Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Torah Resource, Tacoma, WA, 2002, pp. 193, (Updated 2010), pp. 233-234

[16] Psalm 15

[17] Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin, Masekhet Makkoth, folio 24a

[18] Deuteronomy 6:5

[19] Leviticus 19:18

[20] Matthew 22:37-40

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXXIV)

Wesleyan theologian Adam Clarke (1760-1832) similarly views this total freedom from all the burdensome rites, rituals, and ceremonies of the Mosaic law was not to be taken as the liberty for our sinful tendencies to do as they pleased. Jewish teachings on purification and sacrifice are significant because the Rabbis dictated them to control such moral failures. Clarke explains that Paul’s use of the phrase “by or of the flesh,” refers to all the unsanctified desires and sinful inclinations of the mind. It is the mind that sparks the body’s reaction.  So, whatever is not under the influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit of God in our thinking is liable to lead us into error.

With the freedom we were given by Jesus, the Anointed One comes the power to suppress our unnatural desires, not to forbid our natural feelings. The Gospel proclaims freedom from ceremonial laws while at the same time making us responsible for obeying the moral laws. To be freed from ceremonial laws is the Gospel of liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is lawlessness.^[1] As Clarke sees it, Paul’s encouragement to serve one another in the dedication, even as a servant serves his master, this will also harness any unlawful behavior.

Another commentator, Ernest DeWitt Burton (1856-1925), sees Paul’s concern about the misuse of the freedom believers have in the Anointed One as one of “opportunity.” In other words, opportunity acts like a door hinge in our minds. Every opportunity given to us can either swing in the direction of doing what is right or doing what is wrong. To do right is using our freedom, to do wrong is abusing our privilege. To people accustomed to thinking of the Law as the only obstacle to self-indulgence, or to those, on the other hand, who have not been familiar with high ethical standards, such language can quickly be interpreted to mean that for the Christian there is nothing to stand in the way of the unrestrained indulgence of their impulses.^[2]

So, what is going on in Galatia; were Galatian believers are more interested in satisfying the preferences of their sinful-self rather than the inclinations of their spiritual oneness with the Anointed One? Paul wants them to know that when it comes to our expressions of love and freedom, the one virtue that influences them both is that they must be mutually rewarding. In other words, manifestations of love must be of mutual benefit to both the giver and receiver. Even though God loved us while we were yet sinners, it was to His advantage since it showed His true feelings for us; and it was beneficial to us in that it drew us out of darkness into His marvelous light. Likewise, with freedom, Jesus said who the Son sets free are free indeed. Our LORD is pleased because it shows His desire for us to serve Him of our own volition, and it benefits us in that we can say with all honesty that we serve Him because we choose to do so. That’s why both love and freedom are acts of the will, not merely emotional responses to things that attract us.

Furthermore, we received neither love nor freedom to take advantage of such a blessing.  We should never use all that’s good and kind and loving for personal gain. Sometimes people use acts of love and freedom to draw attention to themselves and enhance their egos. Perhaps Paul was thinking about this when he wrote the Corinthian believers: “If I could speak all the languages of earth and heaven but didn’t love others, I would only sound like a broken gong or a cheap cymbal.  If I had the gift of prophecy and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had enough faith to move mountains, but did not love others, I would be of no value.  If I gave everything I had to the poor and became deathly ill in the process so I could boast about it if I didn’t do it out of love for others, my effort would simply lead to going broke.” ^[3]

What caused Paul such grave concern? Could it be that he heard of some troublesome practices developing among the believers in Galatia after they split over whether or not to wed themselves to the old Jewish religious rituals and regulations, or whether to engage in the newness of worshiping God in spirit and truth? Is it possible that some misunderstood the freedom they received through the Anointed One that eliminated all the burdensome religious rituals and regulations of Mosaic Law, thinking they were now free to live any way they wanted to? Didn’t they see that the liberty they received was from things that oppressed how their spiritual oneness with the Anointed One’s expressed itself in spirit?  Why did they mistake that as the removal of restraints on how their sinful-self, manifested itself in the flesh?  While the Gospel proclaims liberty from Mosaic Law, it still binds us firmly to Moral Law. To claim freedom from Mosaic Law is liberty, but to declare independence from Moral Law, is lawlessness.

Current Bible commentator Richard N. Longenecker notes that previously Paul argued for Christian freedom against the Jewish religious legal system. Still, here in verse thirteen, he redirects his thought to contend for Christian freedom against “Christian” self-centered irresponsibility. Church laws must never regulate our liberty in union with the Anointed One. Neither should it ever become an occasion for church lawlessness. So, rather than statutes or licenses, the realities that characterize Christian freedom are “love,” “serving one another,” and “walking in the Spirit.” We see that these three appear throughout the exhortations from chapter five, verse thirteen, to chapter six, verse ten. It forms the skeleton of a believer’s faith to which all the muscles, tissues, and appearance conform.^[4]

Grant R. Osborne also comments on how love holds a central place in the Christian life. Paul made his case against the false theology of his opponents. He showed that salvation comes only by faith and not by circumcision or the works of the Law. The Apostle challenged Galatians to turn from slavery under the Law and instead to seek the freedom that comes only in the Anointed One. People raised as pagans easily misconstrue liberty for libertinism and turn to immorality. So, now he has to clarify what he means by Christian independence. Freedom in the Anointed One is freedom in the Spirit, so they must realize it means giving priority to the will of the Spirit rather than the sinful tendencies of the flesh, as shown especially by the fruit of the spirit. Therefore, with the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, love goes vertically to God and then goes horizontally to those around us. Fruit of the spirit blossoms in the Christian or the Church only when love is blooming at the center of each member’s being.^[5]

British theologian Nicholas T. Wright, tells a story to illustrate the misuse of freedom. As he relates, in the middle of Oxford University, there stands a beautiful building, surrounded by well-kept grass. The building is a library, circular in shape, topped by a magnificent dome. It is gorgeous inside and out. People photograph it, make paintings of it, and admire it. It is called the “Radcliffe Camera.” At one time, high railings protected the grass that surrounds the building – so high that unless you were quite tall, they would obscure your view of the building itself. During the Second World War, however, the government commanded that ironwork be removed and melted down to make armaments.

As you can imagine, suddenly, the Radcliffe Camera and its grass were free from what was a rather forbidding barricade. During the 1950s and 1960s, there were small notices requesting people not to walk on the grass. Most people obeyed. But then, in the 1970s and 1980s, the grass became a favorite spot for tourists to picnic. People would have parties there. Vagrants from the town would hang out there, to drink, to beg, and sometimes to threaten passers-by. People in the library found it was getting noisy, and they couldn’t do their work. They trampled the grass so that it became worn out. The whole area no longer looked beautiful; instead, it looked messy and shabby.

Finally, in the late 1980s, the university made a decision: lower railings had to go up. Now, once again, the grass and building are beautiful. This little tale is all about the use and abuse of freedom. It is one thing to be set free from prison or slavery, and quite another to decide what to do with your freedom when you’ve got it. Every criminal faces this issue when released from prison: should I use my new-found freedom to go and commit more crimes? The fact that you are, in one sense, free to walk on, and even ruin, the grass around a beautiful building doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do. Freedom from restraint, if it is to be of any use, must be matched by a sense of freedom for a particular purpose.^[6]

Don Garlington takes what Paul says here in verses thirteen to fifteen as the Apostle’s message on the responsibilities of liberty in the Spirit by echoing verse one on the all-important call to freedom. He stresses that the recipients of this letter find their self-identity precisely in their birth of the “free woman” [Sarah], not the “slave woman” [Hagar].^[7] Accordingly, Paul calls them “brethren” once more because he is sure of the genuineness of their faith, notwithstanding their momentary attraction to the Law teachers of the covenant. But having asserted the central thesis of this letter – freedom – he turns to the other side of the coin: they are not to use their liberty as an opportunity for gratifying their passions.

