Compiled and Written
by
Keith Hunt
(1985)
The following is a transcript of Mr. Keith Hunt's sermon given on
January 12th 1985.
Some preachers want you to believe that the Ten Commandments are
done away. Nailed to the cross some may say. They try to back up
this teaching with a few verses not from Jesus, Peter, James or
John, but from Paul and one of their favourite passages of Paul
is Galatians 3:19. One of the passages that they give to try to
say that Ten Commandment law, now that Christ has come is done
away with. Galatians 3:19 "Wherefore then serves the law? It was
added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom
the promise was made,..."
You see they say the Ten Commandments were only till Jesus
Christ. A few other verses that they give -- just a little
further down. Verse 24 and 25. These verses are also used to
abolish the Ten Commandments. "Wherefore the law was our
schoolmaster to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by
faith, but after the faith is come we are no longer under a
schoolmaster." So there they say, the Ten Commandments were just
up until Christ, Christ is come, faith is introduced so we're no
longer under obligation to obey the Ten Commandments. These anti-
nomanist preachers believe that the law here mentioned by Paul
and Galatians 3 is the Ten Commandment law, and that law, so they
say, was ONLY till Christ and now we are no longer under
obligation to obey it. Friends can this really be the case? Are
we now free to murder, steal, lie, worship idols, use profanity,
commit adultery and such like things? Surely, no reasonable,
logically thinking Christian, can believe that he is free to do
such acts.
We need to listen carefully to what Peter wrote about Paul's
writings. 2 Peter the third chapter. Let's see what Peter had to
write about the writings of Paul. 2 Peter the third chapter and
beginning in verse 15, "And account that the longsuffering of our
Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also
according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you. As
also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things; in
which are some things hard to be understood which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
scriptures, unto their own destruction". Verse 17 - "You
therefore, beloved, seeing you know these things before beware
lest any of you also being led away with the error of the wicked
fall from your own steadfastness."
Peter here didn't pull any punches. He said that people who would
come along and twist the scriptures of Paul, pervert them, are
the wicked. Now, we have to ask ourselves what does the Bible
mean by the wicked? What is a Bible definition of the wicked? We
can find a definition in God's word in Psalm 119. A Bible
definition as to what constitutes the wicked. Psalm 119 and verse
53 says this - "Horror has taken hold upon me because of the
wicked that forsake your law." The Bible says that the wicked
forsake the law of God. Those who will forsake the law of God,
those who will say that you don't have to obey it, that you can
break those commandments at will are termed in the Bible as the
wicked.
Now let me give you one of the keys to understanding the Bible.
The plain easy to understand verses should be read and believed
first then the harder sections can be tackled. You see Peter
admitted that in some of the writings of Paul there are some
things that are hard to understand. Now, here was Peter a man
filled with the Holy Spirit, a man that was mightily used by the
Lord to preach His truths and to preach the way of salvation, and
yet Peter said there are some things that Paul has written that
are hard to understand. And one of the keys in understanding the
Bible is that you don't tackle the hard things first, you go to
the plain easy to understand scriptures, you read and believe
them first and in the light of what those scriptures teach then
you can start to understand the harder sections of scripture.
And there is one more key. One more very important key when you
are studying and reading God's word. Jesus said "The scripture
cannot be broken." There is no contradiction in God's word. If
you get that clearly in your mind, you are going to go a long way
in starting to understand the word of God because there cannot be
any contradiction. If you come across one verse that seems to
contradict another verse, always remember, there cannot be a
contradiction. There has to be some other understanding and then
you go about searching for that understanding because God's word
cannot contradict itself.
As a background to the book of Galatians let's look at and read
the plain verses of the New Testament that teach the perpetuality
of the Ten Commandment law. Let's first of all see what Jesus
taught.
Matthew the fifth chapter. In Matthew chapter five and beginning
in verse 17, Jesus said "Think not that I am come to destroy the
law." Now Jesus says "think not" and a lot of people think. The
Bible says "don't think" and a lot of people do think. Well,
Jesus here said "think NOT that I am come to destroy the law or
the prophet. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil" and in the
Greek this means to fulfil, to fill to the full, to complete, to
fill it right up. Yes, that was certainly what was prophesied of
the coming of the Messiah in Isaiah the 42nd chapter, it was
prophesied that the Messiah would come and would magnify the law,
would make it honourable and magnify it. Fill it up to the brim
full.
Verse 18, Jesus said "For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and
earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled," and that Greek there means, till all
comes to pass. Till all that has been written in the Old
Testament come to pass. All the prophesies come to pass, and
friends those prophesies have not all come to pass yet and there
isn't going to be one little speck that is going to be taken from
God's word until all things have been fulfilled. Then he goes on
to amplify it - what He was saying. "Whosoever therefore shall
break one of these least commandments." Which one do you think is
the least commandment in the law and the prophets? Well,
whichever one it is Jesus said that "Whosoever therefore shall
break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so
shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven, but whosoever
shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the
Kingdom of heaven." How plain that is. Here is Jesus' teaching,
New Testament teaching. Verse 20 "For I say unto you", you my
people my disciples, "that accept your righteousness.." and a
Bible definition for righteousness, Psalm 119:172 where it says
"all your commandments are righteousness". There's your Bible
definition for righteousness, Psalm 119:172. And Jesus said
"accept your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the
scribes and Pharisees" and didn't the scribes and pharisees at
least externally proclaim that people should obey the laws of
God? Sure they did, but, of course, the scribes and Pharisees
were hypocrites. They said one thing and lived another, but Jesus
said to His disciples "accept your righteousness, exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees you shall in no case
enter into the Kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19 - Let's see something else that Jesus taught about the
commandments of God. Chapter 19 and beginning in verse 16 "and
behold one came and said unto him, Good Master what good thing
shall I do that I may have eternal life?" I thinks it's Luke or
Mark that say in giving this account that this man said "What
shall I do that I may IN-herit eternal life" not "What shall I do
to be justified", "What shall I do to get saved", but "What shall
I do to inherit eternal life?" Verse 17 - and Jesus said unto him
"Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is
God," God the father, "but if you will enter into life, if you
will inherit life, keep the commandments." Yes, Jesus was saying
if you want to INherit eternal life you better have the attitude
of being willing in your mind to obey the commandments of God. An
attitude of life that you have, that you are willing to serve and
obey the commandments of God. "And he said unto him, which? Jesus
said, you shall do no murder, you shall not commit adultery, you
shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness." Now where do
those commandments come from? They come from the commandments
that are given in Exodus 20, commonly known as the Ten
Commandments. Jesus further stated, "Honour your father and your
mother and you shall love your neighbour as yourself." And the
young man said unto him in verse 20 "All these things I have kept
from my youth up. What do I lack?" He felt that he was keeping
the commandments of God. You know he wasn't deliberately just
hating them and despising them and willfully breaking them, but
there was something in his life that he didn't really realize, in
one point he was breaking a commandment of God, but he didn't
fully realize it. And then Jesus said to him, "If you will be
perfect, go and sell what you have and give to the poor and you
shall have treasure in heaven and come and follow me. And when
the young man heard that saying he went away sorrowful for he had
great possessions."
He really then found out that he actually was breaking one of
God's commandment. The commandment of idolatry. He had placed his
riches above serving God all the way. But nevertheless Jesus'
teaching was that we as Christians should have the attitude to
obey the laws of God.
The Gospel of John 15:9,10 - "and as the Father has loved me, so
have I loved you. Continue you in my love", Jesus said. And what
is the love of Jesus. Well, verse 10 tells us. "If you keep my
commandments, you shall abide in my love even as I have kept my
Father's commandments and abide in His love." And what was one of
the commandments of Jesus? Well, one of the commandments we just
read, where he said to the young man "If you will enter into
life, be willing to keep the commandments." And so loving Jesus
is being willing to do what Jesus taught and what Jesus said and
what Jesus commanded us to do. Let's look at chapter 14, and
verse 15. Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments." And
verse 21, "And he that has my commandments and keeps them, he it
is that loves me and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father
and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Then going
on, verse 23, "if a man love me, he will keep my words" and what
are some of the words that we have read, some of the words are
what Jesus said to this young man "If you will enter into life,
keep the commandments" and Jesus says here "If you love me, keep
my words and my Father will love him and we will come into him
and make our abode with him. He that loves me not keeps not my
sayings." And we have just been reading, haven't we, some of the
teachings and sayings of Jesus "and the word which you hear is
not mine but the Father's which sent me." So everything that
Jesus said came from the Father. It was just as if the Father was
speaking.
Let's see what James taught. Chapter 2 of the Book of James.
James 2:9,12 - "but if you have respect of persons you commit sin
and are convinced of the law as transgressors for whosoever" -
verse 10 - "shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point
be as guilty of all. For he that said do not commit adultery said
also do not kill. Now if you do not commit adultery yet if you
killed, you are become a transgressor of the law. So speak you
and so do as they that shall be judged by the law" and what law
was he talking about? Obviously, the Ten Commandment law. The law
that contains "you shall not commit adultery or you shall not
kill". And James said "So speak and so do because you will be
judged by the law of liberty." He didn't call it a law of
bondage. He didn't call it the cursed law, he called it a law of
liberty.
Let's see what the apostle John taught in 1 John 2:1 - "My little
children these things I write unto you that you sin not." Now we
should stop here and ask what is sin. Well, if you skip over to
the same book 1 John 3:4 you will fined that John will tell you
what sin is. "Sin is the transgression of the law" and John is
plainly writing here and says to Christians that our object, our
goal, our ATTITUDE of mind should be that we do not want to sin.
And so putting Scripture with Scripture, we should not be
breaking the commandments of God. We should not have that
attitude of wanting to break the commandments of God. We should
have the attitude of wanting to obey them, not wanting to sin.
Now notice verse 3 and 4 of chapter 2. "And hereby we do know
that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He that says, I
know Him," oh yes I'm a Christian, I've been converted, I have
God's spirit. "He that says I know Him and keeps not His
commandments is a liar." John didn't pull any punches. He just
nailed it right on the head. "And the truth is not in him. But
whosoever keeps His word, in him truly is the love of God
perfected. Hereby know we that we are in him. He that says he
abides in Him ought himself so also to walk, even as he walked."
Jesus kept the Father's will. Jesus did the Father's will. He
kept the Father's commandments. Jesus came, set us that example
of how we should live, and those who claim that they are
Christians, if they are not following the example of Jesus Christ
and yet they claim they are Christian, John says they are just
liars.
Chapter 5 of this book and verse 1 to 3 - "Whosoever believes
that Jesus is Christ is begotten of God and everyone that loves
Him that begot loves him also that is begotten in him. By this we
know that we love the children of God when we love God and keep
his commandments." Now does this sound like the New Testament is
doing away with the commandments of God? Verse 3 - "For this is
the love of God that we keep His commandments" - and His
commandments are "a burden," His commandments are"a curse." No, it
doesn't say that, it says "His commandments are NOT grievous."
Then 2 John verse 6, we read this - "And this is love." This is
love. Yes, the New Testament, the Bible says that we should walk
in love. Well, what is the Bible definition of love. "This is
love", John said, "that we walk after His commandments."
And now let's turn to the last book in the Bible, the Book of
Revelation chapter 14. Let's see a Bible definition of the saints
of God. Revelation 14:12 - "Here is the patience of the saints",
here is what the saints are enduring, performing - the patience
of the saints. "Here are they that keep the commandments of God",
the commandments of the Father - the Ten commandments, some
people like to say, you have the commandments of God which are
the Ten Commandments and then you have some new commandments of
Jesus Christ and the commandments of the Father are done away
with, and now we have to live by the new commandments of Jesus in
the New Testament. Well, for a Bible definition of the saints of
God, it says that they are ones that keep the commandments of God
the Father and the faith of Jesus. You see, BOTH the commandments
of the Father and the faith of Jesus. Let's turn to Revelation
22:14. Right at the end of the Bible, what do we find? Revelation
22:14,"Blessed are they that do His commandments. That they may
have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates
into the city." Now when we read those verses, does that sound
like the New Testament does away with the Ten Commandments of
God?
Let's see what Paul taught. Yes, the apostle Paul that some like
to use a few of his verses to say that Paul taught that the Ten
Commandments are now abolished, done away with, nailed to the
cross. Let's see some other verses that Paul taught, remembering
one of the rules of Bible understanding is that the Bible cannot
contradict itself. Romans 2:13 - "For not the hearers of the law
are just before God, but the DOERS of the law shall be
justified." Does that sound like Paul was doing away with the law
of God? Chapter 3 and verse 31 - "Do we then make VOID the law
through faith. God forbid! No," Paul went on to say, "we
ESTABLISH the law." Through faith we establish the law. Chapter 7
and verse 7, Paul said - "Is the law sin? God forbid!" again he
said, "No. I had not known sin but by the law. For I had not
known lust except the law had said you shall not covet." You see,
the law defines what sin is. If the law is done away with since
Christ, then there would be no definition as to what was sin and
consequently there would be no sin. But the law defines what sin
is. Verse 12, Paul said - "Wherefore the law is holy and the
commandment is holy, it is just and it's good." Does this sound
like Paul did away with God's Ten Commandments? Let's note his
verse 14 - "For we know that the law is spiritual." And friends I
submit to you that spiritual things are eternal. They are
forever: Verse 22, let's look at Paul's attitude. Did Paul hate
the law of God? Let's look at verse 22, Paul says - "For I
delight in the law of God after, the inward man." Paul's inner
most being was to delight in the law of God, not to try to tear
it down and destroy it and do away with it. Let's turn to chapter
13 and verse 10. Paul says - "Love works no ill to his neighbour,
therefore, love is." Here is another Bible definition of what is
love. "Love is the fulfilling of the law." Love, true love, is
the doing, the performing of the law.
1 Corinthians 7 - let's go to another very plain scripture that
Paul was inspired to write. 1 Corinthians 7:19, where Paul wrote,
"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the
keeping of the commandments of God." Yes, something physical.
like circumcision, Paul said, is really not the point. It's
really nothing, but - and you could say here that on the other
hand - what is important is the keeping of the commandments of
God, something physical like circumcision is nothing. But the
main thing is that we have the attitude of a willingness to keep
the commandments of God. Chapter 15 and verse 34 where Paul said
this "Awake to righteousness and sin not." Paul said "awake to
righteousness" and I've given you the Bible definition of
righteousness, Psalm 119 verse 172 "All thy commandments are
righteousness." Paul said we need to awake to righteousness and
sin not, and sin is breaking the commandments of God.
No, Paul did not teach that the law of God was something to hate,
despise, neglect, do away with. He did not teach that we should
just willfully break the commandments of God. On the contrary he
taught the opposite. He taught that our attitudes should be as
his was that "I delight in the law of God." His attitude was that
he called it just, and holy, and good.
Now, do we begin to see. If Paul is saying in Galatians 3:19,24
and 25, that the Ten Commandment law was only until Christ and
since then it has been abolished, done away, nailed to the cross,
we have large contradictions not only in the teachings of Paul,
but in the entire New Testament. Jesus said "the Scripture cannot
be broken", it cannot contradict itself, there cannot be any
contradictions in the New Testament regarding the Ten Commandment
law.
Brethren, Paul is not teaching in his letter to the Galatians
that the Ten Commandments law is done away. If he was, notice how
contradictory and illogical he would be with what he wrote in
Romans the 3rd, 4th and 5th chapters. Let's turn to a few
passages in Romans 3, 4 and 5. If Paul was doing away with God's
Ten Commandments in Galatians, then notice how contradictory it
is to what he stated in the Book of Romans 3:20 - "Therefore by
the deeds of the law there shall be no flesh be justified in His
sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Now if the law
was only till Christ and then it ceased to exist, then how would
you have the knowledge of what sin is? Since Christ, there would
be no knowledge of sin, if the law has been down away with. But
Paul said "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." And notice
verse 23 - "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of
God." Everybody has sinned whether you lived before Christ or
after Christ. Everybody has sinned. Notice Chapter 4 verse 15 -
"Because the law works wrath, for where no law is, there is no
transgression." Now Paul just got through saying all had sinned
and by the law is the knowledge of sin. Everybody before and
since Christ have sinned, but you see he also went on to say that
if there isn't any law, there is no transgression, there is no
sin. So if in the book of Galatians, Paul was doing away with the
law of God and he's trying to teach in Galatians as some people
want you to believe, that it was only until Christ and then it
was nailed to the cross and ceased to exist, then there would be
no transgression since the time of Jesus. Nobody, then, has
sinned since the time of Jesus, and if nobody has sinned since
the time of Jesus, nobody has needed a saviour.
Do you see by putting these scriptures together, how completely
illogical it is to teach that the law, the Ten Commandments of
God, have been abolished or done away with? If the law of God was
abolished with Christ, let me repeat, no one has sinned or needed
a saviour since then! Do you see how utterly ridiculous it is to
teach that God's Ten commandment law is abolished? Do you see now
why Peter said that those who would twist and pervert the
writings of Paul were unlearned?
Yes, brethren, friends, some of these "do away with law"
preachers may have PhD's after their names, some may have gone to
theological school for four, five, six years, but if they tell
you that God's holy righteous Ten Commandments are abolished,
then I tell you very frankly that they are Biblical illiterates.
They haven't even passed the first grade in Bible reading.
You need not be in confusion about the way of salvation. You need
not be in confusion over this matter. You need to request our
book "Saved by Grace" which will go into great detail regarding
salvation (it is now all on this Website and not available in
book form any longer). It will go into great detail regarding
sin, regarding repentance and the law and grace and the true way
to salvation.
We will continue next time in this series on the Book of
Galatians. Next time we will start to look at some of the
background to the Book of Galatians, because that's very
important in understanding the book.
We need to understand the background, what went on before Paul had to write
the book of Galatians. And when we start to understand some of
the background that led up to Paul writing that book or letter
which it really is, a letter to the people of Galatia, then I
think we will be able to come to understand the book of Galatians
a lot better than we maybe have in the past.
So next time we will start to look at the background to the book.
...............
TO BE CONTINUED
2. The Book of Galatians
Introduction #2
by
Keith Hunt
The following is a transcript of Mr. Keith Hunt's sermon given on
January 17th, 1985.
The background to the reasons why Paul had to write the letter to the
Galatians is very important. When you see the background to the
letter you can better understand what the book of Galatians is
all about and why Paul had to write it. So, we first of all need
to look at some of the events that led up to Paul having to write
the letter of Galatians.
We will begin in Acts 13:1 - "Now there were in the church that
was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers." Verse 2 - "As they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said,
'separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have
called them.' And when they had fasted and prayed, they laid
their hands on them, and they sent them away." Now to verse 13 -
"Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to
Perga in Pamphylia: and John departed from them returning to
Jerusalem. And when they departed from Perga, they came to
Antioch in Pisidia..." If you turn to one of your maps at the
back of a lot of Bibles and find the 'Journey's of Paul,' you
will be able to find Antioch in Pisidia and you will see that it
is in the region of Galatia.
Verse 14 - "and they went into the synagogue on the sabbath day,
and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets
the rulers of the synagogue said unto them, saying, 'You men and
brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say
on.' Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, 'Men
of Israel, and you that fear God, give audience.'" Now we have
Paul going into what we might call a sermon. Verse 17 - "The God
of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the
people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and
with an high arm brought He them out of it. And about the time of
forty years He suffered their manner in the wilderness. And when
He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He divided
their land to them by lot. And after that He gave unto them
judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years until
Samuel the prophet. And afterward they desired a king: and God
gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of
Benjamin, by the space of forty years. And when He had removed
him He raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also
He gave testimony, and said 'I have found David the son of Jesse,
a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.' Of
this man's seed hath God according to His promise raised
unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus."