Garlington reminds us that freedom is not only from the old enslavement but in new responsibilities. As I read this, I thought of circumstances in which a parent gives their child going off to college, a credit card, with the provision of using it only for their “needs.” However, when the account summary comes in, they see that in addition to registration, books, food, and dorm expenses, there were also charges for a night club, a tavern, a rock concert, multiple taxi charges to resorts. In other words, since they had the credit card, they were tempted to use if for their “wants,” not for their “needs.” In the same way, Paul is telling the Galatians that they have the freedom to get what they need to serve God, the body of the Anointed One, and their fellow believers. But they felt free enough to explore other possibilities involving satisfying the desires of the flesh since, in their mind, the Torah no longer applies.^[8]

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

[2] Burton, Ernest DeWitt, op. cit., pp. 291-292

[3] 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

[4] Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians, Vol. 41, op. cit., Kindle Location (12646-12650)

[5] Osborne, G. R: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 174–175

[6] Wright, Nicholas T., Paul for Everyone: Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[7] See Galatians 4:31

[8] Garlington, Don: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 152

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXXIII)

Early Church writer Ambrosiaster makes a valid point that points to Paul’s purpose in giving this warning. He writes: “They were called to freedom because when they were still bound in sin, they received the forgiveness of their wrongdoings and were set free by the grace of God.” ^[1]  As far as this scholar was concerned, he feels that Paul may have thought that these Galatians might take their freedom from the Law as the license to be lawless in their behavior.  It also may be why the false apostles advocated that they are circumcised to redirect them back under the restrictions inherent in the Law. Ambrosiaster points to the fact that Paul, therefore, warns the Galatians not to give them an opportunity by agreeing to what they say. He exhorts them, advising that they should not love each other carnally but in the Spirit and so be bound to one another.^[2]

Early church Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, asserts that the state of any union with God does not rest in either liberty or bondage but the status of one’s faith in Jesus the Anointed One. The Apostle Paul urges this as part of freedom itself. That’s why he tells them that the Spirit called them into liberty. It’s another way of saying the Galatians were being troubled by intruders because they were allowing themselves to led away from what is better to what is worse. What makes it such a mystery is that their calling came from God into the freedom of grace.^[3] We are not the children of the slave woman [Hagar] but the freewoman [Sarah]. No one whom the Anointed One set free should ever want to be led back into bondage. But this will happen if their freedom is misused or abused. As a consequence, liberty in the Spirit becomes perverted to the slavery of human passions.^[4] However, immorality was not Paul’s only concern, as we will see in the verses that follow.

Reformer Martin Luther gives his view of what Paul is talking about here. To put it simply, true believers gained liberty through Jesus the Anointed One, that is, they are not obliged to follow the ceremonial laws as far as their conscience is concerned. The Anointed One saved them to give them liberty and life. Therefore, the Law, with its penalty of death, must be enforced because one broken precept breaks the whole Law. Therefore, anyone seeking salvation under the Law is driven to despair. That goes against the constitution of any believer’s priceless liberty. Now take care that you do not use your incredible freedom for an occasion to satisfy the flesh because you feel invulnerable.

Satan likes to turn this liberty, which the Anointed One got for us, into immorality.^[5] The desires of the flesh conclude that without the Law able to force us under its power, we might as well indulge ourselves. Why do good all the time; why give to charity as one’s own expense; why fear prosecution the Law possesses no authority to do so? This attitude is predominant enough already. People talk about Christian liberty and then go and cater to the desires of greed, pleasure, pride, envy, and other vices. Nobody wants to fulfill their duties. Nobody wants to help out a brother or sister in distress.^[6] One of the biggest mistakes some Christians make is blaming their lack of participation in reaching out to the lost and lonely is that they were too busy in their ministry for the Lord.

Luther then goes on to note that by adding love, the Apostle embarrasses the false apostles very much. It’s as if he were saying to the Galatians: “I’ve described to you what spiritual life is. Now I’m going to teach you what good works mean. I am doing this for you to understand that the silly ceremonies the false apostles say are necessary are far inferior to the works of Christian love.” Such is the hallmark of all false teachers that they not only pervert the pure doctrine but also fail in doing good. Their foundation on which they build their tradition is faulty by using wood, hay, and sawdust to create. Oddly enough, the false apostles who were such earnest champions of good works never required charitable work like that done in Christian love and by putting it into practice with counsel, a helping hand, and a loving heart. Their only requirement was observing circumcision, special days, months, and years. That’s all the good works they could imagine.^[7]

In my teaching on the definition of love, I pointed out that love has two strong impulses: One, to hold on to its object of affection with all its might to prove loyal and faithful. Second, be willing to let go when it’s in the best interest of its intended object to show unselfishness and lack of greed.  In the same light, Paul states that freedom in which a sanctified conscience operates also allows for two genuine expressions: One, the license to refrain by saying, “No, thank you!” And two, the permit to participate by saying, “Yes, I will!” both of which should be respected by all involved.

Chrysostom shares that although Paul continues to refer to the Law as a yoke of bondage, we must remember that Jesus also offered us a yoke. The great preacher puts it this way: “For the bonds of the Law are broken, and I say this not that our standard may be lowered, but that it may be exalted.” ^[8] In other words, since we are not chained to sin, we are free to choose. Some, unfortunately, want to go back while others decide to go forward. As Chrysostom put it, both of these types of believers’ cross over the boundary line of the Law, but not in the same direction. A demoted person finds that things get worse. Promoted individuals find that the situation becomes better. The first one transgressed the Law, and the second transcends it.^[9] What we see here, Paul will share later when he talks about the works of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit.

We must decide whether the Greek noun pneuma should read the fruit of the “spirit” or the fruit of the “Spirit.” First, we see that previously Paul listed many of the works of the flesh. These are inherent sinful tendencies in the mind and heart that lead to the breaking of God’s standard of holiness, thereby producing sin. So, to counterbalance this, Paul now turns from the flesh of the believer to the spirit of the believer. It would not make sense to compare an internal fighter with an external opponent. This does not cancel the notion that we are also talking about the Spirit of God as well as the spirit of humankind. A person without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is prone to be involved in the works of the flesh. But by having the Holy Spirit dwelling within gives rise to a person’s spirit to produce fruit. If we look at it this way: let the Spirit represents a tree, and the spirit signifies the branches, together they produce fruit which by themselves would not be possible.

One of Chrysostom’s contemporaries, Marius Victorinus, gives his understanding of what Paul is saying here. In his mind, the Gospel of the Anointed One, which is spiritual, does grant us the freedom to leave this world one day and return to the Father. However, since we are still in the world (that is, in the flesh), we ought not to exercise this liberty which we received in such a way that we live according to dictates of bodily desires, and that we look for occasions to act out our physical cravings. Even though the Apostle Paul confirms that we are free people through our faith in the Anointed One, we are not open to sin willingly.^[10] Chrysostom goes on to say that we must never misunderstand that while we can appreciate the freedom granted us, nevertheless, we ought to use it to serve each other through the love of the Spirit, not of the flesh.

A co-reformist of Luther’s, John Calvin, also sees the constraints on the liberty a believer receives through the Anointed One. He points out that the method explained here by Paul of restraining our freedom given to us by Jesus the Anointed One from breaking out into open and immoral abuse. It is to be regulated by divine love. Let us always remember, says Calvin, that the present question is not, in what manner we are free before God, but in what way do we use our liberty in our interaction with our fellowman. A good conscience submits to no forced obedience.