So you see how Paul now practically immediately, just within a
matter of seconds, is preaching to them Jesus as Saviour,
somebody who could save them. Verse 24 - "When John had first
preached before His coming the baptism of repentance to all the
people of Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom
think ye that I am? I am not he. For behold, there comes one
whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose. Men and
brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among
you fears God..." Yes Paul was preaching to the Jews and he was
also preaching to Gentiles as we will see. But he says to them,
"to you is the word of this salvation sent."
Paul is immediately preaching to them that through Jesus Christ
there is salvation. You can be saved through Him. Now go over to
verse 38 - "Be it known unto you therefore," Paul says, "men and
brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the
forgiveness of sins." Paul is saying to them that you can have
your sins forgiven, not through doing external rites, not through
the Old Covenant per se, in certain laws that the Jews were
thinking that they could be saved by obeying.
Can we see the background, the time in which Paul is preaching.
The Jews in a synagogue believing that they are under the Old
Covenant, practicing the Old Covenant, practicing animal
sacrifices, and a priesthood, and circumcision. And now Paul says
to them, it's not through those things that you get forgiveness
of sins, it's through Jesus Christ, He is Saviour, it's through
Him that you can have your sins forgiven.
Verse 39 - "And by Him all that believe are justified from all
things, from which you could NOT be JUSTIFIED by the law of
Moses" (any laws in all the Old Covenant). Paul says that all
these things that people had been practicing from generation to
generation did NOT forgive sins, it could NOT justify or forgive
them. Paul is teaching it is through Jesus Christ that you are
justified, that you have the forgiveness of sins.
Now, when you look at it in that historical perspective, can you
imagine what those people sitting there would start to think.
Those Jewish people that had been observing these rites and
ceremonies from generation to generation, killing those animals,
seeing the blood pouring out. Would it not be sensible to suppose
that if you were doing these things generation after generation
you would start to look to those external rites and the killing
of those sacrifices and the circumcision, which shed blood also,
that you would start to look to those as a means in itself of
forgiving you your sins. And all of a sudden here comes somebody,
that stands up and says to them, it's NOT that way that you get
the forgiveness of sins, it's through an individual called Jesus
Christ.
Notice the reaction as we go on. The Jewish reaction to Paul's
preaching. Verse 42 - "And when the Jews were gone out of the
synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be
preached to them the next sabbath". So it would indicate that the
Gentiles were willing to listen, but the indication is that the
Jews were not. But, the Gentiles were willing to listen to this,
what you might call new kind of preaching. Verse 43 - "Now when
the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious
proselytes followed Paul and the Barnabas: who, speaking to them,
persuaded them to continue in the grace of God." Yes certain
Jews were interested in this new type of preaching also. Verse 44
- "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together
to hear the word of God." But we will notice by verse 45, most of
those people that came together were Gentiles. Oh, there may have
been some Jews there, but certainly for the majority of the
religious Jews, noticed what their situation was.
Verse 45 - "But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were
filled with envy, and spake against those things which were
spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming."
Now do we begin to see what was going on. Paul was preaching what
those Jews thought was some new kind of heresy. Paul was
preaching Jesus Christ. Through Him there was the forgiveness of
sins, that you were justified through Jesus Christ and not
through any external obedience to the Laws of Moses or
sacrificing or circumcision. And those religious Jews started to
contradict Paul. So obviously the inference is that those
religious Jews said "No, that is not right, you are not justified
through this man that Paul is preaching, you are justified
through our way of living, you are justified through following
the Laws of Moses, through animal sacrifices and being
circumcised, that's the way to justification." Most Jews taught
and preached that that was the way to justification.
You see, we have two different camps here. What Paul was
preaching and what those religious Jews were preaching were
opposite to each other. Verse 49 - "And the word of the Lord was
published throughout all the region." Verse 50 - "But the Jews
stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of
the city and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas and
expelled them out of their coasts."
Chapter 14 - "And it came to pass in Iconium," now Iconium if you
look on your maps, is part of the region of Galatia, "that they
went both together into the synagogue of the Jews and so spake,
that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks
believed." So definitely, there were some that accepted the
teaching of Paul and Barnabas. But, there were unbelieving Jews,
ones that would not accept what Paul and Barnabas were preaching,
and we have already seen what they were preaching, that Jesus
Christ is the Saviour and that through Him there is
justification, and NOT by any works of obedience to any laws of
the Old Covenant.
Verse 2 - "But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and
made their minds evil affected against the brethren." Verse 4 -
"But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with
the Jews, and part with apostles." And in fact, they ended up
being stoned, verse 5. And verse 6 - "They fled unto Lystra and
Derbe again." Lystra and Derbe is a part of the Galatian area.
Verse 7 - "And there they preached the gospel." And we've already
seen what the good news, the gospel is that they preached. They
preached Jesus Christ as Saviour and through Him is the
forgiveness of sins and not through any other kind of ... well
anything, whatever you might want to imagine or invent. You could
not be justified, forgiven of your sins by any other means than
through Jesus Christ and HIS SACRIFICE of death and shed blood on
the cross.
Verse 8 - "And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his
feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had
walked: The same heard Paul speak: who steadfastly beholding him,
and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud
voice, 'Stand upright on thy feet.' And he leaped and walked. And
when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their
voices, saying," Now we are in a part of Galatia which is
predominately Gentile. They see this miracle that Paul was able
to do and what do they say? Verse 11 - "The Gods are come down to
us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter, and
Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker." Then notice,
Verse 13 - "Then the priest of Jupiter." Yes these Gentiles had
their own priesthood similar to the Jews. The Jews had a
priesthood, and Gentile nations also had their religions and
their priesthoods.
"And the priest of Jupiter which was before their city, brought
oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice
with the people." Now here is something else we need to be
conscience of, Gentiles also sacrificed. They also killed animals
and poured out the blood and had their priesthood and their
altars and their temples and sacrificial system just like the
Jews had. They would have done sacrifice. Verse 14 - "And when
the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it they rent their
clothes and ran in among the people, crying out and saying,
'Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions
with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these
vanities unto the living God." Verse 18 - "And with these sayings
they scarcely restrained the people, that they had not done
sacrifice unto them."
It took every effort from Paul and Barnabas to stop these people
from sacrificing to them. Verse 19 - "And there came thither
certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium who persuaded the
people..." Again, Jews who were going against the preaching of
Paul and Barnabas, preaching the opposite to Paul and Barnabas,
persuaded the people against them, "and having stoned Paul and
Barnabas, drew him cut of the city, supposing he had been dead.
Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up and
came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to
Derbe. And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and
had taught many, they returned again to Lystra and to Iconium,
and Antioch, we are still in the region of Galatia, "confirming
the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the
faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter in to the
kingdom of God."
We begin to see some of the background, that when Paul and
Barnabas went preaching Jesus Christ as Saviour and that through
Him is the forgiveness of sins and justification, they came
against tough opposition from certain segments of the Jewish
religious population. In fact, they contradicted Paul and
Barnabas, and would have been teaching people, that, "No it's not
through Jesus Christ that you have the forgiveness of sins, but
it is through our religious system that you can have forgiveness
of sins, by sacrificing, circumcision, being under the Old
Covenant, keeping the Laws of Moses." We had this kind of
friction going on in the early years of the preaching of the
Gospel.
Chapter 15 - "And certain men which came down from Judea taught
the brethren and said 'Except ye be circumcised after the manner
of Moses, ye cannot be saved.'" You see how strong their
preaching was. They said "No, Paul and Barnabas you are wrong.
Unless you are circumcised, you can't be saved. You've got to be
circumcised in order to be saved." Paul and Barnabas did not
preach that. They didn't preach that circumcision was necessary
for salvation but these other preachers did. And there was a
great contention. Verse 2 - "When therefore Paul and Barnabas had
no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined
that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up
to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question."
Is certain rites of the Mosaic economy necessary for salvation?
That was the question. Some said it was and Paul and Barnabas
said it wasn't. Verse 4 - "And when they were come to Jerusalem,
they were received of the church and the apostles and elders and
they had declared all things that God had done with them. But
there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed
saying that it was needful to circumcise them." You've got to
circumcise these Gentiles these people were saying, "and to
command them to keep the law of Moses."
DO YOU SEE WHAT THEY WERE TEACHING? We must continue they were
saying, to keep all the things under Moses, sacrifices, the
temple rituals, all the ablutions and circumcision especially.
Especially circumcision must be kept. These Gentiles must do
these things they said. It's necessary to do these things in
order to be justified and to have salvation, was this Pharisee
sect of believers contention. They believed in the person of
Jesus, but NOT as taught by Paul and Barnabas.
Verse 6 - "And the apostles and elders came together for to
consider of this matter." As you read on in chapter 15 you will
find that the decision was that it was not necessary to be
circumcised in order to become a child of God and in order to
have justification and salvation. It was not necessary.
Now I hope we can see some of the background of what was going on
in the early years of preaching the gospel. You had some who
would not accept what they considered this new theology that was
now being proclaimed. "New theology," some would have said, "that
Paul and Barnabas and these others were proclaiming, that it is
through Jesus Christ, this man, that you can have forgiveness of
sins and that you don't have to be physically circumcised in
order to be saved and to be a child of God." It was a new
theology to many people. They could not accept it, they did NOT
accept it, many of them simply did not accept it, and in fact
they went out and preached exactly the OPPOSITE to what Paul was
preaching. These people had infiltrated the region of Galatian.
Paul had gone through there and after he had left came these
other preachers CONTRADICTING the preaching, and teaching of
Paul. Finally, you had this Jerusalem conference to settle the
matter. The matter was settled and then it went out to the
churches what the decision was, but you see by this time these
preachers of the laws of Moses and circumcision with that being
the way to be justified and saved, had already done their damage.
They were already out there and the people of Galatia were being
influenced by them and Paul had to sit down and write the letter
to Galatians to straighten them out on this matter.
The letter of Galatians is, as most Bible scholars will admit,
possibly the very first letter that Paul wrote, at least that we
have record of. First and Second Thessalonians could have
possibly been his first two letters. If they were, Galatians was
probably right after them. But some scholars will say that
Galatians was the very first letter that Paul wrote, and he wrote
it because of the teachings of certain individuals that had come
along and were actually teaching the opposite to what was the
good news, the Gospel that Paul had preached to them.
Paul was preaching, Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Justification
and salvation through Jesus Christ and these other preachers were
saying, "No, no, it's through the laws of Moses, it's through
circumcision, it's through all of the rites that we perform, that
we have justification, salvation." Paul said no it is not through
that way that we are justified, and then he had to write the
letter to the people of Galatia.
I'll say it again: Do we begin to see the overall background to
the book of Galatians? The contention was mainly HOW we are
JUSTIFIED, HOW we have our SINS FORGIVEN, how we obtain the
SPIRIT of God, how we obtain SALVATION. And there was two, shall
we say, thoughts. One was by observing the rituals of the Mosaic
economy, the Old Covenant and performing everything that the Old
Covenant told you to do including animal sacrifices and including
circumcision, and by performing those things you could earn your
justification, you could earn your forgiveness of sins, and so
you could obtain salvation. On the other hand Paul says, "No you
can't do that, you cannot accumulate points in laws of Moses
observing, you can't earn justification, you can't earn salvation
by performing anything under the Old Covenant. It's through Jesus
Christ who came to die for your sins, that you can obtain
forgiveness of sins, justification, and it's through His grace
that you can obtain salvation."
So the aim of Paul's letter to the Galatians is to combat the
idea and teachings of Pharisaical individuals who taught that in
order to be saved it was mandatory to keep the WHOLE Old Covenant
with its ceremonial rituals, sacrifices, and especially the rite
of circumcision. Paul taught that the Old Covenant with its
sacrifices, ceremonial rituals and its physical circumcision, was
never by God intended, of and by itself, to justify, and that
means to forgive, to declare righteous, it was never intended by
God of itself to justify and save anyone. God had, Paul taught,
another way to be justified and saved. That way was by the
sacrifice of Christ and entry into a New Covenant with God. These
Pharisaical Old Covenant preachers taught that we are still under
the ENTIRE Old Covenant, especially physical circumcision. That
was really emphasized. Gentiles coming into the church must be
physically circumcised and we're all still under the Old Covenant
and especially physical circumcision, without which one could not
be saved.
That was their teaching, that was their contention. One could not
be saved without it or justified without it.
Paul taught Christians that we are justified through the death of
Jesus and we are under a New Covenant and circumcision was of the
spirit, the heart, and not of the letter or the flesh.
The book of Galatians is REALLY ABOUT ***TWO COVENANTS*** The Old
and the New and the true way of justification.
If you want to write in your Bible every time you see in the book
of Galatians "the law" and you put in there "the old covenant,"
you will come to understand the book of Galatians in a much
better way. Every time that you read where Paul says "the Law" in
the book of Galatians just simply put in there "the Old
Covenant." The book of Galatians will OPEN UP to you as NEVER
before.
Now remember, the Old Covenant did include the Ten Commandments.
Oh yes, and it consisted of many, many things. The Old Covenant
consisted of the sacrificial system, it consisted of performing
physical circumcision, and yes it did consist of the Ten
Commandments. But you see people were teaching that you could
obtain justification and salvation by the performance of these
things. You could earn your justification and salvation by doing
the Old Covenant. They taught in essence that you could gain
"Brownie Points" by performing the laws and rites of the Old
Covenant, and so God would grant you forgiveness and salvation.
Paul said no you can't do it that way, that was NOT the way to be
saved and find salvation.
Let's notice some of the scriptures in the book of Galatians
which I think will show you the over-all emphasis and teaching of
why the book of Galatians was written.
..............
TO BE CONTINUED
3. The Book of Galatians
Introduction #3
by
Keith Hunt
The following is a transcript of Mr. Keith Hunt's sermon given on
January 17th 1985.
Continued from part two
Let's notice some of the Scriptures in Galatians which I think
will show you the over-all emphasis and teaching of why the book
of Galatians was written.
Galatians 1:11. - "But I certify to you brethren that the gospel
which was preached of me is not after man. For neither received
it I of man neither was I taught it. But by the revelation of
Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my conduct in times past in
the Jews' religion." Yes Judaism, the Old Covenant of Judaism,
"How that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and
wasted it and profited in the Jews' religion above many of my
equals in my home nation being more exceedingly zealous of
the traditions of my fathers. When it please God who separated me
from my mother's womb and called me to His grace to reveal His
Son in me that I might preach Him among the heathen. Immediately
I conferred not with flesh and blood."
Notice chapter 2 beginning in verse l. "Then fourteen years after
I went up unto Jerusalem with Barnabas and took Titus with me
also. And I went up by revelation and communicated unto them that
the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately to
them which were of reputation. Lest by any means I should run or
had run in vain. But neither Titus who was with me being a Greek
was compelled to be circumcised. And that because of false
brethren unawares brought in who came in privily to spy out our
liberty which we had in Christ Jesus that they might bring us
into bondage."
Now, what was the bondage being talked about here in the whole
context? Was it the bondage of keeping those terrible Ten
Commandments? No, that was not the question. The question was to
do with circumcision. And Paul says Titus who was with him was
not compelled by the apostles in Jerusalem to be circumcised. He
said it was because other people had come in and they were
teaching that it was necessary to be circumcised in order to be
saved. And Paul says that it was not so. And these people wanted
to bring them into this bondage again. Verse 5 - "To whom we gave
place by subjection no not for an hour but that the truth of the
gospel might continue with you." Verse 11 and 12 - "But when
Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face because he
was to be blamed. For before that certain came, from James he did
eat with the Gentiles. And when they were come", these people
from Jerusalem, James, "he withdrew and separated himself fearing
them which were of the circumcision." Here again was this party
that Paul says were of the circumcision, individuals who believed
and taught that it was necessary to be circumcised in order to be
saved. And when they came down, even Peter started to side in
with them. Notice Verse 16 - Paul says, "Knowing this that a man
is not justified by the works of the law." You are not forgiven
your sins by performing some ritual or any works of the law, but
by the faith of Jesus Christ. "Even we have believed in Jesus
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the
works of the law. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified." No flesh will have their sins forgiven because they
go out and perform any kind of a law. That should be fairly plain
to us. If you run through a stop sign with your car and the
police stop you and fine you for doing so. You can stop at every
single traffic light and stop sign from now through the rest of
your life and that does not forgive you for the one mistake that
you made. You still have to pay that penalty for that one
mistake. And no matter how many things that you do that are good
after that mistake they cannot erase and forgive you for the
mistake you made. You cannot be declared righteous, justified by
going out and performing something. And that was what Paul was
stating here.
But these other people were stating, yes you can be. Yes you can
do these certain things and that can earn your justification and
forgiveness. And one of those things was circumcision.
Paul said no you can't, the Old Covenant obedience is not the way
to justification and salvation.
Chapter 3, Verse 2 - "This only would I learn of you, received
you the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of
faith. Are you so foolish?" Paul said to these Galatians, "Having
begun in the spirit are you now made perfect by the flesh?"
We begin to see the whole context. The flesh, circumcision, a
certain piece of your flesh, and are you now going to obtain
salvation by cutting your flesh physically like these other
preachers want to lead you to believe is the correct way, and not what
Paul is stating to them. Chapter 4, Verse 21 - "Tell me, you that
desire to be under the law, do you not hear what the law says."
And now Paul quotes from the first five books of the Bible. He is
saying, You that desire to be under the Old Covenant, you that
desire to believe that you can be justified by observing all of
the requirements under the Old Covenant, and that somehow you can
earn your justification that way. You that desire to do that, do
you not hear what the actual law itself says? "For it is written
that Abraham had two sons. The one by a bond maid, the other by a
free women. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the
flesh. And he of the free woman by the promise. Which things are
an analogy. For these are the TWO COVENANTS. The one from Mount
Sinai which genders to bondage which is Agar." That's the woman
that Abraham had Ishmeil by, through the works of the flesh.
Through their own deeds they produced Ishmeil and not relying on
the promise or the faith of God. That's the Old Covenant Paul
says, in analogy, that's the Mount Sinai, and that is bondage.
"For this Agar," verse 25 "is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answers
to Jerusalem, which now is..." Yes, to these people, the false
teachers, that's still teaching you that you can be justified and
obtain salvation by being under the Old Covenant and continuing
in the religion of Judaism. "For this Agar is Mount Sinai in
Arabia and answers to Jerusalem which now is and is in bondage
with her children. But Jerusalem which is above," the heavenly
Jerusalem "is free, which is the mother of us all."
Do you see why I said that really the book of Galatians is a book
about TWO Covenants, and what people were preaching, and what
Paul was preaching and what other people were preaching about
still being under the Old Covenant and all of its ramifications.
Verse 28 - "Now, we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of
the promise." You see we are under a New Covenant. We're under
the covenant of FAITH. The covenant that was gone into with
Abraham, where God said, "You are going to have a son Abraham."
And it was through faith that Abraham had to exercise faith to
have that promise from God. Verse 29 - "But as then, he that was
born after the flesh," by doing it your way, "persecuted him that
was born after the spirit. Even so", Paul says, "it is now." Yes
he says, we're receiving persecution, we're preaching Jesus
Christ, we're preaching the New Covenant, we're preaching
justification, salvation through faith and through Jesus Christ
and we are being persecuted by those who are still preaching the
Old Covenant, and that you can obtain salvation by performing
rites or anything that Old Covenant proclaims and that you can
earn your salvation that way.
Chapter 5 - "Stand fast therefore, in the liberty wherein Christ
has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." We will see now as we read on, what was specifically
the primary "yoke of bondage" that Paul was destroying. Let's
read on, verse 2 - "Behold I Paul say unto you that if you be
circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again
to every man that is circumcised that he is indebted to do the
whole law." If you believe, Paul was saying, that circumcision
is necessary for salvation, you can't have salvation unless you
are physically circumcised, then you're indebted to do the whole
Old Covenant, if you are going to obtain salvation by laws,
rites, and whatever. And that Paul would contend was indeed a
"joke of bondage" - trying to obtain justification, and salvation
through works of the Old Covenant.