Nevertheless, to do nothing in response to a plea for help, we are abstaining from the use of our liberty. In other words, if “by love, we serve one another,” we will always keep in mind that it is to help us grow in our faith and God’s Word. That way, we will not become uncensored and indiscriminate in our behavior. Everything to be done by us is by God’s grace and for His honor, praise, and glory, and the salvation of our neighbors.^[11]

Catholic scholar Cornelius à Lapide (1567-1637) responds to what he’s heard about the preaching of Luther and Calvin on what Paul says here in verse thirteen concerning being called into the liberty of God’s Grace. For him, it is evident, therefore, how grossly the Protestants pervert the Apostle’s words when they argue from this that Christians are free from all positive law, and owe no obedience to prelates, to magistrates, or parents. This goes against the laws of nature and the Ten Commandments, he says. It makes them revolutionist against all civil government, of all church government, and not obligated to all human society. There has never been a nation, however ferocious, without its magistrates and laws, nor without them could the peace be kept, nor any country continue imposing law and order. With the state of bureaucracy in the hierocracy of the Catholic Church even in his day, we can see why Lapide felt the way he did.

For once a person is persuaded that the civil or the ecclesiastical law does affect their conscience, but only as its sanctions constrain our fears, they will violate the law without any scruple, whenever they think it safe to do so. Accordingly, the Anointed One, Paul, and the Apostles in general frequently order Christians to obey Cæsar and other unbelieving magistrates, not only for wrath’s sake but also for conscience’ sake.^[12] Needless to say, this misrepresentation of what the Reformers were teaching and preaching was part of the contention between the Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars during those days. The main point of contention was that the Catholic Church promoted the Pope as the successor to Peter and, therefore, over all Churches. That put the Protestants on the outside, refusing to come in and submit themselves to the power of Rome and the Vatical. So, we must ask ourselves if anything has changed over the centuries?

[1] Ambrosiaster: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 29

[2] Ibid.

[3] Romans 8:15

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

[5] Jude 4

[6] Luther, Martin: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[9] Ibid.

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

[11] Calvin, John: Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[12] Lapide, Cornelius à: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXXII)

Dutch Bible Scholar Alfred E. Bouter comments on why Paul complained about still being persecuted over the subject of circumcision as an unnecessary rite for believers justified by grace. He admonishes that not only do we need to grasp what Paul is saying here in verse eleven, but we need to apply it to our Christian lives as well. In the religious world today, people will follow outward rituals like baptism or other sacraments and put their trust in them rather than in the cross. While there is nothing wrong with these ordinances, it is incorrect to make them the basis for justification. It is the same with what Paul condemns here in connection with circumcision. The cross sets aside everything of man’s making, also of the religious person, so if we want to build on rituals or regulations, it is an immediate contradiction to the cross. The world sees the cross as a scandal and a disgrace for the believer. That is why Paul says to the Corinthians that the cross is a stumbling block to the Jews, a cause of offense, they cannot accept it.^{[1] [2]}

Jewish writer Mark D. Nanos refers to an issue here in verse eleven seldom addressed in other commentaries. That is the degree to which Jewish ceremonial laws influenced “social control” over those who lived according to the Law. It was important because such rites, rituals, and regulations were an emblem of membership into the Jewish community. Nanos rightly credits American sociologist Jesse R. Pitts (1921-2003) for saying that “ritual does act as a reinforcer of conforming motivation. It makes the actor feel part of the all-enveloping group that shares their attitudes and with which they can think of themselves as standing in a primary-type relationship.” ^[3] In other words, it doesn’t matter if a person is serious or just playing along; the real purpose is being part of the group. Paul’s attack on Galatian Christians shows the parental nature of his criticism of the Judaizers and those misled by them. Paul can speak as someone whose been on both sides of the fence and knows the contentment of Christianity and the consequences of Judaism.^[4] What Nanos says should awaken us to the emphasis on religious rituals and ceremonies abundant in the Church today.

Jewish writer Avi ben Mordechai insists that Paul means by suggesting this removal of the Judaizers who persist on circumcision, is for the Gentiles to expel them from the Christian community. It involves the Hebrew verb karath, meaning to “cut off” and often used in the sense of being deported or excommunicated from the people of Israel.^[5] So it doesn’t make sense that the Apostle would use it as a substitute word for castration. There was a Hebrew noun cariyc, used more than forty-two times and most commonly rendered as “chamberlain.” ^[6] It is a word borrowed from the Babylonians, something with which Paul was undoubtedly familiar. But of course, he used the Greek verb apokoptō, often used for castration.^[7] The emphasis on inter-faith fellowship today makes this very difficult to do without being accused of bias and discrimination.

5:13a When it comes to your situation, my dear brothers and sisters, you were set free to live for the Anointed One. But don’t misinterpret that freedom as a license to let your sinful-self, do what it wants to do. Instead, use that freedom so that whatever you do for each other is motivated by Godly love.

Paul may have been thinking of the words by the prophet Isaiah that were read by Jesus in the synagogue in Nazareth:^[8] “The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me, for the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to comfort the brokenhearted and to proclaim that captives will be released and prisoners freed.” ^[9] That was Jesus’ way of announcing that He received His ordination from heaven to work for His Father here on earth. That’s what the call to the ministry stands for. We must remember who we serve and please Him rather than ourselves and others.

However, Paul needed to caution that just because the Son of God set you free from the chains of the Law, it did not mean it freed you to live as you please. Not just one’s freedom to sin with impunity, but to use such freedom to cause others to fall into sinful living.^[10] Even the Apostle Peter, who was a disciplinarian in favor of following the ceremonial law, told his followers that they should live like free people, but don’t use their freedom as an excuse to do evil. Live as those who are serving God.^[11] Unfortunately, some Christians today behave by their own set of rules since they feel they have the freedom to do so.

Peter referred to false teachers in his day who promise people freedom, but they are not free. They are slaves to a mind that has been ruined by sin. Yes, people are slaves to anything that controls them.^[12] The Apostle Jude also had the same warning about some people who secretly entered their group. Jude says these people have already been judged guilty for what they are doing. Long ago, the prophets wrote about them. They are against God. They have used the grace of God in the wrong way – To do sinful things. They refuse to follow Jesus the Anointed One, our only Master, and Lord.^[13]

How did these people accomplish such deception? These people criticize things they don’t understand. They do understand some things. But they know these things not by contemplation, but by feeling the way dumb animals understand things. And these are the things that destroy them. It will be bad for them. They have followed the path of Cain. To make money, they have given themselves to go the same way that Balaam went. They fought against God as Korah did.^[14] And like Korah, they will be destroyed. These people are like dirty stains – they bring shame to you in the special meals you eat together. They share communion with you without fear, thinking only of themselves. They float by like clouds without rain. That’s why the wind blows them around like leaves. They are like trees that have no fruit at harvest time and yanked out of the ground. So, they are twice dead.^[15]

True believers, says Paul, always do what they do out of love for others, not love for themselves. Jesus made this one of His central teaching points. He told His disciples that whoever wants to be your leader must first learn to be a servant. Whoever wants to be a leader must serve the rest of you like a loyal servant. He told them to follow His example: Even the Son of Man did not come for people to cater to Him. He came to serve others and to give His life to save many people.^[16] And Jesus backed up His words by washing His disciple’s feet.^[17] No matter how big the gift or how many hours are involved, it is of no value unless we do it for Jesus’ sake and not to benefit our standing in the congregation.