Verse 4 - "Christ has become of no affect unto you, who so ever
of you are justified by the law." If you think that you can earn
your justification, salvation, by performing the Old Covenant,
then Christ is absolutely useless to you. And then he goes on to
say, "You have fallen from grace." You are fallen from the New
Covenant and from grace.
Verse 6 - "For in Jesus Christ, neither circumcision avails
anything nor uncircumcision, but, faith which works by love."
Chapter 6, verse 12 and 15 - "And as many as desire to make a
fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised,
only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of
Christ." He says Yes, we are suffering persecution because we
preach Jesus Christ as Saviour and that through Him is the
forgiveness of sins. These others preach the way of the flesh,
the way of performing physical rites, and all the laws of Moses
to effect salvation, lest they should be persecuted like we are,
Paul is telling them.
Verse 13 - "For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep
the law." He says, let me tell you something else. These
preachers that come along that tell you that you must be
circumcised and keep the Old Covenant and that this is the way to
salvation. Let me tell you something, they don't even themselves,
keep the law, they are hypocrites. But they want you to do it. He
says, "but desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in
your flesh." I guess there probably would be some kind of vanity.
If you could actually go out and persuade an adult, to get
circumcised, because of religion, you would probably feel some
kind of vanity. That he would be willing to go through what would
be rather a painful ordeal. They were popping their chest out
getting those people to be circumcised and those Gentiles to be
circumcised. It gave them a lot of vanity and proudness, that
people would actually go out and perform some kind of physical
painful rite because of their instruction.
Verse 14 - "But God forbid that I should glory saving in the
cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified
unto me and I am unto the world. For in Christ, neither
circumcision avails anything or uncircumcision, but a new
creature."
Can we see now the overall emphasis of the book of Galatians? I
hope that we're able to see it in a much clearer light today than
we may have in the past.
The contention was not whether the Ten Commandments of God should
continue to be obeyed by Christians. That was not the real
contention.
The real contention was the way to justification, the way to
salvation. Was it through Jesus Christ, as Paul preached, or was
it by your own means. Was it by performing the Old Covenant laws,
rituals, sacrifices, and circumcision, and so earning your
justification and salvation, or was it by grace through faith in
Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, and His death and shed blood
on the cross?
As we proceed in this study we shall see that some of the old
(not the more modern fundamentalists, though some may) Bible
commentators, such as the one I shall quote from, the famous
Bible Commentary by Albert Barnes, understood the true teaching
of the book of Galatians, and it had NOTHING to do with trying to
abolish the Ten Commandments.
...........
TO BE CONTINUED
4. The Book of Galatians
The Design of the Epistle
From the Albert Barnes Bible Commentary:
THE DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE
(It is easy to discern from the epistle itself that the following
circumstances existed in the churches of Galatia, and that it was
written with reference to them.
(1)
That they had been at first devotedly attached to the apostle
Paul, and had received his commands and instructions with
implicit confidence when he was among them, chap.4:14,15; Comp.
chap.1:6.
(2)
That they had been perverted from the doctrine which he taught
them soon after he had left them, chap.1:6.
(3)
That this had been done by persons who were of Jewish origin and
who insisted on the observance of the Jewish religion.
(the whole Old Covenant - Keith Hunt).
(4)
That they claimed to have come directly from Jerusalem, and to
have derived their views of religion and their authority from the
apostles there.
(5)
That they taught that the apostle Paul was inferior to the
apostles there; that he had been called more recently into the
apostolic office; that the apostles at Jerusalem must be regarded
as the source of authority in the Christian church; and that,
therefore, the teaching of Paul should yield to that which was
derived directly from Jerusalem.
(6)
That the law of Moses were binding, and were necessary in order
to be justification. That the rite of circumcision especially was
of binding obligation; and it is It is probable (chap.6:12)
that they had prevailed on many of the Galatians to be
circumcised ......
(7)
It would seem, also, that they urged that Paul himself had
changed his views since he had been among the Galatians, and now
maintained the necessity of circumcision, chap.5:11. Perhaps they
alleged this, from the undoubted fact, that Paul, when at
Jerusalem, (Acts 21:26) had complied with some of the customs of
the Jewish ritual.
(8)
That they urged that all the promises of God were made to
Abraham, and that whoever would partake of those promises, must
be circumcised as Abraham was. This Paul in answers,
chap.3:7; 4:7.
(9)
That in consequence of the promulgation of these views, great
dissensions had arisen in the church, and strifes of an unhappy
nature existed, greatly contrary to the spirit which should be
manifested by those who bore the Christian name.
From this description of the state of things in the churches of
Galatia, the design of the epistle is apparent, and the scope of
the argument will be easily seen.
of Galatia. Of this state of things the apostle had been
undoubtedly apprized, but whether by letters, or by messengers
from the churches there, is not declared. It is not improbable,
that some of his friends in the churches there had informed him
of it, and he immediately set about a remedy to the evils
existing there.
1.
The first object, therefore, was to show that he had received his
commission as an apostle, directly from God. He had not received
it at all from man; he had not even been instructed by the other
apostles; he had not acknowledged their superiority; he had not
even consulted them. He did not acknowledge, therefore, that the
apostles at Jerusalem possessed any superior rank or authority.
His commission though he had not seen the Lord Jesus before he
was crucified, he had, nevertheless, derived immediately from
him. The doctrine, therefore, which he had taught them, that the
Mosaic laws (observing all the Old Covenant as before Jesus came
- Keith Hunt) were not binding and that there was no necessity of
being circumcised, was a doctrine which had been derived directly
from God.
In proof of this, he goes into an extended statement, (chap.1) of
the manner in which he had been called, and of the fact, that he
had not consulted with the apostles at Jerusalem, or confessed
his inferiority to them; of the fact that when they had become
acquainted with the manner in which he preached, they approved
his course, (chap.1:24; 2:1-10;) and of the fact that on one
occasion, he had actually been constrained to differ from Peter,
the oldest of the apostles, on a point in which he was manifestly
wrong, and on one of the very points then under consideration.
2.
The second great object, therefore, was to show the nature and
design of the law of Moses (the entire Old Covenant with all its
laws - Keith Hunt) and to prove
that the peculiar rites of the Mosaic ritual, and especially
the rite of circumcision, were not necessary to justification
and salvation: and that they who observed that rite, did in
fact renounce the Scripture method of justification; make the
sacrifice of Christ of no value, and makes slaves of themselves.
This leads him into a consideration of the true nature of the
doctrine of justification, and of the way of salvation by a
Redeemer.
This point he shows in the following way :-
(1)
By showing that those who lived before Christ, and especially
Abraham, were in fact justified, not by obedience ritual law of
Moses, but by faith in the promise of God, chap.3:1-18.
(2)
By showing that the design of the Mosaic ritual (and indeed the
Old Covenant as a whole - Keith Hunt) was only temporary, and
that it was intended to lead to Christ, chap.3:19-29; 4:1-8 (and
to a New Covenant which does not contain many rites and even many
laws of the Old Covenant. See my studies on "Living by Every Word
of God - How?" - Keith Hunt).
(3)
In view of this, he reproves the Galatians for having so readily
fallen into the observance of these Customs chap.4:9-21.
(4)
This view of the design of the Mosaic law (the design of the
whole Old Covenant with all its laws and rites - Keith Hunt) and
of its tendency, he illustrates by an allegory drawn from the
case of Hagar, chap.4:21-31.
This whole discourse is succeeded by an affectionate exhortation
to the Galatians, to avoid the evils which had been engendered;
reproving them for the strife existing in consequence of the
attempt to introduce the Mosaic rites (those who were teaching
them to be under the whole Old Covenant with every law it
contained, and especially physical circumcision, as a way to
justification and salvation, without and apart from the sacrifice
of Jesus Christ - Keith Hunt) and earnestly entreating them to
stand firm in the liberty which Christ had vouchsafed to them
from the servitude of the Mosaic institutions, chapters 5 and 6
(the false servitude of trying to gain and maintain salvation by
obedience to ALL the Old Covenant laws, rituals, rites,
ceremonies, a justification by works and not by faith - Keith
Hunt).
The design of the whole epistle therefore is to state and defend
the doctrine of justification, and to show that it did not depend
on the observance of laws of Moses (all laws contained in the Old
Covenant - Keith Hunt).
In this general purpose, therefore, it accords with the design of
the epistle to the Romans.....
The argument, if I may so express myself is MORE **JEWISH**
It is more in the Jewish manner; is designed to meet a Jew in his
own way, and is, therefore, somewhat more difficult for all to
follow.
Still it contains great and vital statements on the doctrines of
salvation and, as such, demands the profound and careful
attention of all who desire to be saved, and who would know the
way of acceptance with God.
End of quotes from Albert Barnes
..............
A few years ago there was a religious conference of "Christian"
and "Jewish" Ministers and Rabbis. It was large enough to be
mentioned on the Canadian evening TV National News. It was stated
that the Jewish leaders claimed to the Christians present that
they were just as much children of God as the Christians were,
even though not accepting Christ as their savior and as the
Messiah.
And this is the fact of Jewish orthodox teaching and belief. They
believe that they have salvation and will inherit eternal life by
being obedient to the Old Covenant, and have no need of having
Jesus Christ as a part of being justified and saved, or having
what Christians call the New Testament writings.
The Canadian TV report did not state how the "Christian" leaders
answered.
This was the situation in Galatia, certain ones had come among
them after Paul preached Jesus as the Son of God and as the
sacrifice for justification. Paul taught that justification was
by having faith in the sacrifice of Christ, a justification and
being saved by grace through faith in Jesus' death and shed blood
for human sins. Certain ones were now telling the Galatians that
Paul was wrong and justification and salvation did not need
Christ, but it was by observing all the Old Covenant laws and
rites, and by being physically circumcised. Paul answers this
teaching and argument in the letter he wrote to the churches of
Galatia.
We must also remember that Paul did take the opportunity in
writing this letter to also address other issues of importance
that were "Christian issues" in general and not "Jewish" in
nature. For a large percentage of his readers in the churches of
Galatia were Gentiles, and they had been led astray back into
many Gentile ways and practices that were far from the ways that
Christ Jesus taught and lived and wanted His disciples to follow.
This we see in part from chapters 4 and 5.
Keith Hunt
............
September 2003
5. The Book of Galatians
Outline of chapters 1 and 2
Compiled and Written
by
Keith Hunt
Paul opens up immediately, probably in contrast to those who
claimed differently, that he was an apostle, one sent out, not by
the authority of human men, nor through the workings of any human
organization, but directly through Jesus Christ, and God the
Father. He sends greeting from all the brethren who were with
him, unto the churches (plural) in Galatia. He wishes them grace,
favor, and peace, from god the Father and from Jesus the Lord.
In mentioning Christ he give emphasis again (he certain did
it when among them in preaching the Gospel) that it was He who
died for our sins, so we could be delivered from the present evil
world. It was then as he told them when among them, that sins
could not be forgiven through anything in the Old Covenant, or
even the Old Covenant as a whole, whichever laws you obeyed, for
as he had no doubt explained to them before, the forgiveness of
sins, being justified, cannot be earned through following any
set of laws, as they were now being told by some who had come
among them, ones that he was now going to speak against in no
uncertain manner (verse 1-5).
He told them that he marvelled, he was astonished, at how
SOON they had been led astray into another "gospel" or "good
news" - some were preaching to them what they considered good
news, which was not really "gospel" or good news, but was a
perversion of the gospel of Christ. They probably taught that
people could still acknowledge Jesus as a prophet of God, but not
that it was through His death and shed blood that individuals
are justified or forgiven their sins, but rather through obeying
all the Old Covenant regulations including circumcision.
Paul here pulled no punches, he laid it all down on the
table, and said to them that if anyone, even an angel from
heaven, came and preached any other "good news" to them, that was
DIFFERENT than what he had preached to them, then that individual
should be cursed. He repeated it, just to make the point really
hit home to them, anyone preaching differently than his preaching
should be cursed. And he told them that he was not out to please
men or gain their favor per se, for if he preached to please men,
what they wanted to hear, then he would in many respects be
displeasing to God, and would not be a true servant of Christ
(verses 6-10).
He restates that his preaching the good news did not come
from men's minds or a theological organization of man's devise.
He had not been taught the good news he preached from a
theological school of men, but DIRECTLY from the REVELATION of
Jesus Christ. He does not go into any detail as to the HOW of
this revelation, only that it did happen, that he was taught the
good news directly by Jesus (we may get some information as to
the WHEN this happened in the following verses).
He reminded them that they had heard about his past life in
the "Jews' religion" (what we often call Judaism today) and how
he had persecuted the Church of God. He did profit in certain
human ways in the Jews' religion, even above many of his equals,
for he was more zealous in observing the traditions of the
fathers of the sect of Judaism he belonged to, than others. We
find in other letters of Paul that he was a Pharisee and
belonged to that particular sect of Judaism (see Acts 26:5 and my
studies called "Jesus and Paul - Pharisees?")
Verse 15 and 16 are interesting for it makes Paul a chosen
vessel by God from the womb of his mother. Some modern
translations put it like this: "But God had special plans for me
and set me apart for His work even before I was born He called me
through His grace, and showed His Son to me that I might tell the
Good News about Him to those who are not Jewish.
Paul possibly found this out when being taught personally by
Christ.
He goes on to tell them that at his conversion he did not
advise or help in religious matters from anyone. He tells them
that he did NOT go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles
before he was converted to Christ. But he went right away to
Arabia and later back to Damascus. It is more than likely that
this is the time he was taught by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
It was after 3 years that he went up to Jerusalem and met with
Peter for 15 days, but did not meet with any other of the
apostles, except with James, the physical brother of Christ.
He tells them after this he went to areas of Syria and
Cilicia, and none of the churches in Judea had met him, they
only heard about him, and they praised God, for he that had at
one time persecuted Jesus' followers was now preaching the same
faith that he once tried to destroy (verses 11-24).
All of this first chapter of the letter of Galatians is to
lay a solid foundation as to the truth he had taught the
Galatians and the truth he would once more present to them in
the remaining dialogue of his letter to them.
CHAPTER TWO
Paul further lays a foundation of his authority in Christ
and the correctness of what he had taught them, that his teaching
was well known by the apostles at Jerusalem. He tells them that
14 years had passed after his first visit to Jerusalem with two
of the apostles, Peter and James. He says he went because God
showed him that he should go. He took Barnabas and Titus with
him. He met with the believers and in private told the leaders
there what he taught and preached to the non-Jewish people. He
did not want his work to be wasted, by being out of line (though
he knew he was not being taught of Christ personally, yet some no
doubt would say he was simply making that claim, when it was not
so). He tells them that Titus even being a Greek was not
compelled by those leaders in Jerusalem to be circumcised. He
goes on to say that those leaders, after hearing from him and
what he taught and preached, did not change anything in the Good
News he proclaimed. All admitted that he had obviously been given
by God the task of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles just as
Peter had been given by God to preach to the Jews.
He names James, Peter, and John, who all understood that God
had indeed given Paul this special commission to the Gentiles,
and so they fully accepted him and Barnabas. Those men agreed
that he and Barnabas (and others like Titus) should go to
those not Jewish and they (Peter, James, John) to the Jews. All
they requested was that Paul would remember (help and serve) the
poor, which he tells them he was already doing (verses 1-10).
He yet further proves his authority in Christ, by relating
to them the fact of the time when Peter came to Antioch, where
Paul was living, and how he openly corrected Peter to his face,
because he acted incorrectly and hypocritically when certain Jews
came from Jerusalem, sent by James to Antioch. Paul was showing
them that he had the right to correct any person or apostle IF
they were in serious error that was contrary to the truth
and Gospel of Christ.
The reader can find all the DETAILS about all I've skimmed
over in the first two chapters of Galatians in most of your
in-depth multi-volumed Bible Commentaries.
WE NEED NOW GET TO THE MAJOR SECTIONS OF THE LETTER OF
GALATIANS CONCERNING THE LAW, JUSTIFICATION, AND THE WAY TO
SALVATION.
FROM BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHAP.2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me....
Paul introduces this case of Titus undoubtedly to show that
circumcision was not necessary to salvation. It was a case just
in point. He had gone up to Jerusalem with express reference to
this question. Here was a man whom he had admitted to the
Christian church without circumcising him. He claimed that he had
a right to do so; and that circumcision was not necessary in
order to salvation. If it were necessary, it would have been
proper that Titus should have been compelled to submit to it. But
Paul says this was not demanded; or if demanded by any, the point
was yielded, and he was not compelled to be circumcised. It is
to be remembered that this was at Jerusalem; that it was a case
submitted to the apostles there; and that consequently the
determination of the case settled the whole controversy about the
obligation of the Mosaic laws on the Gentile converts. It is
quite evident from the whole statement here, that Paul did not
intend that Titus should be circumcised; that he maintained that
it was not necessary; and that he resisted it when it was
demanded, vers.4,5.
Yet on another occasion he himself performed the act of
circumcision on Timothy, Acts 16:3. But there is no inconsistency
in his conduct. In the case of Titus it was demanded as a matter
of right and as obligatory on him, and he resisted the principle
as dangerous. In the case of Timothy, it was a voluntary
compliance on his part with the usual customs of the Jews, where
it was not pressed as a matter of obligation, and where it could
not be understood as indispensable to salvation. No danger would
follow from compliance with the custom, and it might do much to
conciliate the favour of the Jews, and he therefore submitted to
it. Paul would not have hesitated to have circumcised Titus in
the same circumstances in which it was done to Timothy; but the
circumstances were different; and when it was insisted on as a
matter of principle and of obligation, it became a matter of
principle and of obligation with him to oppose it......
CHAP.2:4 ... To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.
In the practice of the Christian religion. The liberty
referred to was, doubtless, the liberty from the painful,
expensive, and onerous rites of the Jewish religion. See
chap.5:1. Their object in spying out the liberty which Paul and
others had, was, undoubtedly, to be witnesses of the fact that
they did not observe the peculiar rites of the Mosaic system (all
and everything in the Old Covenant, and especially circumcision
and other rituals - Keith Hunt) to make report of it; to insist
on their complying with those customs, and thus to secure the
imposition of those rites on the Gentile converts (insistence
that the whole Old Covenant be practiced and performed as before
in past centuries - Keith Hunt). Their first object was to
satisfy themselves of the fact that Paul did not insist on the
observance of their customs; and then to secure, by the authority
of the apostles, an injunction or order that Titus should be
circumcised, and that Paul and the converts made under his
ministry should be required to comply with those laws ...
End Quote from Barnes
CHAP. 2:4
Although the CONTEXT would suggest that the bondage Paul here
talks about would be that of CIRCUMCISION (having to be
circumcised in the flesh to be saved (as these false teachers
taught) and the liberty that of, not having to be physically
circumcised to acquire justification. There is I believe a deeper
truth here implied by Paul.
Can physical circumcision really be looked upon as bondage?
Millions still practice it today for health reasons and think it
not a bondage. As for the sacrificial system and rites that
Israel had, did they not comply with the instructions God gave to
Moses? Yes they did. Was their system any more demanding than
some of our denominations? Were the Israelites really under heavy
bondage to sacrifice when the populous as a whole did not have to
practice it daily, but only when they went up to Jerusalem? Was
the Priesthood under great bondage in performing the duties of
the Tabernacle? Not any more than those who enjoy a good living
working in our "Animal Slaughter Factories."
The liberty Paul here says Christians have as opposed to those of
the circumcision part, must be understood in the light of their
teaching as contrasted to that of Paul's teaching. Namely, the
WAY TO JUSTIFICATION. They taught justification by ones OWN
EFFORTS and deeds, WORKS of law - the way to EARN salvation. Paul
taught that way was death and indeed bondage, as NONE could be
justified by observance of ANY law - law makes no provision for
grace, it only states a penalty for its violation. As all have
sinned (Rom.3:23) and the wages of sin is death (Rom.6:23).
It would be bondage indeed that "neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear" (Acts 15:10) to try to justify oneself through
physical circumcision or ANY OTHER work of ANY law which DENIED
the need for the justifying work of Christ's death on the cross.
But yet this is what was being taught by those of the
circumcision party, and Paul says to those Galatians who would
believe their teaching, they would be brought into bondage.
What greater bondage could there be than for weak fleshly man to
suppose he could somehow earn his forgiveness with God by the
performance of anything!
The bondage mentioned here by Paul cannot possibly be referring
to the 10 Commandments as such. Having liberty to disregard them
and being in bondage if you try to keep them. Never does Paul
refer to the 10 Commandments as "bondage." The opposite is true.
Paul calls them "holy, just and good" they are "spiritual" and he
said "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Rom.
7:12,14,22).
James was inspired to say that the 10 Commandment law was "the
law of LIBERTY" (James 2:12).
When we have REPENTED of our sins (which is the breaking of the
law of God - 1 John 3:4; Rom.7:7) and have set our heart and
attitude to obey the Lord and His commands, we have truly found
liberty. For only such individuals will have met the condition to
come under God's grace through Jesus Christ (Psalm 103:17,18; Ex.
20:6). See this fully explained in my in-depth study called
"Saved by Grace."
These false teachers were coming into the churches of Galatia and
contradicting the teaching of Paul. They "down played" the
sacrifice of Christ, while admitting He (Christ) was a good man,
a preacher of God, but did not uphold the truth that forgiveness
of sins and justification with God could ONLY come through the
life and death, shed blood on the cross, of this man called Jesus
Christ, and by accepting Him as personal Savior. These false
teachers were teaching people that it was by observing the WHOLE
Old Covenant, as it had been practices for centuries, that was
the way to justification with God, and especially having to be
circumcised.
................
TO BE CONTINUED
6. The Book of Galatians
Justification
CHAP. 2:16
Knowing this that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus
Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and
not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no
flesh be justified.
ALBERT BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
.... The object of Paul here seems to be to show, that as they
had believed in the Lord Jesus, and thus had been justified,
there was no necessity of obeying the law of Moses with ANY VIEW
to JUSTIFICATION. The thing had been fully done without the deeds
of the law, and it was now unreasonable and unnecessary to insist
on the observance of the Mosaic rites......
I have stated in various places what I conceive to be the
true doctrine on this important subject. It may be useful,
however, to throw together in one connected view, as briefly as
possible the leading ideas on the subject of JUSTIFICATION, as it
is revealed in the gospel.
(1) Justification is properly a word applicable to courts of
justice, but is used in a similar sense in common conversation
among men. An illustration will show its nature.
A man is charged, e.g., with an act of trespass on his
neighbour's property. Now there are two ways which he may take to
JUSTIFY himself, or to meet the charge, to as to be regarded and
treated As innocent. He may (a) either deny that he performed the
act charged on him, or he may (b) admit that the deed vas done,
and set up as a defence that he had a right to do it. In either
case, if the point be made out, he will be just or innocent in
the sight of the law. The law will have nothing against him, and
he will be regarded treated in the premises as an innocent man;
or he has justified himself in regard to the charge brought
against him.
It is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is
transferred to his people. Moral character cannot be transferred.
It adheres to the moral agent as much as colour does to the rays
of light which cause it. It is not true that WE died for sin, and
it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. It is not true that WE have
any merit, or any claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed.
All the imputations of God are according to truth; and he will
always reckon us to be personally undeserving and sinful.
But if justification be none of these things, it may be
asked, what is it? I answer, ***It is the declared purpose of God
to regard and treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of
the Saviour***
.....Justification has RESPECT to the law, and to God's future
dealings with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to
treat him hereafter as a righteous man, or as if he had not
sinned. The ground or reason of this is the merit of the Lord
Jesus Christ; merit such that we can plead it as if it were our
own. The rationale of it is, that the Lord Jesus has accomplished
by his death the same happy effects in regard to the law and the
government of God, which would be accomplished by the death of
the sinner himself .....
He has taken our place, and died in our stead; and he has
met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen on
our own head if he had not interposed .....
The law has been fully obeyed by one who came to save us,
and as much honour has been done to it by his obedience as could
have been by our own; that is, it as much shows that the LAW is
WORTHY of OBEDIENCE, to have it perfectly obeyed by the Lord
Jesus, as it would if it were obeyed by us. It as much shows that
the law of a sovereign is worthy of obedience, to have it obeyed
by an only son, and an heir to the crown, as it does to have it
obeyed by his subjects. And it has as much shown the EVIL of the
VIOLATION of the LAW to have the Lord Jesus suffer death on the
cross, as it would if the guilty had died themselves.
......And an impression as deep has been made of the EVIL of SIN
by the sufferings of the Lord Jesus in our stead, as if WE had
suffered ourselves. He endured on the cross as intense agony as
we can conceive it possible for a sinner ever to endure .....
He stood in the centre of the universe. The sun grew dark,
and the dead arose, and angels gazed upon the scene, and from his
cross an impression went abroad to the farthest part of the
universe, showing the tremendous effects of the VIOLATION of LAW,
when not one soul could be saved from its penalty without such
sorrows of the Son of God. In virtue of all this, the offender,
by believing on him, may be treated as if he had not sinned; and
this constitutes JUSTIFICATION. God admits him to favour as if he
had himself obeyed the law, or borne its penalty .....
The character of God is thus revealed. His mercy
determination to MAINTAIN his law is evinced. The truth is
maintained; and yet he shows the fullness of his mercy, and the
richness of his benevolence .....
(2) Charges of very serious nature are brought against man by
his Maker. He is charged with VIOLATING the LAW of God; with a
want of love to his Maker; with a corrupt, proud, sensual heart;
with being entirely alienated from God by wicked works; in one
word, with being entirely depraved. This charge extends to all
men; and to the entire life of every unrenewed man. It is not a
charge merely affecting the external conduct, not merely
affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from God
- A charge, in short, of total depravity. See, especially Rom. 1;
2; 3.
That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt.
That it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as
clear. It is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals in
proof of it to the history of the world, to every man's
conscience, and to the life of every one who has lived; and on
these facts, and on his own power in searching the hearts, in
knowing what is in man, he rests the proofs of the charge.
(3) It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from this
charge. He can neither show that the things charged have not been
committed, nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do
them. He cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges
which he has made against him in his word; and he cannot
prove that it was right for him to do as he has done. The charges
against him are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are
such as cannot be vindicated. But if he can do neither of these
things, then he cannot be justified by the law. The law will not
acquit him. It holds him guilty. It condemns him. No argument
which he can use will show that he is right, and that God is
wrong. No works that he can perform will be any compensation for
what he has already done. No denial of the existence of the facts
charged will alter the case; and he must stand condemned by the
LAW of God.
In the legal sense he cannot be justified; and justi-
fication, if it ever exist at all, must be in a mode that is a
departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode which
the law did not contemplate, for NO LAW makes any provision for
the pardon of those who violate it. It must be by some system
which is distinct from the law, and in which man may be
JUSTIFIED on different principles than those which the law
contemplates.
(4) This other system of justification is that which is
revealed in the gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does
NOT consist in either of the following things:
(A) It is not a system or plan where the Lord Jesus takes the
part of the sinner against the law or against God. He did not
come to show that the sinner was right, and that God was wrong.
He admitted most fully, and endeavoured constantly to show, that
God was right, and that the sinner was wrong; nor can an instance
be referred to where the Saviour took the part of the sinner
against God, in any such sense that he endeavoured to show that
the sinner had not done the things charged on him, or that he had
a right to do them.
(B) It is not that we are either innocent, or are declared to be
innocent. God justifies the "ungodly," Rom.4:5. We are not
innocent; we never have been; we never shall be; and it is not
the design of the scheme to declare any such untruth as that we
are not personally undeserving. It will be always true that the
justified sinner has no claims to the mercy and favour of God.
(C) It is not that we cease to be undeserving personally. He
that is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven will go there
admitting that he deserves eternal death, and that he is saved
wholly by favour and not by desert.
(D) It is NOT a declaration on the part of God that WE have
wrought out salvation, or that WE have any claim for what the
Lord Jesus has done. Such a declaration would not be true, and
would not be made.
End quotes from Albert Barnes' Bible Commentary
..............
And there friends is the truth of the matter on JUSTIFICATION as
taught in the Bible and especially the New Testament, or New
Covenant.
TO BE CONTINUED
7. The Book of Galatians
Paul continues to expound Salvation
FROM BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHAP.2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might
live unto God.
....and that the meaning is, that by contemplating the true
character the law of Moses itself; by considering its nature and
design; by understanding the extent of its re requisitions,
he had become dead to it; that is, he had laid aside all ex-
pectations of being justified it. This seems to me to be the
correct interpretation; Paul had formerly expected to be
justified by the law. He had endeavoured to obey it. It had been
the object of his life to comply with all its requisitions, in
order to be saved by it, Phil.3: 4-6. But all this while he had
not fully understood its nature; and when he was made fully to
feel and comprehend its spiritual requirements, then all his
hope of justification by it died, and he became dead to it. See
this sentiment more fully explained in the Note on Rom.7:9.
End quote from Albert Barnes
KEITH HUNT:
I am reminded how Paul used the same type of expression when
writing to the church at Rome (chap.7:4). He explained to them
(v.5-11) that when he fully understood what the law was saying to
him - namely, "you have sinned by transgressing my commands and
your fruits of doing so have earned for you the penalty of the
law, he realized that death was his sentence. Although, he knew
the law of God was holy, just and good, when the consciousness of
the perfect law came to his mind, he realized that because he had
not attained to its perfectness, he was under its penalty of
death (ROM 6:23). He knew the law was saying "I claim your life -
you must die." But he explained to those in Rome (see chap.5:8)
that Jesus died in our stead - He took the penalty of the law for
us. When Jesus was crucified it was as if all sinners were
crucified.
The law's claim on our lives was met through the death of Christ.
We sinners are now dead to the law's penalty by the body (death)
of Jesus. So we can walk in the new life of not serving sin, but
"as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as
instruments of righteousness unto God" (Rom.6:13)
Through the law we find the knowledge that we are sinners and
sentenced to death, but we also are have had, in God's great
mercy, our death sentence carried for us by the Son of God, who
loved us and gave himself for us "that whosoever believeth in Him
should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
Through the Saviour (which the law - the five books of Moses and
the Old Covenant) had repeatedly pointed towards, we had died.
The law is saying, to all repentant believers in the justifying
work of Jesus, "you have died - the penalty of death that I
demanded for your sins has been met - you are dead to me."
So, Paul could say in Gal.2:20 that he was crucified with Christ,
nevertheless he lived, yet not him (the old man of sin: Rom.6:6)
but Christ lived in him. He could now truly say he was "dead to
the law, that I might live unto God." Not that he was free to
wilfully sin and break the law of God through faith in Jesus, for
he himself told those in Rome that he delighted in and served the
law of God, and that through faith we ESTABLISH the law. (Rom.
7:22).
ALBERT BARNES:
CHAP.2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if
righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
.....For if righteousness come by the law. If justification can
be secured by the observance of ANY law - ceremonial or moral -
then there was no need of the death of Christ as an atonement.
This is plain. If man by conformity to ANY law could be justified
before God, what need was there of an atonement? The work would
then have been wholly in his OWN power, and the merit would have
been HIS. If follows from this, that MAN CANNOT be justified by
his OWN morality, or his armsdeeds, or his forms of religion, or
his honesty and integrity. If he can, he needs no savior - he can
save himself.....
They have no deep sense of guilt. They confide in their own
integrity, and feel that God OUGHT to save them. Hence they feel
no need of a Savior; for why should a man in health employ a
physician? And confiding in their OWN righteousness, they REJECT
the GRACE of God, and despise the plan of justification through
the Redeemer. To feel the deed of a Savior, it is necessary to
feel that we are LOST and ruined SINNERS; that we have NO MERIT
on which we can rely; and that we are entirely dependent on the
MERCY of God for salvation. Thus feeling, we shall receive the
salvation of the gospel with thanksgiving and joy, and show that
in regard to us Christ is not "dead in vain".....
CHAP.3:2,3. This only would I learn of you, received you the
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are
you so foolish having begun in the Spirit, are you now made
perfect by the flesh ?
.....'Received ye the Spirit.'
The Holy Spirit. He refers here, doubtless, to ALL
manifestations of the Spirit which had been made to them, in
renewing the heart, in sanctifying the soul, in comforting them
in affliction, and in his miraculous agency among them. ThE Holy
Spirit had been conferred on them at their conversion, (compare
Acts 10:44; 11:15) and this was to them proof of the favour of
God, and of their being accepted by him.
'By the works of the law.'
By obeying the law of Moses or of ANY law. It was in no way
connected with their obeying the law. This must have been so
clear to them that no one could have any doubt on the subject.
The inestimably rich and precious gift of the Holy Spirit had NOT
been conferred on them in consequence of their obeying the law.
'Or by the hearing of faith.' In connexion with hearing the
gospel, requiring faith as a condition of salvation.....
'Are ye so foolish!'
Can it be that you are so unwise? The idea is, that Paul
hardly thought it credible that they could have pursued such a
course. They had so cordially embraced the gospel when he
preached to them, they had given such evidences that they were
under its influence, that he regarded it as hardly possible that
they should have so far abandoned it as to embrace such a system
as they had done.
'Having began in the Spirit.'
That is, when the gospel was first preached to them. They
had commenced their professedly Christian life under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, and with the pure and spiritual
worship of God. They had known the power and spirituality of the
glorious gospel. They hall been renewed by the Spirit;
sanctified in some measure by him and had submitted themselves to
the spiritual influences of the gospel.
'Are you now made perfect.'
Tindal renders this, 'ye would now end.' The word here used
means, properly, to bring through to an end, to finish; and the
sense here has probably been expressed by Tindal. The idea of
perfecting, in the sense in which we now use the word, is not
implied in the original. It is that of finishing, ending,
completing; and the sense is, 'You began your Christian career
under the elevated and spiritual influences of Christianity, a
system so pure and so exalted above the carnal ordinances of the
Jews. Having begun thus, can it be that you are finishing your
Christian course, or carrying it on to completion by the
observance of those ordinances, as if they were more pure and
elevating than Christianity? Can it be that you regard them as an
advance on the system of the gospel?'
'By the flesh'.
By the observance of the carnal rites of the Jews, for so
the word here evidently means. This has not been an uncommon
thing. Many have been professedly converted by the Spirit, and
have soon fallen into the observance of mere rites and
ceremonies, and depended mainly on them for salvation. Many
CHURCHES have commenced their career in an elevated and spiritual
manner, and have ended in the observance of mere forms. So many
Christians begin their course in a spiritual manner, and end it
'in the flesh' in another sense. They soon conform to the world.
They are brought under the influence of worldly appetites and
propensities.....
End quotes from "Barnes' Notes on the New Testament"
KEITH HUNT:
3:2
The way to receive GOD'S SPIRIT was given IMMEDIATELY by Peter on
the 1st DAY of the start of the New Testament Church of God, (see
Acts 2:38; 5:3-2; Notice also - Luke 13:3,5; Mark 1:14,15;
Luke 4:16-19; Isaiah 55:1-3,6-9; 56:1-7; 58:13,14; 59:1-15;
57:15; 66:1-2; 53). We have seen how Paul was COMBATTING those
who were preaching JUSTIFICATION by your own WORKS. Being
CIRCUMCISED in the FLESH was one of those works that was said to
be necessary to be saved (Acts 15:1-6). Some were saying that
performing the LAW of Moses - the Old Covenant and physical
CIRCUMCISION was all that was required to get favor and
justification with God, and be saved. They were teaching a
justification and salvation WITHOUT the need of the shed
blood of Christ - without a REDEEMER, a Saviour! They were
teaching a salvation WITHOUT having to have FAITH in a redeemer -
namely Jesus Christ.
CHAP. 3:3
BY THE FLESH: Specifically referring to those who taught that
physical circumcision was necessary to justification and being
saved (See Acts 15:1-6).
3:7-9, 16
The way of JUSTIFICATION (the forgiveness of sins and being
declared righteous) and salvation had been declared by God to
Abraham 430 years before the OLD COVENANT was established.
God the Father had determined LONG BEFORE the OLD COVENANT was
given, that the way to JUSTIFICATION was going to be through a
REDEEMER - a Saviour who would come from Abraham's seed and die
for the sins of all mankind. It was NOT going to be through a
person WORKING at DOING something and EARNING God's favor and
forgiveness.
The way of JUSTIFICATION had been FORMULATED BEFORE the
foundation of the earth - 2 Timothy 1:9; I Peter 1:18-20.
CHAP. 3:9
THEY WHICH BE OF FAITH: As Paul said later to the Ephesians,
"For by GRACE are you saved, through FAITH and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, least any man
should boast." (Eph.2:8,9).
No amount of performance at anything, no works of law, any
law - ceremonial or moral can forgive or justify sins already
done, as Albert Barnes so well understood. And as he has
elsewhere stated, the design of law is not to forgive but to
condemn. So none can be saved through law, unless one would never
break the law - never sin. That Paul says has never ever been
done except by one man - Christ Jesus (see Romans 3:23; Hebrews
4:14,15).
It was obvious then, to Paul, that all others can only be saved
by GRACE, the corner stone of which is FAITH - faith to believe
that Jesus did live, die and was resurrected, to secure
justification for all who will repent of sin and believe. This
was ever the only way of salvation - there was never any other
way, and Paul shows this from the example of Abraham who lived
BEFORE the Old Covenant was ever entered into and given to
Israel. Abraham was saved through FAITH not by circumcision or
any ceremonial rites or any deeds of law, but by BELIEF in the
promise of God that of his seed would come the Saviour of mankind
- the one who would bear the sins of the world, thus securing
justification for all who would be of the same FAITH as Abraham.
We do well to take heed to what the word of the Eternal gives us
as to the KIND of faith Abraham had. The father of the faithful
had a LIVING - ACTIVE faith. It was evidenced in his loving
obedience to all that the Lord commanded him (see James 2:10-26;
Genesis 26:5).
ALBERT BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHAP.3:6,7,9 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted
to him for righteousness. Know you therefore, that they which are
of faith, the same are the children of Abraham ... So then they
which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
'Even as Abraham believed'
See this passage fully explained in the Notes on Rom.4:3.
The passage is introduced here by the apostle to show that the
most eminent of the patriarchs was not saved by the deeds of the
law. He was saved by faith, and this fact showed that it was
possible to be saved in that way, and that it was the design of
God to save men in this manner. Abraham believed God, and was
justified, before the law of Moses was given. It could not,
therefore, be pretended that the law was necessary to
justification; for if it had been, Abraham could not have been
saved. But if not necessary in his case, it was in no other; and
this instance demonstrated that the false teachers among the
Galatians were wrong even according to the Old Testament.
'Know ye therefore' etc.
Learn from this case. It is an inference which follows, that
all they who believe are the children of Abraham.
'They which are of faith.'
Who believe, and who are justified in this manner.
'Are the children of Abraham.'
Abraham was the 'father of the faithful,' The most
remarkable trait in his character was his unwavering confidence
in God. They who evinced the same trait, therefore, were worthy
to be called his children. They would he justified in the same
way, and in the same manner meet the approbation of God. It is
implied here, that it was sufficient for salvation to have a
character which would render it proper to say that we are the
children of Abraham. If we are like him, if we evince the same
spirit and character, we may be sure of salvation.
'So then they which be of faith.'
They whose leading characteristic it is that they believe.
This was the leading trait in the character of Abraham; and this
is the leading thing required of those who embrace the gospel,
and in the character of a true Christian.
'Are blessed with faithful Abraham.'
In the same manner they are in interested in the promises
made to him, and they will be treated as he was. They are
justified in the same manner, and admitted to the same privileges
on earth and in heaven.....
End Quotes from Albert Barnes
..............
TO BE CONTINUED
8. The Book of Galatians
The Curse of the Law?