Paul could not have made this more understandable than he did for the Roman believers when he told them that those who are spiritually healthy in the faith need to step in and lend a hand to those who falter, and not just do what is most convenient. Strength is for service, not status. Each one of them needs to look after the good of the people around them, asking themselves, “How can we help?” ^[18] That’s why Paul was able to tell the Corinthians that although he was free and is not under obligation to any other person, he still made himself a servant to everyone. He did this to help save as many people as he could.^[19] The key is that when carried out in love, it knows no boundaries.^[20] Paul also tells them that he doesn’t go around bragging about all the charitable things he did. Instead, he informs them that Jesus the Anointed One is his Lord, and explains to them that what he does for others is done for Jesus’ sake.^[21] He bases his work for Jesus on a simple principle: the more he does for them out of love, the more they will love him for being so kind to them.^[22]

The Apostle had an excellent suggestion for the believers in Thessalonica: Every time they pray to God, the Father, to thank Him for all He used them to do because of the faith He gave them. And thank Him for the work you did because of His love in you. And thank Him that you continue to be strong because of your hope in the unchanging and faithful Lord Jesus the Anointed One. The Apostle James warns against believers becoming hypocrites by saying what they plan to do but never end up doing it.^[23] And the Apostle John echoes the same thought.^[24]

Now Paul takes a sharp turn from contending with doctrine to dealing with discipline.  It is self-evident from his cautious approach on the subject that he became aware that the Galatians’ moral conduct was less than acceptable. The Judaizers not only caused discord among the brethren with regards to urging them to become devotees of the Jewish religious rituals and regulations, but also disharmony in how to fellowship together in peace and love.

Augustine stresses that the call to live in freedom does not offer any opportunity for misconduct. From here on, Paul discusses those works of the Law, which no one denies, also pertain to the Final Covenant, but with another aim. They are appropriate for those who perform good deeds to the glory of God “in freedom,” not to earn salvation. These acts aim for the rewards of a love that hopes for eternal things and looks forward in faith. The Jews were forced to fulfill these commandments out of fear, and not with righteous reverence which endures to eternity but one that made them afraid for the present life. The result: they fulfill particular works of the Law which consist of ceremonies but are entirely unable to perform those that include ethical conduct. For nothing satisfies these except love. And so, the Apostle now says, “You have been called to live in freedom, brethren, but on condition that you do not let your freedom be an opportunity for your sinful nature to take over. Do not suppose, upon hearing the word freedom, that you can sin with impunity.” ^[25]

[1] 1 Corinthians 1:23

[2] Alfred E. Bouter: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 72

[3] Jesse R. Pitts: Social Control, p. 386

[4] Mark D. Nanos: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 243

[5] Genesis 17:14; Exodus 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38; 31:14; Leviticus 7:21 et. al.

[6] Esther 2:3

[7] Avi ben Mordechai: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 71

[8] Luke 4:18

[9] Isaiah 61:1

[10] 1 Corinthians 8:9

[11] 1 Peter 2:16

[12] 2 Peter 2:19

[13] Jude 1:4

[14] Numbers 16:1ff

[15] Jude 1:10-12

[16] Mark 10:43-45

[17] John 13:14-17

[18] Romans 15:1-2

[19] 1 Corinthians 9:19

[20] Ibid. 13:4-7

[21] 2 Corinthians 4:5

[22] Ibid. 12:15

[23] James 2:15-17

[24] John 3:17-18

[25] Augustine: On Galatians, Edwards, M. J. (Ed.), op. cit., p. 81

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXXI)

The truth was that their bogus argument of Paul adding circumcision to the cross was a divisive tactic to make him look like a hypocrite; they were out to destroy his credibility. So come on guys, Paul encourages the Galatians, see them for who they are. They are not interested in your gaining insight and understanding so that you become a complete Christian, they are out for one thing only, to alienate you from me, your teacher, and spiritual father.

Paul closes out this plea for spiritual sanity by becoming somewhat coarse in his statement against these agitators. Since they were so committed to making the Galatian brethren undergo circumcision to enhance their holiness, Paul suggests they go all the way and neuter themselves.  Perhaps Paul intended this to signify that if they thought being circumcised was being holy, then why not become super blessed. Augustine believes Paul made this wish for those causing all the trouble in the Galatian assemblies, as a friendly slap in the face. By doing this, they can become fulltime eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.^[1]

However, Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) takes a different view. For him, any suggestion that Paul meant that they were to be emasculated would be contrary to what he said elsewhere: “Bless, and curse not.” ^[2] He goes to explain that there are two opinions on what Paul suggests here. First, the Apostle was not calling down an evil curse on them but a blessing. Paul wanted them to be made spiritually impotent, namely, abolish the legal ceremonies that they thought helped keep them spiritually clean and virtuous. Some eunuchs willingly made themselves that way to serve permanently in the kingdom of God.^[3] The second is that Paul wishes they will end up being sterile like eunuchs so that they don’t produce offspring like themselves. That’s why he hopes they are castrated (“cut off”) to keep them from further troubling the Galatians. That is that they lose their procreative power to produce other misled believers like themselves. And this was undoubtedly acceptable because they are creating spiritual children who possessed the same error in thinking as they do by subjecting themselves to being bound by the Law: As the prophet, Hosea said, “Give them a womb without children, and dry breasts.” ^{[4] [5]}

Joseph Beet (1840-1924) calls what Paul is saying here in verse eleven, the “snare of the cross.” It is close to what Paul told the Corinthians.^[6] The crucifixion of the Anointed One led many to reject Him. It was, therefore, a trap in which they became caught. But Paul declares that if, while preaching the word of the Cross, he still teaches the necessity of circumcision, then the Cross loses all its power to convince the Jews to change from Law to Grace. In other words, if the shameful death of the Anointed One on the Cross is not inconsistent with the continuing obligation of circumcision under the Law, it is no longer a problem for the Jews to remain where they are in their faith as slaves of the Law rather than sons of God.

For Beet, this implies, what lay at the root of their hatred for Jesus was the fear of losing their high spiritual status among world religions. They applied their bitter ridicule to the way He died on the cross as a criminal. Their Messiah was a Victor, not a victim. This ridicule is recorded abundantly on the pages of ancient Jewish writings. Paul thus silently uncovers the wounded national pride, which hid under the veil of refusal to believe in a crucified Messiah. Paul’s readers would understand that reference.^[7] While not as pronounced as Paul makes it here, this same lack of glorifying the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross is still being practiced passively even today in some churches. You will hear many sermons on the loving Jesus, the caring Jesus, the forgiving Jesus, the patient Jesus, the friend who sticks closer than a brother Jesus, the victorious Jesus, but few on the crucified Jesus.

Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918), being a police detective, is curious about Paul’s defense of his not preaching circumcision as a necessary part of salvation. It’s all focused on the possibility of the elimination of the Cross as a significant factor. As Anderson sees it, as with the world’s philosophy, so also it is with the world’s religion. The doctrine of the death of the Anointed One, if separated from “the Cross,” leaves human nature still standing on moral grounds. Sinners with the best of ethical standards may be able to accept it and be raised morally and intellectually by it.

Sir Robert says, keep on preaching the Cross! It is “the ax laid to the root of the tree of self-righteousness.” [8] It deals a death-blow to human moral nature as sufficient for self-salvation on every platform and by every pretense. There is more to it than that the Anointed One died as a sacrifice. While this remains a significant factor on which redemption depends, His death demonstrated a way and means to prove His boundless and unconditional love of God to humanity. It points to the malicious and relentless hostility of humankind to God. That His death, while it made possible for God, in grace, to save the guiltiest and worst of Adam’s race, it also made it impossible, even with God, that the worthiest and best to be redeemed saved except by grace.