Part Eight
BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT:
CHAP. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law, are under
the curse...
'For as many as are of the works of the law.'
As many as are seeking to be justified by yielding obedience
to then law - whether the moral law, or the ceremonial law. The
proposition is general, and it is designed to show that, from the
nature of the case, it is impossible to be justified by the works
of the law, since, under all circumstances of obedience which
we can render, we are still left with its heavy curse resting on
us.
'Are under the curse.'
The curse which the law of God denounces. Having failed by
all their efforts to yield perfect obedience, they must be
exposed to the curse which the law denounces on the guilty. The
word rendered curse means, as with us, properly "imprecation" or
"cursing.".... It is here used evidently in the sense of devoting
to punishment or destruction; and the idea is that all who
attempt to secure salvation by the works of the law, must be
exposed to its penalty. It denounces a curse on all who do not
yield entire obedience; and no partial compliance with its
demands can save from the penalty.
'For it is written.'
The substance of these wordy is found in Deut.27:26: "Cursed
be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them."
It is the solemn close of a series of maledictions which Moses
denounces in that chapter on the violators of the law. In this
quotation, Paul has given the sense of the passage, but he has
quoted literally neither from the Hebrew nor from the Septuagint.
The sense, however, is retained. The word "cursed" here mean,
that the violator of the law shall be devoted to punishment or
destruction. The phrase, "that continueth not," in the Hebrew is
"that confirmeth not" - that does not establish or confirm by his
life. He would confirm it by continuing to obey it; and thus the
sense in Paul and in Moses is substantially the same. The word
"all" is not expressed in the Hebrew in Deuteronomy, but it is
evidently implied, and has been inserted by the English
translators. It is found, however, in six MSS. of Kennicott and
De Rossi; in the Samaritan text; in the Septuagint; and in
several of the Targums -- Clarke.
'The book of the law.'
That is, in the law. This phrase is not found in the passage
in Deuteronomy. The expression there is, "the words of this law,"
Paul gives it a somewhat LARGER sense, and applies it to the
WHOLE of the law of God (yes to the whole Old Covenant which
these false teachers were claiming that obeying it would justify
them, and looking to the death of a man called Jesus Christ was
not needed or not the way to justification with God - Keith
Hunt). The meaning is, that the WHOLE LAW must be obeyed or man
cannot be justified by it, or will be exposed to its PENALTY
and its CURSE.
This idea is expressed more FULLY by James, (2:10)
"whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet often in one point,
he is guilty of all;" that is, he is guilty of breaking the law
as a whole, and must be held responsible for such violation. The
sentiment here is one that is common to all law, and must be,
from the nature of the case. The idea is that a man who does not
yield compliance to a whole law is subject to its penalty, or to
a curse. All law is sustained on this principle.
A man who has been honest, and temperate, and industrious,
and patriotic, if he commits a single act of murder, is subject
to the curse of the law, and must meet the penalty. A man who has
been honest and honourable in all his dealings, yet if he commit
a single act of forgery, he must meet the curse denounced by the
laws of his country, and bear the penalty.
So in all matters pertaining to law; no matter what the
integrity of the man, no matter how upright he has been, yet for
the ONE OFFENCE the law denounces a penalty, and he must bear it.
It is out of the question for him to be justified by it. He
cannot plead as a reason why he should not be condemned for the
act of murder or forgery, that he has in all other respects
obeyed the law; or even that he has been guilty of no such
offenses before.
Such is the idea of Paul in the passage before us. It was
clear to his view that man had not, in all respects yielded
obedience to the law of God. If he had not done this, it was
impossible that he should be justified by the law, and he must
bear its penalty....
CHAP.3:11,12 But that no man is justified by the law......
'But that no man is justified.' etc.
The argument which Paul has been pursuing he proceeds to
confirm by an express declaration of the Bible. The argument is
this: "It is impossible that a man should be justified by the
law, because God has appointed another way of justification." But
there cannot be two ways of obtaining life; and as he has
appointed faith as the condition on which men shall live, he has
precluded from them the possibility of obtaining salvation in any
other mode.
'For, The just shall live by faith.'
This is quoted from Hab.2:4. This passage is also quoted by
Paul in Rom.1:17. See it explained in the Note on that verse. The
sense here is, that life is promised to man only in connexion
with faith. It is not by the works of the law that it is done.
The condition of life is faith; and he lives who believes. The
meaning is not, I apprehend, that the man who is justified by
faith shall live; but that life is promised and exists only in
connexion with faith, and that the just or righteous man obtains
it only in this way. Of course it cannot be obtained by the
observance of the law, but must be by some other scheme.
'And the law is not of faith.'
The law is not a matter of faith; it does not relate to
faith; it does not require faith; it deals in other matters, and
it pertains to another system than to faith.
'But, The man,' etc.
This is the language of the law, and this is what the law
teaches. It does not make provision for faith, but it requires
unwavering and perpetual obedience, if man would obtain life by
it. See this passage explained in the Notes on Rom.10:5 .....
CHAP.3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law...
'Christ hath redeemed us'
The word used here, is not that which is usually employed in
the New Testament to denote redemption. That word is (Barnes
gives the Greek word here - Keith Hunt). The difference between
them mainly is, that the word used here more usually relates to a
PURCHASE of any kind; the other is used strictly with reference
to RANSOM. The word here used is more GENERAL in its meaning; the
other is strictly appropriated to a ransom. This distinction is
not observable here, however, and the word here used is employed
in the proper sense of redeem. It occurs in the New Testament
only in this place, and in chap.4:5; Eph.5:16; Col.4:5. It
properly means, to purchase, to buy up; and then to purchase any
one, to redeem, to set free. Here it means, that Christ had
purchased or set us free from the curse of the law, by his being
made a curse for us. On the meaning of the words redeem and
ransom, see my Notes on Rom.3:5, and Isa.43:3. Comp. 2 Cor.5:21.
'From the curse of the law.'
The curse which the law threatens, and which the execution
of the law would inflict; the PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN.
This must mean, that he has rescued us from the consequences
of transgression in the world of woe; he has saved us from the
PUNISHMENT which our sins have deserved. The word "us" must refer
to those who are redeemed; that is, to the Gentiles as well as
the Jews. The CURSE of the law is a CURSE which is DUE to SIN,
and cannot be regarded as applied particularly to any one class
of men. All who violate the law of God, however that law may be
made known are exposed to its penalty. The word "law" here
relates to the law of God in general, to all the laws of God made
known man. The law of God denounced DEATH as the WAGES of sin. It
threatened PUNISHMENT in the future... That would certainly have
been inflicted, but for the coming and death of Christ. The world
is lying by nature under this CURSE, and it is sweeping the race
on to ruin.....
But what is the meaning of the language of Paul it will be
asked when he says that he was "made a curse for us." I reply in
answer, that the meaning must be ascertained from the passage
which Paul quotes in support of his assertion, that Christ was
"made a curse for us."
That passage is, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree." This passage is found in Deut.21:23. It occurs in a law
respecting one who was hanged for a "sin worthy of death," verse
22. The law was, that he should be buried the same day, and that
the body should not remain suspended over the night; and it is
added, as a reason for this, that "he that is hanged is accursed
of God;" or, as it is in the margin, "the curse of God." The
meaning is, that when one was executed for crime in this manner,
he was the object of the Divine displeasure and malediction.
Regarded thus as an object accursed of God, there was a propriety
that the man who was executed for crime should be buried as soon
as possible, that the offensive object should be hidden from the
view. In quoting this passage, Paul leaves out the words "of
God," and simply says, that the one who was hanged on a tree was
held accursed. The sense of the passage before us is therefore,
that Jesus was subjected to what was regarded as an accursed
death. We was treated in his death AS IF had been a criminal. He
was put to death in the same manner as he would have been if he
had himself been guilty of the violation of the law. Had he been
a thief or a murderer. Had he committed the grossest of the
blackest of crimes, this would have been the punishment to which
he would have been subjected. This was the mode punishment
adapted to those crimes, and he was treated AS IF all these had
been committed by him. Or, in other words, had he been guilty of
all these, or any of these, he could not have been treated in a
more shameful and ignominious manner than he was; nor could he
have been subject to a more cruel death. As has already been
intimated, it does not mean that he was guilty, nor that he was
not the object of the approbation and love of God, but that his
death was the same that it would have been if he had been
the vilest of malefactors and that that death was regarded by the
law as accursed. It was by such substituted sorrows that we are
saved; and he consented to die the most shameful and painful
death, AS IF he were the vilest malefactor, in order that the
most guilty and vile of the human race might be saved.....
It may be observed, also, that the punishment of the cross
was unknown to the Hebrews in the time of Moses, and that the
passage in Deut.21:23 did not refer originally to that. Nor is it
known that hanging criminals alive was practised among the
Hebrews. Those who were guilty of great crimes were first stoned
or otherwise put to death, and then their bodies were suspended
for a few hours on a gibbet. In many cases, however, merely the
head vas suspended after it had been severed from the body, Gen.
40:17-19; Numb.25:4,6. Crucifixion was not known in the time of
the giving of the law; but the Jews gave such an extent to the
law in Deut.21:23, as to include this mode of punishment. See
John 19:31, seq. The force of the argument here, as used by the
apostle Paul is, that if to be suspended on a gibbet after having
been put to death to death was regarded as a curse, it should not
be regarded as a curse in a less degree to be suspended alive on
a cross, and to be put to death in this manner. If this
interpretation of the passage be correct, then it follows that
this should never be used as implying, in any sense, that
Christ was guilty, or that he was ill-deserving, or that he was
an object of Divine displeasure, or that he poured out on
him all his wrath.
He was, throughout, an object of the Divine love and
approbation. God never loved him more, or approved what he did
more, than when he gave himself to death on the cross. He had no
hatred towards him; he had no displeasure to express towards him.
And it is this which makes the atonement so wonderful and so
glorious.
Had he been displeased with him; had the Redeemer been
properly an object of his wrath; had he in any sense deserved
those sorrows, there would have been no merit in his sufferings;
there would have been no atonement. What merit can there be when
one suffers only what he deserves?
But what made the atonement so wonderful, so glorious, so
benevolent, what made it an atonement at all, was, that innocence
was treated AS IF it were guilty; that the most pure, and holy,
and benevolent, and lovely Being on earth should consent to be
treated by God and man, AS IF he were the most vile and ill-
deserving.
This is the mystery of the atonement; the wonders of the
Divine benevolence; this is the nature of substituted sorrow; and
this lays the foundation for the offer of pardon, and for the
hope of eternal salvation.
End quotes from Barnes' Notes on the New Testament
Keith Hunt:
CHAP. 3:13
THE CURSE OF THE LAW:
Paul does not say the law is a curse, or that cursed law, but he
says the curse OF the law; i.e. a curse which the law produces.
Which cannot as Barnes notes; the punishment due to sin.
The law itself cannot, nor should it ever be thought of as a
curse. Those who would teach so, or would teach that Paul is here
saying the law is a curse, must indeed read the Bible with tunnel
vision in pitch blackness. For there are numerous verses that do
nothing but praise, extol, and declare how perfect, righteous,
holy, and good, is the law of the Lord. A short study with a
Bible Concordance under such words as "law" and "commandment/s"
will soon prove correct the previous statement.
........
TO BE CONTINUED
9. The Book of Galatians
The Covenant with Abraham
BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT:
CHAP.3:17 And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed
before of God in Christ........
'The covenant that was confirmed before of God'
By God in his promise to Abraham. It was confirmed BEFORE
the giving of the law. The confirmation was the solemn promise
which God made to him.
'In Christ.'
With respect to the Messiah; a covenant relating to him, and
which promised that he should descend from Abraham. The word
"in," in the phrase "in Christ," does not quite express the
meaning of the Greek That means rather "unto Christ," or unto the
Messiah; i.e., the covenant had respect to him. This is a common
signification of the preposition....
The argument is, that a law given after the solemn promise
which had been made and confirmed, could not make that promise
void. It would still be binding, according to the original
intention; and the law ( the full Old Covenant - Keith Hunt) must
have been given for some purpose, entirely different from that of
the promise. No one can doubt the soundness of this argument. The
promise to Abraham was of the nature of a compact. But no law by
one of the parties to a treaty or compact can disannul it. Two
nations make a treaty of peace, involving solemn promises,
pledges, and obligations. No law made afterwards by one of the
nations can disannul or change that treaty. Two men make a
contract with solemn pledges and promises. No act of one of the
parties can change that, or alter the conditions. So it was with
the covenant between God and Abraham. God made to him solemn
promises, which could not be affected by a future giving of a law
(or large compact covenant - Keith Hunt) God would feel himself
to be under the most solemn obligation to fulfil ALL the promises
which he had made to him.....
CHAP.3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law......
'For if the inheritance.'
The inheritance promised to Abraham. The sum of the promise
was, that "he should be the heir of the world." See Rom.4:13, and
the Note on that verse. To that heirship or inheritance Paul
refers here, and says that it was an essential part of it that
it was to be in virtue of the promise to him, and not by
fulfilling the law.
'Be of the law.'
If it is by observing the law of Moses - or if it come in
any way by the fulfilling of law. This is plain. Yet the Jew
contended that the blessings of justification and salvation were
to be in virtue of the observance of the law of Moses. But if so,
says Paul, then it could not be by the promise made to Abraham,
since there could NOT be TWO ways of obtaining the blessing.
cat
'But God gave it to Abraham by promise.'
That says Paul, is a settled point. It is perfectly clear;
and that is to be held as an indisputable fact, that the blessing
was given to Abraham by a promise. That promise was confirmed and
ratified hundreds of years before the law was given (the Old
Covenant - Keith Hunt) and the giving of the law could not affect
it. But that promise was, that he would be the ancestor of the
Messiah, and that in him all the nations of the earth should be
blessed. Of course if they were to be blessed in this way, then
it was not to by the observance of the law (Old Covenant - Keith
Hunt)and the law must have been given for a different purpose.
What that was, he states in the following verses.
CHAP.3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law, It was added because
of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made......
'Wherefore then serveth the law?'
This is obviously an objection which be might be urged to
the reasoning which the apostle had pursued. It was very obvious
to ask, if the principles which he had laid down were correct, of
what use was the law? (Old Covenant - Keith Hunt). Why was it
given at all? Why were there so many wonderful exhibitions of the
Divine power at its promulgation? Why were there so many
commendations of it in the Scriptures? And why were there so
many injunctions to obey it? Are all these to bo regarded as no
thing, and is the law to be esteemed as worthless? To all this
the apostle replies that the law was not useless, but that it was
given by God for great and important purposes, and especially for
purposes closely connected with the fulfilment of the promise
made to Abraham and the work of the Mediator. It was added
(Barnes gives the Greek word here - Keith Hunt). It was appended
to all the previous institutions and promises. It was an
additional arrangement on the part of God, for great and im-
portant purposes. It was an arrangement subsequent to the giving
the promise, and was intended to secure important advantages
until the superior arrangement under the Messiah should be intro-
duced, and was with reference to that.
'Because of transgressions.'
On account of transgressions, or with reference to them. The
meaning is, that the law was given (the Old Covenant - Keith
Hunt) to show the true nature of transgressions, or to SHOW WHAT
WAS SIN. It was not to reveal a way of justification, but it was
to DISCLOSE THE NATURE OF SIN; to DETER men from committing it;
to declare its PENALTY; to CONVINCE men of it, and thus to be
"ancillary" to, and preparatory to, the work of redemption
THROUGH the Redeemer. This is the true account of the
law of God as given to apostate man, and this still exists.
This effect of the law is accomplished (1) by showing us
what God requires, and what is duty. It is the straight rule what
is right; and to depart from that is the measure of wrong.
(2) It shows us the nature and extent of transgression, by
showing us how far we have departed from it. (3) It shows what is
the just PENALTY of transgression, and is thus fitted to reveal
its true nature. (4) It is fitted to produce CONVICTION for sin,
and thus shows how EVIL and bitter a thing transgression is. See
Notes on Rom.4:15; 7:7-11. (5) It thus shows its own inability to
justify and save men, and is a preparatory arrangement to lead
men to the cross of the Redeemer.
.....At the same time,(6) the law was given with reference to
transgressions, in order to keep men from transgression. It was
designed to restrain and control them by its denunciations, and
by the fear of its threatened penalties. When Paul says that the
law was given on account of transgressions, we are not to suppose
that this was the sole use of the law; but that this was a main
or leading purpose. It may accomplish many other important
purposes, (Calvin,) but this is one leading design. And this
design it still accomplishes. It shows men their duty. It reminds
them of their guilt. It teaches them how far they have wandered
from God. It reveals to them the penalty of disobedience. It
shows them that justification by the law is impossible, and that
there must be some other way by which men must be saved. And
since these advantages are derived from it, it is of importance
that that law should be still proclaimed, and that its high
demands and its penalties should be held up to the view of men.
'Till the seed should come,' etc.
The Messiah, to whom the promise particularly applied. See
verse 16. It is not implied here that the law would be of no use
AFTER that, but that it would accomplish important purposes
BEFORE that. A large portion of the laws of Moses would then
indeed cease to be binding. They were given to accomplish
important purposes among the Jews until the Messiah should come,
and then they would give way to the more important institutions
of the gospel. But the moral law would continue to accomplish
valuable objects after his advent, in showing men the nature of
transgression, and leading them to the cross of Christ. The
essential idea of Paul here is, that the WHOLE arrangement of the
Mosaic economy (the Old Covenant - Keith Hunt) including all
his laws, was with reference to the Messiah.
It was not an INDEPENDENT thing. It did not stand by itself.
It was incomplete, and in many respects unintelligible, until he
came - as one part of a tally is unmeaning and useless until the
other is found. In itself it did not justify or save men, but it
served to introduce a system by which they could be saved. It
contained NO PROVISION for justifying men, but it was in the
design of God an essential part of a system by which they could
be saved.
It was not a whole in itself, but it was part of a glorious
whole, and led to the completion and fulfilment of the entire
scheme by which the race could be justified....
(THE OLD COVENANT was enacted and brought into being only for a
certain length of time - until the Messiah should appear and a
NEW COVENANT take effect. (See Luke 16:16; Heb.8;9; 10:1-17; Mat.
5;6;7 - Keith Hunt)
CHAP.3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God....
'Is the law of then against the promise of God?
Is the law of Moses to be regarded as opposed to the
promises made to Abraham? Does this follow from any view which
can be taken of the subject? The object of the apostle in asking
this question is, evidently, to take an opportunity to deny, in
the most positive manner, that there can be any such clashing or
contradiction. He shows, therefore, what was the design of the
law, and declares that the object was to further the plan
contemplated in the promise made to Abraham. It was an auxiliary
to that. It was as good as a law could be; and it was designed to
prepare the way for the fulfilment of the promise made to
Abraham.
'God, forbid.'
It cannot be. It is impossible. I do not hold such an
opinion. Such a sentiment by no mean follows from what has been
advanced. Comp. Note, Rom.3:4.
'For if there had been a law given which could have given life.'
The law of Moses is as good as a law can be. It is pure, and
holy, and good. It is not the design to insinuate anything
against the law in itself, or to say that as a law it is
defective. But law COULD NOT give life. It is not its nature; and
man cannot be justified by obedience to it. No man ever has
yielded perfect compliance with it, and no man, therefore, can be
justified by it. Comp. Notes on chap.2:16; 3:10.
'Verily righteousness should have been by the law.'
Or justification would have been secured by the law. The law
of Moses was as well adapted to this as a law could be. No better
law could have been originated for this purpose; and if men were
to ATTEMPT to justify themselves before God by their own works
the law of Moses would be as favorable for such an undertaking as
any law which could be revealed. It is as reasonable, and
equal, and pure. Its demands are as just, and its terms as
favourable, as could be any of the terms of mere law. And SUCH a
law has been given, in part, in order to show that justification
by the law is out of the question.
If men could not be justified by a law so pure, and equal,
an just, so reasonable in all its requirements, and so perfect,
how could they expect to be justified by conformity to any
INFERIOR or LESS perfect rule of life?
The fact, therefore, that no one can be justified by the
pure law revealed on Mount Sinai (even all of the whole Old
Covenant - Keith Hunt) for ever settles the question about the
possibility of being justified by law.
...........
TO BE CONTINUED
10. The Book of Galatians
The "law" until - Schoolmaster?
BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT:
CHAP.3:22 But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe.
'But the Scripture.'
The Old Testament, (Note, John 5:39,) - containing the law
of Moses.
'Hath concluded all under sin.'
Has shut up (Barnes gives the Greek word here - Keith Hunt)
all under the condemnation of sin; that is has declared all men,
no matter what their rank and external character, to be sinners.
Of course they cannot be justified by the law which declares them
to be guilty, and which condemns them, any more than the law of
the land will acquit a murderer, and pronounce him innocent, at
the same time that it holds him to be guilty...
'That the promise by faith of Jesus Christ,' etc.
That the promise referred to in the transaction with
Abraham, the promise of justification and life by faith in the
Messiah. Here we see ONE design of the law. It was to show that
they could not be justified by their own works, to HEDGE UP THEIR
WAY in regard to justification by their own righteousness, and to
show them their need of a better righteousness. The law
accomplishes the same end now. It shows men that they are guilty;
and it does it in order that they may be brought under the
influence of the pure system of the gospel, and become
interested in the promises which are connected with eternal
salvation.....
[CHAP. 3:22. Paul's most amplified discourse on the true way of
JUSTIFICATION is found in Rom.chap.3;4;5. There he clearly shows
that forgiveness of sins (justification) can not be EARNED
through works of law by oneself, but can only be by the free
undeserved GRACE of God given to us through the redemption that
is in the blood of Jesus. Faith in the sacrifice of Christ
secures our justification. But Paul never taught that FAITH "did
away" with the commandments - ON THE CONTRARY he says "Do we then
make VOID THE LAW through faith? God forbid!! Yea, we ESTABLISH
the law" (Rom.3:31) - Keith Hunt]
CHAP.3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law...
'But before faith came.'
That is, the system of salvation by Faith in the Lord Jesus.
Faith here denotes the Christian religion, because faith is its
distinguishing characteristic.
'We were kept under the law.'
We, who were sinners; we; who have violated the law. It is a
general truth, that before the gospel was introduced, men were
under the condemning of the law.
'Shut up unto the faith.'
Enclosed by the law with reference to the full and glorious
revelation of a system of salvation by faith. The design and
tendency of the law was to shut us up to that as the only
method of salvation. All other means failed. The law condemned
ever other mode, and the law condemned all who attempted to be
justified in any other way. Man, therefore, was shut up to that
as his last hope; and could look only to that for any possible
prospect of salvation. The word which in this verse is rendered
"were kept," (Barnes gives the Greek - Keith Hunt) usually means
to guard or watch, as in a castle, or as prisoners are guarded;
and though the word should not be pressed too far in the
interpretation, yet it implies that there was a rigid scrutiny
observed; that the law guarded them; that there was no way of
escape; and that the were shut up, prisoners and under sentence
of death, to the only hope, which was that of PARDON.
'Unto the faith,' etc.
That was the only Hope. The law condemned them, and offered
no hope of escape. Their only hope was in a system which was to
be revealed through the Messiah, the system which extended
forgiveness on the ground of faith in his atoning blood....
CHAP.3:24,25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us
unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that
faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
'Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster.'
The word rendered Schoolmaster, (Barnes gives the Greek -
Keith Hunt) PEDAGOGUE, referred Originally to a slave or
freedman, to whose care boys were committed, and who accompanied
them to the public schools. The idea here is NOT that of
INSTRUCTOR, but there is reference to the office and duty of the
PEDAGOGUS among the ancients.
The office was usually intrusted to slaves or freedmen. It
is true, that when the pedagogus was properly qualified, he
assisted the children committed to his care in preparing their
lessons. But still his MAIN DUTY was NOT INSTRUCTION, but it was
to WATCH OVER the boys; to RESTRAIN them from EVIL and
temptation; and to conduct them TO the schools, where they might
RECEIVE instruction. See,for illustrations of this, Wetstein,
Bloomfield, etc.
In the passage before us, the proper notion of pedagogue is
retained. In our sense of the word schoolmaster, Christ is the
schoolmaster, and not the law. The LAW performs the OFFICE of the
ancient PEDAGOGUE, to LEAD US to the TEACHER or the instructor.
That teacher or instructor is CHRIST.
The ways in which the law does this may be the following:
(1) It RESTRAINS us and REBUKES us, and keeps us as the ancient
pedagogue did his boys.
(2) The whole law was designed to be introductory to Christ. The
sacrifices and offerings were designed to shadow forth the
Messiah, and to introduce him to the world.
(3) The moral law - the law of God shows men their sin and
danger, and thus leads them to the Saviour. It condemns them, and
thus prepares them to welcome the offer of pardon through a
Redeemer.
(4) It STILL does this. The whole economy of the Jews was
designed to do this; and under the preaching of the gospel it is
still done. Men see that they are condemned; they are convinced
by the law that they cannot save themselves, and thus they are
led to the Redeemer. The effect of the preached gospel is to show
men their sins, and thus to be preparatory to the embracing of
the offer of pardon. Hence the IMPORTANCE OF PREACHING THE LAW
STILL; and hence it is needful that men should be made feel that
they are sinners, in order that they may be prepared to embrace
the offers of MERCY. Note on Rom.10:4.
'But after that faith is come.'
The scheme of salvation by faith. After that is revealed.
See Note on verse 23.
'We are no longer under a schoolmaster.'
Under the PEDAGOGUS, or pedagogue. We are not kept in
restraint, and under bondage, and led along to another to receive
instruction. We are directly under the great Teacher, the
Instructor himself; and have a kind of freedom which we were
not allowed before. The bondage and servitude have passed away;
and wear free from the burdensome ceremonies and expensive
rites (comp, Note on Acts 15:10) of the Jewish law, and from
the sense of condemnation which it imposes. This was true of the
converts from Judaism to Christianity - that the became free from
the burdensome rites of the law; and it is true of all converts
to the faith of Christ, that, having been made to see their sin
by the law, and having been conducted by it to the cross of the
Redeemer, they are now made free.....
End quotes from Barnes
............
Albert Barnes knew it all so very well. The whole Old Covenant,
with its ceremonies, rites, sacrifices, circumcision, and all its
many laws, was brought into being by God and given to Israel, to
show them sin, to shown them a sacrifice would be needed to
pardon sin, to forgive sin, to justify them. All the Old Covenant
laws - ceremonial or moral - could never TAKE AWAY SIN! But it
was to be for them the PEDAGOGUE, the one, the thing, the
Covenant, that would LEAD them to the MESSIAH, to the school-
master who would be THE SACRIFICE for sins, the ONE head-teacher,
who would shed HIS BLOOD (no animal blood could ever take away
sin as explained in the book of Hebrews), and who would be THE
HEAD-TEACHER of the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant was to show in no uncertain way, that all were
sinners, that all needed to be saved from sin, to be justified,
to be forgiven. In so seeing this, mankind could then be led to
THE redeemer, to the ONE that was promised through Abraham, via
his physical line, to come to earth, from the Godhead in heaven,
to live in the flesh, to overcome Satan, to conquer sin, to live
a sinless life, and then to die on the cross, to shed HIS blood
for the sins of all who have ever lived or will live, and so make
justification possible for the human race.
The Old Covenant, the laws of Moses, could ONLY show what sin
was, it could never take away sins, could never blot them off the
record of each persons life. Paul has shown them that to be
justified with God, you would have to observe and obey the laws
of Moses PERFECTLY all your life, and so be sinless before God.
And this not one person has ever achieved, being sinless, except
Jesus Christ.
So, Paul's argument is, that those who had come among them after
he had preached this truth to them, the way to justification and
salvation, and were now teaching them that they really did not
need the shed blood of this man called Jesus Christ, but could
obtain justification with God, by observing the whole Old
Covenant, and especially circumcision (and we'll see in part
eleven of this study what those Jews taught about the blood of
circumcision), WERE OUT IN LEFT FIELD, out on ANOTHER PATHWAY
that would NEVER LEAD TO SALVATION for anyone. Paul's stance was
that serving and obeying the Old Covenant, the "law of Moses" ANY
part of it, to obtain justification with God, and leaving Christ
out of the picture, was a futile error of mass proportions.
As we read through the last part of this letter to the Galatians,
we see that Paul PULLED NO PUNCHED in denouncing these "no blood
of Christ" but "law of Moses" teachers, as they taught people a
totally wrong way to be forgiven of sins and justified before
God.
.............
TO BE CONTINUED
11. The Book of Galatians
Circumcision and the Covenant of Blood
by Keith Hunt:
CHAP.4
Paul has finished chapter three with telling his readers that
they are, if Christ's, children of Abraham, and an heir to the
promise given to Abraham. He goes on in chapter four to REMIND
them that they all were (we - verse 3) - Jews and Gentiles at one
time in "bondage" when under the rudiments, way of living in the
world, before they were converted to Christ. But it was god's
full plan and intention that He would send forth He who became
known as "the only begotten from the Father" - the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. It was the plan of God that HE, His Son, should be
the redeemer of mankind. to redeem them from being under the
curse of the law, as Paul put it earlier in his letter.
He is reminding them of things to taught them when he was among
them preaching and teaching the word and truths of God. He is
telling them once more in different terms that justification was
NEVER planned to be anything other than through the redeeming
power of God's Son. Redemption then was NEVER to be by people
working and earning it through obedience to LAW of any kind, not
even as large and as broad as the Old Covenant made with Israel
at Mount Sinai.
He reminds them that they became God's sons and that by so being,
the Almighty had sent His Spirit to them, that literally did make
them His children, and they could have the wonderful blessing of
calling him, FATHER! And with that also came the fact that they
were heirs of the Father through Christ. (verses 1-7).
Now it was expedient at this point in his letter to correct
another grave error and mistake that many of the GENTILES in
Galatia had fallen back into. Notice verse 8 goes to "you" - not
so much now as "we" (verse 3) but to the you of the Gentiles who
had not known God. He tells them that they had before coming to
God through Christ, been serving false gods. The Gentiles had
MANY gods in their religion and daily lives, a god for this time
and a god for that time, gods over many aspects of their lives).
Then they came to KNOW the true God, Paul reminds them. But what
had he heard? He had heard that many of them were TURNING BACK
AGAIN (and the Greek for "again" KJV, does mean "back to again" -
"at first again" - "again anew") to the weak and beggarly
elements that they are AGAIN turning to observe.
These weak and beggarly elements CANNOT be the great laws and
festivals of God. First the Gentiles did NOT observe God's holy
days, seasons of festivals, land Sabbaths, weekly Sabbath, years
of Jubilee. They could not be TURNING AGAIN to observances that
they never observed in the first place. Second, as Paul said to
them, they were "turning again" BACK to observances that would
put them in bondage, as he said earlier, put them under the CURSE
of the law. They would be committing sin, and by some falling for
the teaching of these false circumcision guys, the whole scene of
far too many people in Galatia, was a real MESS!
Many of the Gentiles were again going back to the false customs
of the world, observing false days like Sunday, Easter, and
whatever other days were set aside in whatever months, years and
times of seasons, that the Gentile calendar proclaimed (verses 8-
10).
Paul goes on to tell them he is VERY CONCERNED for their eternal
salvation (verse 11). He reminds them that when he was with them,
they LOVED him so very much, and the physical infirmities and
problems he had with his body and eyes, they never took notice
of. He tells them that they were so close to him at that time,
that they would have gladly plucked out their own eyes and given
them to him, if it had been possible (it would seem from this
that Paul had some eye infection or some kind of serious problem
with his eyes, when among the Galatians) (verses 12-15).
He says to them in essence, that he hopes he has not become their
enemy because he lays down the truth to them in a no none-sense
manner. He actually puts it as a question to them...."Have I
become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" (verse 16).
He tells them that he can see the false teachers are very zealous
in their cause, and that they also would seem to be zealous in
listening to them, and following them in their dictates, by the
way they were now living their daily lives, and in what they
believed to be the "gospel truth" - which Paul had just been
tearing to shreds, as a false gospel. He tells them that he is in
travail as a woman giving birth, over the state they seem to be
in, by heeding to the false teachers. He wanted to be with them,
and change the tone of his voice towards them, for as he told
them, he was now in doubt about their position with God. He told
them he would be in this travail of heart and mind until Christ
was once more the central part of their lives and mind.
From these words of Paul it can be safely assumed I believe, that
a large part of the work of these false apostles was that Jesus
Christ did not have to be a central part of their lives. As I
have stated before, the Galatians were being taught that Christ
was not needed in any real sense, to their justification with
God, but obeying all the Old Covenant, with circumcision, was
needed for justification (verses 17-20).
Now starting in verse 21, Paul does what he often does to prove
his point and dis-prove the wrong teachings, he quotes from the
Old Covenant or books of Moses. He goes back and relates to them
about Abraham once more. He brings out how Abraham had a son by a
bondwoman, after the working of the flesh, trying to bring about
the promise of God to him, his way, working it out for himself.
And he also had the son God promised him, from his freewoman
wife. Most of us are familiar with this account in the book of
Genesis. It is probable that his readers were quite familiar with
this part of Abraham's life, or at least they could easily look
it up and read it for themselves.
What I want you to note is verse 24 and the words, "WHICH THINGS
ARE AN ALLEGORY: FOR THESE ARE THE *** TWO COVENANTS***"
Ah, now do you see why I've stated that the book or letter of
Galatians is really about TWO COVENANTS. The OLD Covenant and the
NEW Covenant.
Paul goes on to show that Christians, the seed of Abraham, the
children of God, those who are heirs of God through Christ, are
NOT UNDER the Old Covenant, but the New Covenant. The Old
Covenant and trying to obey it as a means to justification and
salvation is BONDAGE INDEED, it is working your own salvation by
the flesh so to speak, to earn your way into God's grace and
favor. And as we have seen Paul had said that such a way to be
justified was not only impossible, but it was never God's
intention for justification to Him in the first place.
Those who had let the Old Covenant LEAD them to CHRIST for
justification were under the New Covenant, which had always been
the way planned, which was the promise made to Abraham, that a
Godly Redeemer would come from heaven to earth, to be born of the
line of Abraham, and live and die for human kind, so they could
by grace through faith in Christ, be redeemed, be justified, be
saved.
Paul ends this section by telling them that just as the
bondwoman's son persecuted the freewoman's son (Ishmael against
Isaac), so it still was, that the children of bondage (the Old
Covenant, circumcision teachers to justification) were
persecuting and working against those of the New Covenant promise
of justification and salvation by grace through faith in Christ
as Redeemer (verses 25-30).
BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT:
CHAP.5:1-6 Stand fast therefore in the liberty ...
if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing ... For in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision availes anything, nor
uncircumcision; but faith which works by love.
'Stand fast therefore.'
Be firm and unwavering. This verse properly belongs to
previous chapter, and should not have been separated from it. The
sense is, that they were to be firm and unyielding in maintaining
the great principles of Christian liberty. They had been freed
from the bondage of rites and ceremonies; and they should by no
means, and in no form, yield to them again.
'In the liberty,' etc.
Comp. John 8:32; Rom.6:18. Notes, Gal.4:3-5.
'And be not entangled again.'
Tindal renders this, "And wrap not yourselves again." The
sense is, do not again allow such a yoke to be put on you; do not
again become slaves to any rites ...
'That if you be circumcised.'
This must be understood with reference to the subject under
consideration. If you are circumcised with such a view as is
maintained by the false teachers that have come among you; that
is, with an idea that it is necessary in order to your
justification. He evidently did not mean that if any of them had
been circumcised before their conversion to Christianity; nor
could he mean to say that circumcision, in all cases, amounted to
a rejection of Christianity, for he had himself procured the
circumcision of Timothy, Acts 16:3. If it was done, as it was
then, for prudential considerations, and with a wish not
unnecessarily to irritate the Jews, and to give one a more ready
access to them, it was not to be regarded as wrong. But if, as
the false teachers in Galatia claimed, as a thing ESSENTIAL to
salvation, as INDISPENSABLE to justification and acceptance with
God, then the matter assumed a different aspect; and then it
became, in fact, a renouncing of Christ himself sufficient to
save US. So with anything else...
'For I testify again.'
Probably he had stated this when he had preached the gospel
to them at first, and he now solemnly bears witness to the same
thing, again. Bloomfield, however, supposes that the word again
here means, on the other hand; or furthermore; or, as we would
say, "and again."
'That he is a debtor to do the whole law.'
He binds himself to obey all the law of Moses. Circumcision
was the distinguishing badge of the Jews, as baptism is of
Christians. A man, therefore, who became circumcised, became a
PROFESSOR OF THE JEWISH RELIGION, and bound himself to obey all
its peculiar laws. This must be understood, of course, with
reference to the point under discussion; and means, if he
did it WITH A VIEW TO justification, or as a thing that was
NECESSARY and BINDING. It would not apply to such a case as that
of Timothy, where it was a matter of mere expediency or
prudence. See Note on verse 2.
'Christ is become of no effect unto you.'
You will derive no advantage from Christ. His work in regard
to you is needless and vain. If you can be justified in any other
way than by him, then of course you do not need him, and your
adoption of the other mode is, in fact, a renunciation of him.
Tindal renders this, "Ye are gone quite from Christ." The word
here used (Barnes gives the Greek - Keith Hunt) means, properly,
to render inactive, idle, useless; to do away, to put an end to;
and here it means that they had withdrawn from Christ, if they
attempted to be justified by the law. They would not need him if
they could be thus justified; and they could derive no benefit
from him. A man who can be justified by his own obedience, does
not need the aid or the merit of another; and if it was true, as
they seemed to suppose, that they could be justified by the law,
it followed that the work of Christ was in vain so far as they
were concerned. 11
'Whosoever of you are justified by the law.'
On the supposition that any of you are justified by the
law; or if, as you seem to suppose, any are justified by the
law. The apostle does not say that this had in fact ever
occurred; but he merely makes a supposition. If such a thing
should or could occur, it would follow that you had fallen from
grace.....
Its simple obvious meaning is, that it a man who had been a
professed Christian should be justified by his own conformity to
the law, and adopt that mode of justification, then that would
amount to a rejection of the mode of salvation by Christ, and
would he a renouncing of the plan of justification by grace....
'For we.'
Who are Christians. It is a characteristic of the true
Christian.
'Through the Spirit.'
The Holy Spirit. We expect salvation only by his aid.
'Wait for'
That is, we expect salvation in this way. The main idea is,
not that of waiting as if the thing were delayed; it is that of
expecting. The sense is, that true Christians have no other hope
of salvation than by faith in the Lord Jesus. It is not by their
own works, nor is it by any conformity to the law. The object of
Paul is to show them the true nature of the Christian hope of
eternal life, and to recall them from dependence on their
conformity to the law (as earning their justification and
salvation by laws of Moses obedience - Keith Hunt)
'The hope of righteousness.'
The hope of justification. They had no other hope of
justification than by faith in the Redeemer. See Note on
Rom.1:17.
'For in Jesus Christ.'
In the religion which Christ came to establish.
'Neither circumcision,'etc.
It makes no difference whether a man is circumcised or not.
He is not saved because he is circumcised, nor is he condemned
because he is not. The design of Christianity is to abolish these
rites and ceremonies, and to introduce a way of salvation that
shall be applicable to all mankind alike. See Notes on chap.3:28;
1 Cor. 7:19. Comp. Rom.2:29.
'But faith which worketh by love.'
Faith that evinces its existence by love to God, and
benevolence to men. It is not a mere INTELLECTUAL belief; but it
is that which reaches the heart, controls the affections. It is
not a DEAD faith; but it is that which is operative ....