It measured out the moral distance between God and man, notes Anderson, and left them as far apart as the throne of heaven and the gates of hell. When God gives any sinner a blessing, they must look inside themselves and find in their heart the motive for such a gift, just as they see the grounds for it in the work of the Anointed One. Jews and Gentiles can find no salvation apart from the Cross of Calvary. That includes misusers of God’s grace, devout seekers, anxious inquirers, or privileged classes under any name or disguise. If such people receive special favors, “then the offense of the cross would cease,” and Grace dethroned.^[9]

Bible scholar Ernest DeWitt Burton (1856-1925) gives his interpretation by saying that out of his bitter feelings because of what the Judaizers were accusing him of; the Apostle Paul expresses the wish that his opponents would not stop with circumcision, but would go on to castration. Possibly this is an implied reference to the emasculation of the priests of Cybele, with which the Galatians would doubtless be familiar, and quite possibly, in the Apostle’s mind, at least.[10] However, he could hardly expect his Galatian readers to think of the warning contained in Deuteronomy.^[11] The whole expression is most significant as showing that to Paul circumcision became not only a purely physical act without religious significance but unnecessary mutilation of the body, like that which carried with its exclusion from the congregation of the Lord. It is not improbable that he wasn’t thinking of this, and may have said it this way: “I wish that they who advocate this physical act would follow it to its logical conclusion. Since they were cutting themselves off from unity with Jesus the Anointed One by trusting in circumcision to save them, why not go ahead and cut themselves off from the congregation of the Galatians.” ^[12]

Benjamin Wisner Bacon (1860-1932), New Testament instructor at Yale Divinity School, has a few things to say about what some scholars think was a very vulgar statement by Paul advising the Judaizers to “mutilate themselves.” The Greek verb apokoptō is very clear, in that it merely means “to cut off.” But since Paul did not specify any particular item, it’s left up to the reader to decide. This may rattle the sensibilities of the modern reader, says Bacon, since it sounds very much like a harsh suggestion. Bacon agrees with theologian J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) that saying it any other way “seems alone reasonable.” Andrew Roth, in his translation from the Aramaic Version, renders it: “O that those who are also troubling you would be expelled!” ^[13]

The fact is, circumcision is the rite discussed here, and Paul places Mosaic ritual ordinances on a level with those of the “world-rulers” or “the ABC’s of moral thinking.” It is also conceivable that Paul has in mind the self-castration of the Phrygian priests of Cybele parallel to Jewish circumcision.[14] Conceiving such a ritual as a means of attaining merit with God, makes the pagan form of the ceremony preferable. If such is Paul’s meaning, his plain language has at least the quality of dispensing with all further attempts to represent him as recommending circumcision as a work of value. The alternative interpretation, “Paul wished that they would sever their connection with the Galatian believers,” finds a meager point of attachment in the context.^[15]

English clergyman and scholar at Corpus Christi College at Oxford, Cyril W. Emmet (1875-1924), finds Paul’s question in verse eleven thought-provoking. Why is he still being persecuted? He sees this as unusual since, after the death of King Herod, the Christian community in Jerusalem was not severely interfered with by the Jews who tolerated it as another sect of Judaism. So, from where was the persecution coming? Emmet feels that it came from the more conservative wing of the Jewish contingent in the Jerusalem Church. They were ready to let him preach that Yeshua of Nazareth was the Messiah, but what they couldn’t stand was the preaching of the cross. That salvation is found only through the Anointed One who died there on all humanity’s behalf without including Jewish rites, rituals, and ceremonies. After all, since they all pointed to Jesus, why not practice them? So, when Paul attributes his criticism based on the fact that he didn’t preach circumcision, meant he did not include the Judaic form of Christianity.^[16]

[1] Augustine of Hippo, op. cit.

[2] Romans 12:14

[3] Matthew 19:12

[4] Hosea 9:14

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

[6] 1 Corinthians 1:23

[7] Beet, Joseph: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 147-148

[8] Matthew 3:9-10

[9] Anderson, Sir Robert: Forgotten Truths, op. cit., Ch. 4, pp. 20-21

[10] Cybele was a mother goddess in the central region of Asia Minor, including Phrygia and Lydia and the surrounding mountainous areas.  Unique to Greek religions, she was served by a transgender priesthood.  After the death of her grandson Attis, Cybele chose the pine tree to be the everlasting symbol of her love for Attis. Much later in time, the Christians of that region also chose the pine tree to be a symbol of our Christ’s birth, and they called it our Christ-Mass Tree to show that although He died, yet He continued to live on just as the pine tree does in the wintertime.  (See also 1 Kings 18:28)

[11] Deuteronomy 23:1 – “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”

[12] Burton, Ernest DeWitt: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 288-289

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

[14] The Orgiastic festivals in honor of Phrygian, the mother of all gods, was overseen by eunuch priests called Gallai, who led devotees in nocturnal mountain rites involving much drinking, and frantic dancing accompanied by the music of rattles, kettledrums, flutes, and castanets. The rites also involved ritual mutilation, ranging from flagellation to the act of self-castration performed by the Gallai priests.

[15] Bacon, Benjamin. W., On Galatians, op. cit., p. 99

[16] Emmet, Cyril W., On Galatians, op. cit., p. 53

Have you ever heard someone speak of another person with admiration by saying, “They live, right?” What do you think they mean? Possibly, this is a highly moral individual. Being righteous literally means to be right in God’s eyes, especially morally and ethically. Religious people often talk about being righteous. In their view, the righteous person not only does the right thing for other people but also follows the laws of their religion. Heroes like Martin Luther King, are often called righteous. On the other hand, this word can be a little negative. If you call someone self-righteous, it means they’re a little too sure that they are mostly right, and others are frequently wrong.

The dictionary defines righteousness as being morally justified, a person characterized by or proceeding from accepted standards of morality or justice. They are very concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles used especially of what is legally or ethically right or proper or fitting. To everyone around them, they are perceived as a highly honorable, admirable man or woman. But any such virtuous characteristics must have a standard by which they are measured.

These standards can either be man-inspired or God-inspired. As far as society is concerned, being righteous constitutes being in a right relationship with others. This describes a person who is highly ethical in their thinking and deeds.  American author, ethicist, and professor Rushworth Kidder states that “standard definitions of ethics have typically included such phrases as ‘the science of the ideal human character’ or ‘the science of moral duty.”

Richard William Paul, who heads the National Council for Excellence in the Method of Critical Thinking, and Linda Elder, educational psychologist and president of the Foundation dedicated to Critical Thinking, authors of “Critical Thinking: Basic Theory & Instructional Structures” define ethics as “a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sensitive creatures.” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word “ethics” is “commonly used interchangeably with ‘morality’… and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual.”

But a fuller understanding of righteousness comes from the holy book – the Bible. Kenneth Copeland writes that righteousness is not a “goody-goody” way of acting or something that can be attained. The word translated righteousness literally means “in right-standing.” We have been put in right-standing with God through the work of Jesus on Calvary. When a person accepts Jesus, he or she is moved into a position of new birth and enters into the kingdom of God as God’s very own child and a joint-heir with Jesus Christ. And it is critical that Christians begin to see themselves as righteous – because there is power in their knowing the truth about righteousness.

But righteousness has two inseparable components: what Christ did for us at the cross, and what He does in us each day. Topher Haddox, contributing writer to Crosswalk Magazine, says that righteousness is the visible characteristics of God the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit in one’s life. Haddox used to think righteous living had more to do with behavioral modification than heart transformation. The outward appearance of holiness was what mattered to him, rather than Spirit-filled changes. He thought that if he tried to stop cussing as much and stop watching rated R movies, then that meant he was living righteously.

But the more he read the Bible, while those are good and righteous works, the more he learned that he had it backward. Righteousness actually produces those works, not the other way around. Even when our good deeds seem to be performed from the purest of motives, unless that motivation is to glorify Jesus who gave us our righteousness, those deeds are completely self-righteous and sinful.  For instance, modifying one’s behavior to stop using vulgar language is actually a self-righteous act because the real motivation wasn’t out of conviction from the Holy Spirit, but to simply appear more holy to others.

There is a lot more to say about how righteousness as defined and dictated in the Scriptures. For instance, for the Psalmist, “Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!” (Psa. 106:3). And the prophet Isaiah proclaims, “Those who are honest and fair, who refuse to profit by fraud, who stay far away from bribes who refuse to listen to those who plot murder, who shut their eyes to all enticement to do wrong—these are the ones who will dwell on high. The rocks of the mountains will be their fortress. Food will be supplied to them, and they will have water in abundance. Your eyes will see the king in all His splendor, and you will see a land that stretches into the distance.” (Isa. 33:15-17).

But the words of Jesus put a capstone on all such discussions. It was our Lord who said to His followers back then and those who follow Him now, that unless we do far better than the ethics professors and teachers of morality in matters of what they consider right living, you will know nothing about being part of the kingdom of God. (Matthew 5:20) – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NOTHING CAN KEEP GOD’S LOVE AWAY FROM US

Christian Artist Zach Williams’ wife Crystal grew up surrounded by adults who were supposed to protect her but ended up hurting her time and time again. Her parents were addicted to meth, so you can only imagine the care she never received when they were high. As a result, her home-life was full of misery, feeling unwanted, and being given a poor diet. However, that’s not the worst. While she was still a little girl, she was sexually abused by a family member. She carried that pain all alone. Crystal looked for ways to numb her tortured mind, and by only 10 years old, she started smoking pot and drinking.

Soon after becoming a teenager, Crystal left home and sold drugs to support herself. This gave her the feeling of being in control. However, one night, Crystal was headed to a party, and something or someone seemed to be speaking to her mind and heart. The voice kept telling her that she needed to get out of that kind of life. It would only lead to total ruin, possibly years behind bars for selling narcotics. That’s when Crystal decided to respond, and that feeling helped her get off of drugs.

After a few bad relationships, she met a singer-songwriter named Zach Williams at one of his concerts. Unlike Crystal, Zach came from a Christian family, and although the two weren’t living up to God’s expectations, He was definitely working in them. After they got married, Zach was touring with his rock band overseas. He, too, had fallen in love with drugs and alcohol. Finally, Crystal went to Zack’s Christian parents and asked for their help. During the tour, he felt God calling him to get out. So, he quit the band and begin turning his life back over to Jesus, just as he was taught to do as a child.

Everything started to change as Crystal and Zach grew in their relationship with the Lord. Crystal finally learned about what it meant to truly be loved and fully turned her life over to Jesus Christ. Now, Zach is a popular Christian artist, and Crystal cares for their two children. And seeing where this family is now because of the love of God is truly moving. What a powerful testimony to show God’s amazing grace! In 2018, Zach won a Grammy Award for his hit song, “Chain Breaker.”

This redemption from the pit of sin did not occur just because God felt sorry for them. Moses told the children of Israel: “It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with you; He will not leave you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed.” (Deu. 31:8). What that means for Zack and Crystal is that when they reached to place to surrender their hearts and lives to God, He was already there waiting for them.

When the people of Israel were afraid of not being able to live in peace because of the enemies all around them, God gave the prophet Isaiah this message: “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.” (Isa 41:10).

And it was the Apostle Paul who gave hope to the believers in his day who faced possible troubles and difficulties. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he told them: “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 4:6-7).

But it was the Psalmist David who gives us a very encouraging prayer to pray when we too face hardships that seem to be beyond our coping ability. His words still bring comfort today: Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, You are with me. Your rod of protection and staff of rescue comfort me. You provide for my needs while I’m surrounded by hostile forces. My heart overflows with joy. Surely goodness and mercy will be my companions the rest of my life until I become a resident in the House of my Lord forever. (Psa. 23:4-6). – Dr. Robert R. Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXX)

Why did these Judaizers have such an adverse reaction to Paul’s position on circumcision? It all started when God told Abraham how important the mark of circumcision serves to identify someone who is part of their covenant.^[1] So Paul was not surprised that some men came to Antioch from Judea and began teaching the non-Jewish believers your salvation is incomplete if you are not circumcised as Moses taught us. He knew that he could show them a letter sent by the Council in Jerusalem, denying that they ordered such teaching on the part of these Judaizers.^[2]

The Greek verb apokoptō used here in verse twelve answers to the Hebrew verb karath in Genesis 17:14, which is often made use of by the Jews in solemn curses. In the Talmud we read a righteous man, Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel chanced to visit the town where Rabbi Tarfon lived. He asked them: ‘Has Rabbi Tarfon, who used to swear by the life of his children,^[3] (often used as an oath), “May I bury my children.” which means “may I cut off my children from any inheritance” left a son?’ They replied: “He left no son,” implying that he denied his son any inheritance.^[4] Paul was saying, in a somewhat ironic way, that since the Judaizers were having so much trouble with circumcision being a sign of obedience to the covenant, why not go all the way and cut off all communication with Gentile believers who refuse circumcision.

 To intensify the Galatians’ examination of the difference between the Judaizers’ instructions and what he was teaching, Paul wants to show them how these false teachers lied to them. Consequently, he is insisting that the Galatian believers force these agitators to take responsibility for what they are saying.  No doubt, the Judaizers were trying to cut down Paul’s credibility; make him look like a hypocrite or two-faced liar. It’s the old attack known in Latin as “argumentum ad hominem.” Today we call it “character assassination.”

In other words, if you can prove that your opponent has a bad trait, you may then convince others to doubt the quality of their whole character, even if the lacking mannerism is irrelevant to the argument. As such, people who use this tactic direct their malicious charges against the person’s character rather than their point of view. Such a maneuver appeals to emotion rather than reason. Unfortunately, it appears to be the mainstay of today’s political climate.

There is some evidence that Paul did allow circumcision to be received, but not as a condition for salvation.^[5] Today some Gentiles practice circumcision, not to join the Jewish faith, but for good hygiene. So, in Paul’s mind, the Judaizers attacked his character for other reasons. They did not want the truth to expose them for who they were, which would derail their attempt to get rid of the self-proclaimed apostle they despised. That’s why medieval commentator Bruno the Carthusian sees Paul’s retort as the Apostle’s way of claiming that if his opponents are right, that he was preaching circumcision, then the scandal created by the Cross is removed. Jews were scandalized because he taught that human beings become justified through the Cross alone. Yet if the Apostle did mix circumcision with the Cross and say that people are justified by both, then these Jews would be very pleased with him. It was Paul’s way of telling the Galatians that he was not the one being an antagonist, the Judaizers were!^[6]

Early church scholar Jerome, always the skeptic, asks how could Paul, a disciple of Him who said, “Bless those who curse you,” ^[7] now turns around and curse those who were disturbing the Churches of Galatia? Jerome feels that the words Paul uses are prompted not so much by anger against his opponents as by affection for God’s congregations. Nor is it any wonder that the Apostle, as a man, enclosed in a frail physical vessel, who confessed to the spiritual battle within him, between the Spirit and his sinful tendencies that took him captive and led him into the struggling with the law of sin allowing himself to speak this way, just as we observe such lapses to be frequent in holy people we know.^{[8] [9]}

Adam Clarke proposes that it is very likely that some of the false apostles, hearing of Paul’s having circumcised Timothy to make him look like an advocate for circumcision, and by this endorsed their doctrine.[10] To this, the Apostle replies that if it is true that he is a friend of those that preach circumcision, then why is it that he is still the object of persecution by the Jews? Why is it that everywhere he goes, they seek to oppress and harass him because he is known to be an opponent of requiring circumcision of Gentiles? If he was indeed a proponent of this doctrine, then preaching of the Cross as being the only way to salvation by the sacrifice of the Anointed One, would soon cease. Why would they expect him to be inconsistent with his calling? If he preached the necessity of circumcision, that would force him to stop preaching Jesus the Anointed One crucified, and then the Jews would be no longer his enemies.^[11] I agree with Clarke that the likelihood of Paul doing such a thing was unthinkable.