The true faith is that which is seen in benevolence, in love to
God, in love to all who bear the Christian name; in a readiness
to do good to all mankind. This shows that the heart is affected
by the faith that is held; and this is the nature and design of
all true religion. Tindal renders this, "faith, which by love is
mighty in operation." ....
End quotes from Albert Barnes
Now most of the modern world that have little or no background in
Judaism, are so far removed from it, and so far distant from the
time when Paul was writing this letter and other letters during
the first century A.D.the following may take most by surprise.
The IMPORTANCE of circumcision, among the Jews, ESPECIALLY two
thousand years ago during the first century A.D. CANNOT BE
UNDERESTIMATED. Circumcision was indeed a VITAL part of obeying
the Old Covenant in order to, and with a view to being JUSTIFIED
and SAVED.
From the "ENCYCLOPEDIA JUDAICA" article "circumcision."
"Jewish circumcision originated, according to the biblical
account, with Abraham who, at divine behest, circumcised himself
at the age of 99. Genesis 17: 11-12 reads: 'Every male among you
shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of
your foreskin, and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me
and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised....'
The promise that Abraham's seed should inherit the land of Canaan
was bound up together with this covenant. The punishment for
failure to observe this command was karet, to be 'cut off' from
one's kind (ibid 21:4), understood by the Rabbis to mean
'excision at the hand of heaven from the community.'
This commandment is considered so important that the rabbis
declared (Shab.137b) that were it not for the BLOOD of the
covenant, heaven and earth would not exist ..... The custom of
circumcision seems to have spread among the Romans in the
Diaspora under the influence of the Jewish community in Rome.
Hadrian again proscribed it, and this was one of the causes of
the Bar Kokhba rebellion. When a Roman official asked R.Oshaya
why God had not made man as he wanted him, he replied that it was
in order that man should perfect himself by the fulfillment of a
divine command (Gen. R. 11:6) .... Should a child for any reason
have been circumcised before the eighth day or have been born
already circumcised (i.e. without a foreskin), the ceremony of
"shedding the blood of the covenant" (hattafa dam berit) must be
performed on the eighth day, provided it is a weekday and the
child is fit (263:4). This is done by puncturing the skin of the
glans with a scalpel or needle and allowing a drop of blood to
exude ..... Immediately after the actual circumcision the father
recites the benediction 'Who hast hallowed us by Thy commandments
and has commanded us to make our sons enter into the covenant of
Abraham our father.'.... The congregated guests reply 'Even as
this child has entered into the covenant so may he enter into the
Torah, the nuptial canopy, and into good deeds.'...."
From the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA" article on Circumcision:
"...According to Pirke R.Eliezer xxix, it was Shem who
circumcised Abraham and Ishmael on the Day of Atonement; and the
BLOOD of the covenant then shed is ever before Yahweh on that day
TO SERVE AS AN ATONING POWER...."
CHAP. 5:2-4
It is crucial for us to realize that one of the teachings of the
Jewish rabbis asserts that circumcision was the BLOOD of the
covenant, to serve as an ATONING POWER before God.
Do you comprehend the significance this could make spiritually?
Anyone who submits to circumcision "to seal the covenant" -
automatically rejects the Messiah's death and HIS BLOOD of
atonement on the tree of Calvary. According to rabbinical
teaching, at least way back in Paul's time, the blood of
circumcision acted as an atonement.
Paul emphatically declared that any new convert receiving
circumcision, as a means, and view to justification, had fallen
from grace. His contention resulted from the Rabbinical teaching
that the blood of circumcision will allow a man to atone for his
own sins. This rabbinic doctrine undermines the entire Biblical
teaching of a suffering Messiah.
Paul says that the ONLY BLOOD to confirm God's covenant is Jesus'
sacrifice, His death on the cross.
Ah, now we should be able to get the picture in focus, as to this
letter Paul wrote to the Christians in Galatia. Now we should be
able to see clearly why all the emphasis on "circumcision" in
parts of the New Testament, why there was this "theological
battle" going on between people like the apostle Paul and those
whom he was writing so STRONGLY AGAINST in the book of Galatians.
There were some moving around within the new "Christian"
communities that advocated full obedience to the Old Covenant,
and especially to physical circumcision, which was the atoning
blood of the Covenant, in order, or with a view, to
justification and to being saved, while they down-played the
blood sacrifice of Christ. Now we can understand Paul's shock and
strong words to the Galatians, when he found out that many of
them were listening to, and BELIEVING, those of the "circumcision
party" as they preached "their" theology for justification with
God, which was as Paul put it "another gospel, which is not
another; but there be some that trouble you, and would PERVERT
the gospel of Christ" (chapter 1:6-7) - Keith Hunt.
..............
TO BE CONTINUED
12. The Book of Galatians
Works of the flesh and Circumcision
Part Twelve
by Keith Hunt:
Continuing in chapter 5 with verse 7. Paul reminds them that they
at one time did run well, and did obey the true gospel, and that
the One who called them (God the Father) spoke nothing to them of
this idea that justification could come by earning it through
diligent laws of Moses observance. But some spiritual leaven,
wrong doctrines (see Matthew 16:6-12) had inflated among them. It
may have started small, but the leaven of sin and corruption (see
1 Cor.5) does not have to be large to gain a foothold and
multiply until the whole is leavened. They had not rooted it out,
stop it in its tracks, hence if grew and grew until the large
majority in Galatia were working the works of the flesh in one
form or another.
There was, by the time Paul wrote his letter to the Galatian
Christians, MANY types of the works of the flesh manifest among
them, it was not all just the wrong theological teaching of those
of the "circumcision party." It was not just that so had done
back to their again to their old false pagan observances of false
days and festivals like Sunday, Easter, December 25th, January
1st, Octerober 13st (or Halloween as we call it today) and other
times of pagan god worship feasts. It was even more than all
that, it was that many of them had gone back into the works of
the carnal flesh.
But before he gets to the specifics of the "flesh" as opposed to
the "spirit" he tells them he has confidence in them that they
will get back to being of the like mind to him that called them
(verse 10). He reiterates to them that he is suffering
persecution still from the circumcision teachers, and so he has
NOT changed his teaching or view on this matter, which some among
them would have them believe, and with a twist of words, a play
of words, he tells them that he would want those false apostles
that were troubling them to "be cut off" (verse 12). They, the
false apostles were teaching males to cut off a part of their
skin, and Paul wished they themselves (the false teachers) would
be cut off. Paul was in effect asking and wishing that God would
step in and by whatever miracle and power, get those false
teachers out of midst of the Galatian Christians.
From the following words of Paul in chapter 5, we can discern
that with all that was going on in the Christian communities of
Galatia, there were now various problems of seriously large
proportions, which were resulting in a "Christian liberty" gone
WILD! The Galatians were thinking and practicing a "liberty" that
was NOT the liberty of God at all, but a liberty of working the
works of the flesh, going back into gross sins, theological false
doctrines, and all of it resulted in people BITING and DEVOURING
each other. They were acting like wild animals who had not eaten
for a week or so....consuming each other with the lusts of the
flesh (verses 13-16).
Paul then starts to list the lusts of the flesh in an open
graphic manner. It would seem from the way he did this that is he
probably mentioning sins that they had fallen back into
practicing and living (19-21).
He then contrasts all these sins of the flesh with the FRUITS of
the Spirit (verses 22-23), and tells them at the same time that
the FLESH is at war with the SPIRIT, that we are constantly in a
spiritual BATTLE, the flesh resisting and fighting the leading
and nature and fruits of the Spirit (verses 16-18). Those who
would be led of the Spirit, under the Holy Spirit's influence and
control, would not come under the law, come under its curse and
pentalty, as he had explained to them earlier in his letter. See
also Romans chapters 6 and 7 on this matter of sin, the law, and
the power of the Spirit to keep people away from going back into
a life style of practicing sin and so again coming under the
penalty of the law. See also my in-depth studies called "Saved by
Grace."
Paul tells them that if they walk and live in the Spirit then the
law cannot claim its pentalty of death (verse 23)... And he tells
them that those who are truly Christ's have put away or killed or
curcified the works of the flesh with all its carnal lusts (verse
24). If we claim, he says, to live in the Spirit, we are obliged
to LIVE and WALK in the Spirit. The spirit will NOT lead us to
work the works of the flesh that many of them had returned to
doing. That is what he was saying to them in verse 25.
Paul now goes on in chapter 6 to cover another aspect of the
problems that the Christians of Galatia were having. SOME of them
were REMAINING TRUE to the gospel he had preached to them, the
true Gospel of Christ, the New Covenant teaching. And they,
seeing many others fall back into sin and corruption and being
led astray with the false ideas of the circumcision party, were
CORRECTING them in no uncertain manner, and they were VAIN in
this correcting, so much so was it the wrong way to correct, that
it, the correction, was also leading to PROVOKINGS. With even the
correctors ENVYING one another (the correctors in a vain glory
battle as to who was the best corrector or who was winning back
more people from the wrong pathway they had fallen into - verse
26 of chapter 5).
Paul in verses 1 to 10 of chapter 6, teaches them HOW to correct
and RESTORE those who have fallen into sins and faults, and it is
NOT by being VAIN about it, but it is by being MEEK, HUMBLE, with
an attitude of realizing that they also are flesh and are subject
to falling into error or sin, if they are not on guard at all
times. They were each to bear the burdens of the other, as this
was the teaching and law of Christ (verses 1-2). They were to
always have a humble mindset about themselves, if they did not,
they really would only be deceiving themselves, for human kind is
really nothing when compared to the God kind. There was to be a
mutual communication between parties. No matter what the function
of any individual in the body of Christ, each should be willing
to be taught of the other. Him that is taught in the word,
teaching or communicating unto him that teaches the word. There
are times when ALL can communicate to each other in the true and
good things of God. None of us are above errors, mistakes, faults
and sins. So at the right time, and in the right manner, we can
all be CORRECTORS of each other when correction and guidance is
needed to restore someone (student or teacher) to Christ's true
way. But it must all, this restoring and correcting, be done in
the spirit of meekness (verses4-6, with verse 1).
Paul reminds them that God sees all things, and will reward
according to what a man does. If you do things in the carnal
flesh way, you will receive the results of carnal flesh, and you
will be from the flying pan into the fire (in all kinds of
problems, errors, sins, faults, vanity, un-soundness, as the
Galatians seemed now to be in, from all that Paul has talked to
them about). If you sow to the Spirit, the correct way to live,
and talk, and think, then you will reap of the Spirit LIFE
EVERLASTING (verses 7-8).
He finishes this section to them on a positive note - do not
become tired and weary of DOING THE RIGHT THING, walking in the
CORRECT way of the Lord, FOR by going the straight and narrow
way, in all things, in our life and actions, attitudes and words,
correct theological teachings, doing what is God's way in all the
things he has written to them in his letter, Paul tells them they
will reap GOOD, they will reap life eternal from the Spirit, but
they must not faint in walking the straight and narrow highway to
God's Kingdom (verse 9).
He tells them to do GOOD to each other as the opportunity arises,
do good to all people, but especially to those in the household
of FAITH, those who call themselves Christian, who have come to
the New Covenant, who have believed that salvation is by grace
through faith in the blood sacrifice of Christ (verse 10).
BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT:
CHAP.6:12,13. As many as desire to make a fair show in the
flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised....
'As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh.'
To be distinguished for their conformity to external rites
and customs. To be known for their zeal in this cause. They
sought to show their zeal by making converts, and by inducing
others also to conform to those customs. Paul here refers
doubtless to the Jewish teachers, and he says that their main
object was to evince their zeal in the observance of rites and
ceremonies:
'They constrain you.'
You who are Gentiles. They insist on circumcision as
INDISPENSABLE to salvation.
'Only lest they should suffer persecution.'
It is not from any true love for the cause of religion. It
is that they may avoid persecution from the Jews. If they should
renounce the doctrine which taught that circumcision was
indispensable, they would be exposed to the rage of the Jews, and
would suffer persecution. Rather than do this, they make a show
of great zeal in inducing others to be circumcised.
'For the cross of Christ.'
From attachment to the cause of a crucifies Saviour. If they
insisted on entire dependence on the merits of his blood, and
renounced all dependence on rites and ceremonies, they would
suffer persecution. This verse shows the true cause of the zeal
which the Judaizing teachers evinced. It was the fear of
persecution. It was the want of independence and boldness in
maintaining the doctrine that men were to be saved only
by the merits of the Lord Jesus. By attempting to blend together
the doctrines of Judaism and Christianity; by maintaining that
the observance of the Jewish rites was necessary, and yet that
Jesus was the Messiah, they endeavoured to keep in with BOTH
parties, and thus to escape the opposition of the Jews. It was an
unhallowed compromise. It was an attempt to blend things together
which could not he united. One MUST really displace the other. If
me depended on the rites of Moses (any laws of Moses, in view of
earning justification - Keith Hunt) they had no need of
dependence on the Messiah; if they professed to depend on him,
then to rely on anything else was, to fact, to disown and reject
him. Embracing the one system was, in fact, renouncing the other.
Such is the argument of Paul; and such his solemn remonstrance
against embracing any doctrine which would obscure the glory of
simple dependence on the cross of Christ.....
(for forgiveness or justification. As we have seen from the
comments of Barnes, this has nothing to do with abolishing the
commandments of God, but it has all to do with HOW an individual
is "justified" or forgiven their sins - Keith Hunt)
'For neither they themselves who are circumcised.'
The Jewish teachers, or perhaps ALL Jews. It was true in
general that the Jews did not wholly and entirely obey the law of
Moses; but it is probable that the apostle refers particularly
here to the Judaizing teachers in Galatia.
'Keep the law."
The law of Moses, or the law of God. Paul's idea is, that if
they were circumcised, they brought themselves under obligation
to keep the whole law of God. See Note, chap.5:3. But they did
not do it.
(1) No man PERFECTLY observes the whole law of God.
(2) The Jewish nation, as such, were very far from doing it.
(3) It is probable that these persons did not pretend even to
keep the whole law of Moses. Paul insists on it, that if they
were circumcised, and DEPENDED on THAT for salvation, they
were under obligation to keep the whole law. But they did not.
Probably they did not offer sacrifice, or join in any of the
numerous observances of the Jewish nation, except some of the
more prominent, such as circumcision. This, says Paul, is
inconsistent in the highest degree; and they thus show their
insincerity and hypocrisy.
'That they may glory in your flesh.'
In having you as converts, and in persuading you, to be
circumcised, that they may show their zeal for the law, and thus
escape persecution. The phrase "in your flesh," here is
equivalent to "in your circumcision;" making use of your
circumcision to promote their own importance, and to save
themselves from persecution.....
'But God forbid.'
Note, Rom.3:4. "For me it is not to glory, except in the
cross of Christ." The OBJECT of Paul here is evidently to place
himself in contrast with the Judaizing teachers, and to show his
determined purpose to glory in nothing else but the cross of
Christ. Well they knew that he had as much occasion for glorying
in the things pertaining to the flesh, or in the observance of
external rites and customs, as any of them. He had been circum-
cised. He had all the advantages of accurate training in the
knowledge of the Jewish law. He had entered on life with uncommon
advantages. He had evinced a zeal that was not surpassed by any
of them; and his life, so far as conformity to the religion to
which he had been trained was concerned, was blameless, Phil.
3:4-8. This must have been, to a great extent, known to the
Galatians; and by placing his own conduct in strong contrast with
that of the Judaizing teachers, and showing that he had no ground
of confidence in himself, he designed to bring back the minds of
the Galatians to simple dependence on the cross.
'That I should glory.'
That I should boast; or that I should rely on anything else.
Others glory in their conformity to the laws of Moses; others in
their zeal, or their talents, or their learning, or their
orthodoxy; others in their wealth, or their accomplishments;
others in their family alliances, and their birth; but the
supreme boast and glorying of a Christian is in the cross of
Christ.
'In the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
In Jesus, the crucified Messiah.....
Keith Hunt:
CHAP.6:6 FAITH WHICH WORKS BY LOVE
James was inspired to explain the true NEW COVENANT faith that
all Christians must exhibit in their life if they hope to inherit
eternal life in the family of God (see James 2:14-26). Faith
which by LOVE is mighty in operation (Tindal) equals a humble
submissive attitude of obedience to the commandments of God, for
the word of the Lord says, "For this is the love of God, that we
KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS: and His commandments are NOT GRIEVOUS" -
1 John 5:3
Those who try to use Paul to say the LAW of the Ten Commandments
are now under the New Covenant "abolished" are not only NOT
reading ALL of what Paul wrote, and some VERY PLAIN AND CLEAR
verses on the Commandments of God, but they are NOT reading what
the apostle John wrote and James, about the Commandments of God.
Such people who claim the Ten Commandment law is "done away with"
under the Gospel of Christ, are quite ILLITERATE and first class
DUNCES in Bible reading, to be frank about it.
It is one thing to say and believe that the FOURTH commandment
has been CHANGED from the 7th day to the 1st day, but to teach
that "the law of God" period, is abolished in Christ, is the
height of total "flunked out" Bible reading, if there ever was.
But nevertheless, when I first came to Canada in 1961 I ran
smack-dab into many Christian "fundamentalists" - some with
"theology degrees" - who believed and TAUGHT that the Ten
Commandments were indeed ABOLISHED in Christ. It was a SHOCKING
experience for me.
Are you willing to read through Psalm 111; 119; and then have the
attitude that David did in Ps.119:136? This positive attitude of
David's towards the law and commandments of God is no doubt one
reason as to why the Eternal said that David was a man after His
own heart.
I hope you have come to see the letter of Galatians with new
insight. I hope that what you have seen in the writings of Albert
Barnes (one of the old famous Bible Commentators) and myself, has
given you some edification in this book of the New Testament,
that you may have never had before.
.................
End of our study on Galatians
GALATIANS 4 AND DAYS
Babylon Mysteries #2 Mary and Saint Days
With what we learnt from below about Saints and Saints' Days, we
can now come to see what Paul was instructing and correcting the
people of Galatia about, in Galatians 4:8-11. From the book "Babylon Mystery
Religion" by Ralph Woodrow
CHAPTER THREE
MARY WORSHIP
PERHAPS THE MOST outstanding proof that Mary worship
developed out of the old worship of the pagan mother goddess may
be seen from the fact that in pagan religion, the mother was
worshipped as much (or more) than her son! This provides an
outstanding clue to help us solve the mystery of Babylon today!
True Christianity teaches that the Lord Jesus - and HE alone - is
the way, the truth, and the life; that only HE can forgive sin;
that only HE, of all earth's creatures, has ever lived a life
that was never stained with sin; and HE is to be worshipped - not
ever his mother. But Roman Catholicism - showing the influence
that paganism has had in its development - in many ways exalts
the MOTHER also.
One can travel the world over, and whether in a massive
cathedral or in a village chapel, the statue of Mary will occupy
a prominent position. In reciting the Rosary, the "Hail Mary" is
repeated nine times as often as the "Lord's Prayer." Catholics
are taught that the reason for praying to Mary is that she can
take the petition to her son, Jesus; and since she is his mother,
he will answer the request for her sake. The inference is that
Mary is more compassionate, understanding, and merciful than her
son Jesus. Certainly this is contrary to the scriptures! Yet this
idea has often been repeated in Catholic writings.
One noted Roman Catholic writer, Alphonsus Liguori, wrote at
length telling how much more effectual prayers are that are
addressed to Mary rather than to Christ. Liguori, incidently, was
canonized as a "saint" by Pope Gregory XIV in 1839 and was
declared a "doctor" of the Catholic church by Pope Pius IX. In
one portion of his writings, he described an imaginary scene in
which a sinful man saw two ladders hanging from heaven. Mary was
at the top of one; Jesus at the top of the other. When the sinner
tried to climb the one ladder, he saw the angry face of Christ
and fell defeated. But when he climbed Mary's ladder, he ascended
easily and was openly welcomed by Mary who brought him into
heaven and presented him to Christ! Then all was well. The story
was supposed to show how much easier and more effective it is to
go to Christ through Mary (Boettner - "Roman Catholicism, p.147).