Martin Luther draws from his own experience about what happens when one stands up for the truth of the Gospel. He encourages all of those who preached the reformation Gospel not to be surprised or offended when their opponents go berserk. Instead, look upon it as a good indication that all is well with the Gospel of the Cross. God forbid that we ever resist the offense of the Cross. That would be the case if we were to preach what the prince of this world and his followers would be only too glad to hear – becoming right with God by good works. They would never dream that the devil could be so gentle, the world so sweet, the opposition so gracious, and those who govern so charming. But because true believers seek the advantage and honor of Jesus the Anointed One, they remain persecuted on all sides.^[12] Luther goes on to say that if Paul placed so much importance on even the smallest points of Christian doctrine, what right then do we have to make little of such principles? For Luther, no matter how nonessential a position of one’s faith may seem, if insulted, it may prove the gradual disintegration of the truths of salvation. In his mind, we should do everything we can to advance the glory and authority of God’s Word.

John Calvin joins Luther in sending a notice to all those who tamper with God’s Word. He wants to warn all those who introduce confusion into churches, who break the unity of faith, and who destroy their harmony should listen intently to what he is about to say. If they have any sense of feeling, let them tremble at this warning: God declares, by the mouth of Paul, that none through whom such offenses come^[13] will go unpunished. The phrase, “whosoever that might be” is emphatic. These smooth-talking false apostles used such provocative language to terrify the uninformed multitude. It became necessary for Paul to defend his doctrine with identical intent and energy, and not to spare anyone who dared to raise their voice against it, however eminent or distinguished they might be.^[14] Paul’s sense of urgency in warning these troublemakers was not so much to avoid any persecution or attempted disgrace that he may suffer, but what it would do to the Gospel and the work of the Anointed One on the Cross.

Yet, John Wesley hears Paul asking: “Why do I still suffer persecution?” Simple. By not being persecuted meant the offense of the Cross ceased to be a problem. However, the real reason why the Jews were so offended at his preaching Jesus the Anointed One crucified, and so bitterly persecuted him for it, was, that it implied the abolition of the Law. Yet Paul did not condemn people conforming to the Law or suggest that it was a weakness that caused them to become adherents to the ceremonial law. The ones he condemned were those who taught that being obedient to the Law was necessary to earn justification in God’s eyes for Him to declare them right with Him.^[15]

In the last church, I pastored before going to the Philippines; I remember an old farmer started coming back to church after a long absence. In talking to him one day, he told me that many years ago, he was a wholehearted supporter of what was called the “Latter Day Rain Movement.” This theology taught that just like seed needed early rain for the crop to take root, it also required a latter rain for the grain to ripen for harvest. They likened the last days to God’s harvest of souls as the prophecy of the prophet Joel to mean that since the church fell away from its original form into the dark ages, that after the reformation, God was restoring the church through a worldwide revival that would climax with the rapture. This idea is still prevalent in many charismatic and Pentecostal churches today.

This movement started spreading in the early 1800s in America and enjoyed a revival in the 1940s in the area where I was pastoring. Preacher William Branham openly promoted this doctrine. He saw the seven churches described in the book of Revelation represented seven ages of the Christian church, with the last era being from the church in Laodicea to the present. He further identified the seven angels as Paul, the Apostle, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and others. Branham also denounced the doctrine of the Trinity.

The impact caused by this on the farmer’s life made it impossible to fellowship with other believers who disagreed with this view. After Branham died in a head-on collision with a drunk driver, the farmer concluded that Branham’s prophecy of living to see Jesus return and rapture the church expired with him.  By then, he had become an outsider to the local church he once attended.  But something in the messages he heard during my daily radio program convinced the old farmer that man was not the one to look to for fulfillment of Holy Scripture, only God.  It wasn’t me who changed his mind; it was the truth of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit.

Paul tries to get the Galatians to see the falsehood in the Judaizers’ claims that he was in favor of circumcision is a part of God’s salvation plan after all. If that were true, Paul wants to know why in the world they were so dead set against him. Furthermore, if Paul did accept circumcision as a valid part of salvation, then why would they be upset with him for including the Cross of the Anointed One? After all, the Judaizers were not against the work the Anointed One did on the Cross; it’s just that it was insufficient without circumcision. German Bible scholar Johann Bengel (1687-1752) makes a good point here related to verse eleven. The more the church emphasizes rites, rituals, and regulations, the less meaning there would be in the Cross as a stumbling block on the way to salvation by works.^[16]

[1] Genesis 17:14

[2] Acts of the Apostles 15:1, 24

[3] See Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo’ ed, Masekhet Shabbath, folios 115b-116a, Cf. Folios 16b-17a

[4] Ibid. Seder Nezikin, Masekhet Bava Metzia, folio 85a

[5] Cf. Acts of the Apostles 16:1-3

[6] Bruno the Carthusian: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[7] Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:28

[8] See Romans 7:15-25

[9] Jerome, On Galatians, Edwards, M. J. (Ed.)., op. cit., p. 79

[10] Acts of the Apostles 16:3

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

[12] Martin Luther: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[13] Luke 17:1

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

[15] Wesley, John, Galatians: Explanatory Notes & Commentary, op. cit., loc. cit.

[16] Bengel, Johann: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 607

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER FIVE (Lesson LXIX)

Chrysostom points out that Paul tells the Galatians that he still has confidence in the Lord to bring them back to Him through reconciliation. He also goes on to say that Paul connects complaints with praises each time. Here it is as if he said, I know you are my disciples, I know you are ready to be set right. I have good hopes, partly because of the Lord who allows nothing, however trivial, to perish, and partly because of you who can recover yourselves very quickly. At the same time, says Chrysostom, Paul encourages them to be tireless on their part. They know from what Paul taught them that it is not possible to obtain assistance from God if they are lazy in their efforts and not contributing to getting back on track.^[1] Augustine of Hippo agrees that from the way Paul is addressing this issue, “…it is quite clear that such persuaders have not yet gained control over the Galatians.” ^[2]  So this was not exactly a do or die proposition. Therefore, Paul not only concentrated on the Galatians but also on the perpetrators of this confusion.

Jerome tells us that some in his day were saying that Paul is implicating the Apostle Peter here, whom he says he “opposed to his face.” But he doesn’t feel that Paul would speak with such offensive hostility about the head of the church, nor did Peter deserve to be held to blame for disturbing the church. Perhaps he’s speaking of someone known by the other Apostles, or likely, someone from Judea, or one of the believing Pharisees in Jerusalem. At any rate, someone highly respected among the Galatians.^[3] I agree with Jerome on one point, that is, that Paul did not have Peter in mind here as being the one who was throwing them into confusion. However, some of those involved might have been in attendance at Antioch when Peter and Paul clashed. Perhaps, and this is only a thought, they were trying to take revenge on Paul for what he did to Peter. But one thing is for sure; Paul seemed to know who some of these Judaizers were.

Ambrosiaster, a contemporary of both Chrysostom and Jerome, also comments on Paul’s hope that he can trust the Galatians in dealing with these matters. Says Ambrosiaster, in Paul’s mind, these believers would find their way back onto the correct path by avoiding any errors that were mean to lead them astray. That’s why he was going to such lengths to point out the right pathway to them, so it would be easier to find than if they had to do it on their own.  Ambrosiaster also points out that the reward for someone who manages to help a person fallen into error to recover is spelled out by the Apostle James in his epistle. He writes: “Anyone who redirects a sinner from going the wrong way will save that person from eternal death and the forgiveness of many sins.” He also adds that in the same manner, someone who forces a person who is walking in the right way to deviate from that path will guarantee damnation for themselves, whoever that may be.

Ambrosiaster further believes that Paul added this because of those who defended their merit on the grounds they were the descendants of Abraham. Jesus encountered this same attitude when He walked the earth.^{[4] [5]} That’s why Paul goes on to say that he wishes these troublemakers a double dose of their effort to inflict pain on the non-Jewish converts through circumcision, by having to endure castration. Ambrosiaster feels Paul was using this term symbolically. He implied that they should remain cut off from associating and fellowshipping with the believers in Galatia and cut out of the family of God entirely.

Consequently, Paul issues another stern warning that the person causing all this discord is racing toward eternal punishment, and if the Galatians were not careful, they could suffer the same penalty. Believe it or not, some despicable people in this world will persuade an innocent person into committing a wrong that even they would not do, so that if the virtuous person is successful and doesn’t get caught, they can share in the bounty. Still, if the innocent party is detected, then the worthless person who talked them into it will simply point their finger and say, “They were stupid enough to do it, not me!”

In the Galatian situation, there’s evidence that Paul did not believe the Judaizers would succeed, and they did not; all efforts to mingle Judaism with Christianity were thwarted and checkmated by this very Epistle. The Judaizer (whether one or more) would end up bearing the judgment Paul wrote about a few paragraphs earlier, that of being “severed from Jesus the Anointed One” and “fallen from grace.” But there must have been a lot of moaning and groaning over the Galatians who fell with them.

Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was addressing the question of whether or not the evil contained in sinning should be the object of fear? He responded by saying that it would seem that the curse of sin can also be the object of fear. He notes that Augustine says that out of pure terror, a person fears separation from God. Now we know that nothing but sin can separate us from God, according to the prophet Isaiah.^[6] Furthermore, hope is contrary to fear. But the goodness found virtues can be the object of faith, and even as the Greek philosopher Aristotle declares that a virtuous and good man wishes to live in contentment with himself, for he does so with pleasure since the memories of his past acts are delightful. His hopes for the future are good, and therefore pleasant.^[7] So the Apostle Paul says here in verse ten that he is confident in the Lord that the Galatians will take no other view. As such, then fear can see the evil in sin.^[8]

Also, by using the clause “whoever that may be,” Martin Luther notes that this seems to indicate that the false apostles in outward appearance at least appeared to be outstanding and devout men. It may be that among them was some outstanding disciple of Paul, a man himself of fame and authority. The Apostle must have felt to be a target of disdain in this situation; otherwise, his fierceness would have been unnecessary. No doubt, many of the Galatians were taken back with the intensity of the Apostle’s words. They perhaps thought: why should he be so upset by such a small matter? Why is he so quick to pronounce damnation upon his brethren in the ministry?^[9] Of course, the answer may be that Paul knew their lives and salvation were at risk, not his, and he was determined to do everything he could to prevent them from being misled into judgment.

Mark D. Nanos sees an underlying message for the Galatians here in verse ten. The news that the Apostle received about the situation in Galatia struck him as already underway. The Gentiles felt strongly influenced to comply and conform to the Judiazers’ form of the Mosaic gospel and begin the rite of passage into the family of Abraham by submitting to Jewish ceremonial laws, including circumcision. So, Paul wanted to express confidence in the Galatians that they would not give in easily. Stay steadfast in their faith will eliminate a lot of confusion. But even more significant, they will be spared the penalty of all those who fail to keep the Law completely. How sad that Jesus the Anointed One took that penalty upon Himself for their benefit, but they are on the verge of throwing it all away.^[10]

Paul’s experience should help us all learn how to keep from making errors in judgment when it comes to distinguishing between discipleship and doctrine. Since so many ways and customs and cultures exist where the Gospel takes root, we must all be open-minded when it comes to how fellow believers in those areas practice discipleship. I experienced this myself when I went to North India, I immediately saw that the men wore long skirts and the women wore pants. It was their culture. To them, it equated modesty.

In some parts of India, they have baptismal services in the morning so that believers walk into the water with the sun behind their backs, and when they come up out of the water, they face the sun to signify a new day in their lives. Yet they do not fault other believers who baptize in church baptismal pools or at a later hour in the day. However, when it comes to doctrine, it must be the same everywhere. It must remain unaltered due to customs or cultural norms. That seems to be at the heart of Paul’s admonition to the Galatian believers.

5:11-12a My brothers and sisters, I don’t teach that a man must be circumcised. If I do promote circumcision, then why am I still being persecuted? If I always taught circumcision, then my message about the cross would not be a problem for you? I wish these people who are bothering you would add castration to their circumcision.

 Paul now addresses the note of caution that the Judaizers were sending to him through the Galatians, that if he would only be more cautious in his denouncing of circumcision, they would find less reason to oppose him. As Paul mentioned to the Corinthians, it seems that no matter what he says, it always gets him in trouble.^[11] Despite all Paul’s been through and all that he suffered on behalf of the Gospel, he still was pushed into saying things he thought were unnecessary. In other words, why did he continuously remind his opponents of his dedication to the cause of the Gospel so that they might agree he had the right to say what he said.^[12]

Paul knew he was in good company with those who suffered for dispensing the Word of God in the past. Didn’t Isaiah once say to his opponents that the Lord All-Powerful is the One they should fear? He is the One they should respect, the One who should frighten them. If everyone reverences Him, God is a safe place for them to find comfort. But they didn’t recognize Him, so He became like a stone that they stumbled over. The Messiah is a Rock that caused both Judah and Israel to fall because they wouldn’t listen. He became a snare that caught all the people trying to bypass Him with their self-righteous search for salvation under the Law.^[13]

Paul had to warn the Roman believers not to fall into the same pit. The reason that all of Israel met such a terrible end is that they failed by trying to make themselves right with God by the things they did. They did not trust in God to make them right. They fell over the stone that makes such people fall. The Scriptures talk about that stone which the Romans should know is none other than Jesus, the Anointed Son of God.^[14] Paul also reminded the Corinthians that the teaching about the cross seems foolish to those who are lost. But to those saved by His grace, it is the power of God.^[15]

[1] Chrysostom: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[2] Augustine of Hippo: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Edwards, M. J. On Galatians, op. cit., p. 78

[4] See John 8:33

[5] Ambrosiaster: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 28

[6] Isaiah 59:2

[7] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: Bk. 9 (4)

[8] Aquinas, Thomas: Summa Theologica, op cit., Vol. 2 – The First Part of the Second Part, Part (2a), Question (11), Article (3), Objection (2), p. 468

[9] Luther, Martin: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[10] Nanos, Mark D., On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 194-195

[11] 1 Corinthians 15:30

[12] 2 Corinthians 11:23-26

[13] Isaiah 8:13-14

[14] Romans 9:32

[15] 1 Corinthians 1:18