The same writer said that the sinner who ventures to come
directly to Christ may come with dread of his wrath. But if he
will pray to the Virgin, she will only have to "show" that "the
breasts that Will gave him suck" and his wrath will be
immediately appeased! (Hislop - "Two Babylons, p.158).
Such reasoning is in direct conflict with a scriptural
example. "Blessed is the womb that bare thee", a woman said to
Jesus,"and the paps that thou has sucked!" But Jesus answered,
"Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep
it" (Lk.11:27,28).
Such ideas about the breasts, on the other hand, were not
foreign to the worshippers of the pagan mother goddess. Images of
her have been unearthed which often show her breasts extremely
out of proportion to her body. In the case of Diana, to symbolize
her fertility, she is pictured with as many as one hundred
breasts!
Further attempts to exalt Mary to a glorified position
within Catholicism may be seen in the doctrine of the "immaculate
conception." This doctrine was pronounced and defined by Pius IX
in 1854 - that the Blessed Virgin Man "in the first instant of
her conception... was preserved exempt from all stain of original
sin" (Catholic Ency. vol.7,p.674 art, "Immaculate conception").
It would appear that this teaching is only a further effort
to make Mary more closely resemble the goddess of paganism, for
in the old myths, the goddess was also believed to have had a
supernatural conception! The stories varied, but all told of
supernatural happenings in connection with her entrance into the
world, that she was superior to ordinary mortals, that she was
divine. Little by little, so that the teachings about Mary
would not appear inferior to those of the mother goddess, it was
necessary to teach that Mary's entrance into this world involved
a supernatural element also!
Is the doctrine that Mary was born without the stain of
original sin scriptural? We will answer this in the words of The
Catholic Encyclopedia itself: "No direct or categorical and
stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from
Scripture" It is pointed out, rather, that these ideas were a
gradual development within the church (Ibid.,p.675).
Right here it should be explained that this is a basic,
perhaps the basic, difference between the Roman Catholic approach
to Christianity and the general Protestant view. The Roman
Catholic church, as it acknowledges, has long grown and developed
around a multitude of traditions and ideas handed down by church
fathers over the centuries, even beliefs brought over from
paganism if they could be "Christianized" and also the
scriptures. Concepts from all of these sources have been mixed
together and developed, finally to become dogmas at various
church councils. On the other hand, the view which the Protestant
Reformation sought to revive was a return to the actual
scriptures as a more sound basis for doctrine, with little or no
emphasis on the ideas that developed in later centuries.
Going right to the scriptures, not only is any proof for the
idea of the immaculate conception of Mary lacking, there is
evidence to the contrary. While she was a chosen vessel of the
Lord, was a godly and virtuous woman - a virgin - she was as much
a human as any other member of Adam's family. "All have sinned
and come short of the glory of God" (Rom.3:23), the only
exception being Jesus Christ himself. Like everyone else, Mary
needed a savior and plainly admitted this when she said: "And my
spirit hath rejoiced in God my SAVIOR" (Lk.1:47).
If Mary needed a savior, she was not a savior herself. If
she needed a savior, then she needed to be saved, forgiven, and
redeemed - even as others. The fact is, our Lord's divinity did
not depend on his mother being some type of exalted, divine
person. Instead, he was divine because he was the only begotten
son of God. His divinity came from his heavenly Father.
The idea that Mary was superior to other human beings was not the
teaching of Jesus. Once someone mentioned his mother and
brethren. Jesus asked, "Who is my mother? and who are my
brethren?" Then, stretching forth his hand toward his disciples,
said, "Behold my mother and my brethren! For WHOSOEVER shall do
the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother,
and sister, and MOTHER" (Matt.12:46-50). Plainly enough, anyone
who does the will of God is, in a definite sense, on the same
level with Mary.
Each day Catholics the world over recite the Hail Mary, the
Rosary, the Angelus, the Litanies of the Blessed Virgin, and
others. Multiplying the number of these prayers, times the number
of Catholics who recite them each day, someone has estimated that
Mary would have to listen to 46,296 petitions a second! Obviously
no one but God himself could do this. Nevertheless, Catholics
believe that Mary hears all of these prayers; and so, of
necessity, they have had to exalt her to the divine level -
scriptural or not!
Attempting to justify the way Mary has been exalted, some
have quoted the words of Gabriel to Mary, "Blessed art thou among
women" (Lk.1:28). But Mary being "blessed among women" cannot
make her a divine person, for many centuries before this, a
similar blessing was pronounced upon Jael, of whom it was said:
"Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.
..."(Judges 5:24).
Before Pentecost, Mary gathered with the other disciples
waiting for the promise of the Holy Spirit. We read that the
apostles "all continued with one accord in prayer and
supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and
his brethren" (Acts 1:14). Typical of Catholic ideas concern-
ing Mary, the illustration (as seen in the Official Baltimore
Catechisms) attempts to give to Mary a central position. But as
all students of the Bible know, the disciples were not looking to
Mary on that occasion. They were looking to their resurrected and
ascended CHRIST to outpour on them the gift of the Holy Spirit.
We notice also in the drawing that the Holy Spirit (as a dove) is
seen hovering over her! Yet, as far as the scriptural account is
concerned, the only one upon whom the Spirit as a dove descended
was Jesus himself - not his mother! On the other hand, the pagan
virgin goddess under the name of Juno was often represented with
a dove on her head, as was also Astarte, Cybele, and Isis! (Doane
- "Bible Myths, p.357).
Further attempts to glorify Mary may be seen in the Roman
Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity. This is the
teaching that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. But as
The Encyclopedia Britannica explains, the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of Mary was not taught until about three
hundred years after the ascension of Christ. It was not until the
Council of Chalcedon in 451 that this fabulous quality gained the
official recognition of Rome.
According to the scriptures, the birth of Jesus was the
result of a supernatural conception (Matt.1:23), without an
earthly father. But after Jesus was born, Mary gave birth to
other children - the natural offspring of her union with Joseph,
her husband. Jesus was Mary's "firstborn" son (Matt.1:25); it
does not say he was her only child. Jesus being her firstborn
child could certainly infer that later she had a second-born
child, possibly a third-born child, etc. That such was the case
seems apparent, for the names of four brothers are mentioned:
James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt.13:55). Sisters are also
mentioned. The people of Nazareth said: " . . . and his sisters,
are they not all with us?" (verse 56). The word "sisters" is
plural, of course, so we know that Jesus had at least two sisters
and probably more, for this verse speaks of "all" his sisters.
Usually if we are referring to only two people, we would say
"both" of them, not "all" of them. The implication is that at
least three sisters are referred to. If we figure three sisters
and four brothers, half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus, this
would make Mary the mother of eight children.
The scriptures say: "Joseph ... knew her not till she had
brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS"
(Matt.1:25). Joseph "knew her not" until after Jesus was born,
but after that, Mary and Joseph did come together as husband and
wife and children were born to them. The idea that Joseph kept
Mary as a virgin all of her life is clearly unscriptural.
During the times of the falling away, as though to more
closely identify Mary with the mother goddess, some taught that
Mary's body never saw corruption, that she bodily ascended into
heaven, and is now the "queen of heaven." It was not until this
present century, however, that the doctrine of the "assumption"
of Mary was officially proclaimed as a doctrine of the Roman
Catholic church. It was in 1951 that Pope Pius XII proclaimed
that Mary's body saw no corruption, but was taken to
heaven.(Catholic Ency.vol.2,p.632, art, "Assumption, Feast of").
The words of St.Bernard sum up the Roman Catholic position:
"On the third day after Mary's death, when the apostles gathered
around her tomb, they found it empty. The sacred body had been
carried up to the Celestial Paradise... the grave had no power
over one who was immaculate... But it was not enough that Mary
should be received into heaven. She was to be no ordinary
citizen... she had a dignity beyond the reach even of the highest
of the archangels. Mary was to be crowned Queen of Heaven by the
eternal Father: she was to have a throne at her Son's right hand
... Now day by day, hour by hour, she is praying for us,
obtaining graces for us, preserving us from danger, shielding us
from temptation, showering down blessings upon us."
All of these ideas about Mary are linked with the belief
that she bodily ascended into heaven. But the Bible says
absolutely nothing about the assumption of Mary. To the contrary,
John 3:13 says: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" -
Jesus Christ himself. HE is the one that is at God's right hand,
HE is the one that is our mediator, HE is the one that showers
down blessings upon us - not his mother!
Closely connected with the idea of praying to Mary is an
instrument called the rosary. It consists of a chain with fifteen
sets of small beads, each set marked off by one large bead. The
ends of this chain are joined by a medal bearing the imprint of
Mary. From this hangs a short chain at the end of which is a
crucifix. The beads on the rosary are for counting prayers -
prayers that are repeated over and over. Though this instrument
is widely used within the Roman Catholic church, it is clearly
not of Christian origin. It has been known in many countries.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "In almost all countries, then,
we meet with something in the nature of prayer-counters or
rosary-beads." It goes on to cite a number of examples, including
a sculpture of ancient Nineveh, mentioned by Layard, of two
winged females praying before a sacred tree, each holding a
rosary. For centuries, among the Mohammedans, a bead-string
consisting of 33,66, or 99 beads has been used for counting the
names of Allah. Marco Polo, in the thirteenth century, was
surprised to find the King of Malabar using a rosary of precious
stones to count his prayers. St.Francis Xavier and his companions
were equally astonished to see that rosaries were universally
familiar to the Buddhists of Japan (Catholic Ency. vol.13, p.185,
art, "Rosary").
Among the Phoenicians a circle of beads resembling a rosary
was used in the worship of Astarte, the mother goddess, about 800
B.C. (Seymour - "The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art,
p.21). This rosary is seen on some early Phoenician coins. The
Brahmans have from early times used rosaries with tens and
hundreds of beads. The worshippers of Vishnu give their children
rosaries of 108 beads. A similar rosary is used by millions of
Buddhists in India and Tibet. The worshipper of Siva uses a
rosary upon which he repeats, if possible, all the 1,008 names of
his god (Ency.of Religions, vol. 3, pp, 203-205).
Beads for the counting of prayers were known in Asiatic
Greece. Such was the purpose, according to Hislop, for the
necklace seen on the statue of Diana. He also points out that in
Rome, certain necklaces worn by women were for counting or
remembering prayers, the "monile," meaning "remembrancer."
(Hislop - "Two Babylons" pp.187-188).
The most often repeated prayer and the main prayer of the
rosary is the "Hail Mary" which is as follows: "Hail Mary, full
of grace, the Lord is with thee; Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of
God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of death, Amen."
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "There is little or no trace of
the Hail Mary as an accepted devotional formula before about
1050" (Catholic Ency. vol.7, p.111, art "Hail Mary"). The
complete rosary involves repeating the Hail Mary 53 times, the
Lord's prayer 6 times, 5 Mysteries, 5 Meditations on the
Mysteries, 5 Glory Be's, and the Apostles' Creed.
Notice that the prayer to Mary, the Hail Mary, is repeated
almost NINE times as often as the Lord's prayer! Is a prayer
composed by men and directed to Mary nine times as important or
effective as the prayer taught by Jesus and directed to God?
Those who worshipped the goddess Diana repeated a religious
phrase over and over - "...all with one voice about the space of
two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (Acts
19:34). Jesus spoke of repetitious prayer as being a practice of
the heathen. "When ye pray," he said, "use not vain repetitions,
as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for
their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your
Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him"
(Matt.6:7-13). In this passage, Jesus plainly told his followers
NOT to pray a little prayer over and over. It is significant to
notice that it was right after giving this warning, in the very
next verse, that he said: "After this manner therefore pray ye:
Our Father which art in heaven..." and gave the disciples what we
refer to as "The Lord's Prayer." Jesus gave this prayer as an
opposite to the heathen type of prayer. Yet Roman Catholics are
taught to pray this prayer over and over. If this prayer was not
to be repeated over and over, how much less a little man-made
prayer to Mary! It seems to us that memorizing prayers, then
repeating them over and over while counting rosary beads, could
easily become more of a "memory test" than a spontaneous
expression of prayer from the heart.
CHAPTER FOUR
SAINTS, SAINTS' DAYS, and SYMBOLS
IN ADDITION TO the prayers and devotions that are directed
to Mary, Roman Catholics also honor and pray to various "saints."
These saints, according to the Catholic position, are martyrs or
other notable people of the church who have died and whom the
Popes have pronounced saints.
In many minds, the word "saint" refers only to a person who
has attained some special degree of holiness, only a very unique
follower of Christ. But according to the Bible, ALL true
Christians are saints - even those who may sadly lack spiritual
maturity or knowledge. Thus, the writings of Paul to Christians
at Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, or Rome, were addressed "to the
saints" (Eph.1:1, etc.). Saints, it should be noticed, were
living people, not those who had died.
If we want a "saint" to pray for us, it must be a living
person. But if we try to commune with people that have died, what
else is this but a form of spiritism? Repeatedly the Bible
condemns all attempts to commune with the dead (see Isaiah 8:19,
20). Yet many recite the "Apostles' Creed" which says: "We
believe ... in the communion of saints." supposing that such
includes the idea of prayers for and to the dead. Concerning this
very point, The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Catholic teaching
regarding prayers for the dead is bound up inseparably with the
doctrine ... of the c o m m u n i o n of saints which is an
article of the Apostles' Creed." Prayers "to the saints and
martyrs collectively, or to some one of them in particular" are
recommended (Catholic Ency." vol.4,p.653.655, art "Prayers for
the dead" ). The actual wording of the Council of Trent is that
"the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own
prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to
invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help
for obtaining benefits from God" (Ibid., vol 8, p.70, art
"Intercession").
What are the objections to these beliefs? We will let "The
Catholic Encyclopedia" answer for itself. "The chief objections
raised against the intercession and invocation of the saints are
that these doctrines are opposed to the faith and trust which we
should have in God alone ... and that they cannot be proved from
Scriptures..." (Ibid). With this statement we agree. Nowhere do
the scriptures indicate that the living can be blessed or
benefited by prayers to or through those who have already died.
Instead, in many ways, the Catholic doctrines regarding "saints"
are very similar to the old pagan ideas that were held regarding
the "gods."
Looking back again to the "mother" of false religion -
Babylon - we find that the people prayed to and honored a
plurality of gods. In fact, the Babylonian system developed until
it had some 5,000 gods and goddesses (Hays - "In the Beginning"
vol.2,p.65). In much the same way as Catholics believe
concerning their "saints", the Babylonians believed that their
"gods" had at one time been living here on earth, but were now
on a higher plane ("Ency. of Religion" vol.2,p.78). "Every month
and every day of the month was under the protection of a
particular divinity" (Williams - "The Historians' History of the
World" vol.1,p.518). There was a god for this problem, a god for
each of the different occupations, a god for this and a god for
that.
From Babylon-like the worship of the great mother - such
concepts about the "gods" spread to the nations. Even the
Buddhists in China had their "worship of various deities, as the
goddess of sailors, the god of war, the gods of special
neighborhoods or occupations" (Dobbins - "Story of the World's
Worship" p.621). The Syrians believed the powers of certain gods
were limited to certain areas, as an incident in the Bible
records: "Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were
stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and
surely we shall be stronger than they" (1 Kings 20:23).
When Rome conquered the world, these same ideas were very
much in evidence as the following sketch will show. "Brighit" was
goddess of smiths and poetry. "Juno Regina" was the goddess of
womanhood and marriage. "Minerva" was the goddess of wisdom,
handicrafts, and musicians. "Venus" was the goddess of sexual
love and birth. "Vesta" was the goddess of bakers and sacred
fires. "Ops" was the goddess of wealth. "Ceres" was the goddess
of corn, wheat, and growing vegetation. (Our word "cereal"
fittingly, comes from her name.) "Hercules" was the god of joy
and wine. "Mercury" was the god of orators and, in the old
fables, quite an orator himself, which explains why the people of
Lystra thought of Paul as the god Mercury (Acts 14:11,12). The
gods "Castor" and "Pollux" were the protectors of Rome and of
travellers at sea (cf. Acts 28:11). "Cronus" was the guardian of
oaths. "Janus" was the god of doors and gates. "There were gods
who presided over every moment of a man's life, gods of house and
garden, of food and drink, of health and sickness" (Durant - "The
Story of Civilization: Caesar and Christ, pp.61-63).
With the idea of gods and goddesses associated with various
events in life now established in pagan Rome, it was but another
step for these same concepts to finally be merged into the church
of Rome. Since converts from paganism were reluctant to part with
their "gods" - unless they could find some satisfactory
counterpart in Christianity - the gods and goddesses were renamed
and called "saints." The old idea of gods associated with certain
occupations and days has continued in the Roman Catholic belief
in saints and saints'days, as the following table shows.
Actors - St. Genesius - August 25; Architects - St. Thomas -
ecember 21; Astonomers - St. Cominic - August 4; Athletes -
St. Sebastain - January 20; Bakers - St. Elizabeth -
November 19; Bankers - St. Matthew - September 21; Beggars -
St. Alexius - July 17; Book Sellers- St. John of God - March 8;
Bricklayers - St. Steven - December 26; Builders - St. Vincent -
April 5; Butchers - St. Hadrian - September 28; Cab drivers -
St. Fiarce - August 30; Candle-makers - St. Bernard -
August 20; Comedians - St. Vitus - June 15; Cooks - St. Martha
- July 29; Dentists - St. Appollonia - February 9; Doctors -
St. Luke - October 18; Editors - St. John Bosco - January 31;
Fishermen - St. Andrew - November 30; Florists - St. Dorothy
- February 6; Hat makers - St. James - May 11; Housekeepers -
St. Anne - July 26; Hunters - St. Hubert - November 3; Laborers
- St. James the Greater - July 25; Lawyers - St. Ives -May 19;
Librarians - St. Jerome - September 30; Merchants - St. Francis
of Assisi - October 4; Miners - St. Barbara - December 4;
Musicians - St. Cecilia - November 22; Notaries - St. Mark the
Evangelist - April 25; Nurses - St. Cathrine - April 30; Painter
- St. Luke - October 18; Pharmacists - St. Gemma Galgani - April
11; Plasterers - St. Bartholomew - August 24; Printers -
St. John of God - March 8; Sailors - St. Brendan - May 16;
Scientists - St. Albert - November 15; Singers - St. Gregory
- March 12; Steel workers - St. Eliguis - December 1; Students
- St. Thomas Aquinas - March 7; Surgeons - S.S. Cosmas & Damian
- September 27; Tailors - St. Boniface of Credtion - June 5;
Tax Collectors - St. Matthew - September 21;
The Roman Catholic Church also has saints for the following
Barren women - St. Anthony; Old maids - St. Andrew;
Beer drinkers - St. Nicholas; Poor - St. Lawrence;
Children - St. Dominic; Pregnant women - St. Gerard;
Domestic animals - St. Anthony; Television - St. Clare;
Emigrants - St. Francis; Temptation - St. Syriacus;
Family troubles - St. Eustachius; To apprehend thieves - St.
Gervase; Fire - St. Lawrence; To have children - St. Felicitas;
Floods - St. Columban; To obtain a husband - St. Joseph;
lightning storms - St. Barbara; To obtain a wife - St. Anne;
Lovers - St. Raphael; To find lost articles - St. Anthony;
Catholics are taught to pray to certain "saints" for help with
the following afflictions:
Arthritis - St. James; Epilepsy, nerves - St. Vitus;
Bite of dogs - St. Hubert; Fever - St. George;
Bite of snakes - St. Hilary; Foot diseases - St. Victor;
Blindness - St. Raphael; Gall stones - St. Liberius;
Cancer - St. Peregrine; Gout - St. Andrew; Cramps - St.Murice;
Headaches - St. Denis; Deafness - St. Cadoc; Heart trouble - St.
John of God; Disease of breast - St. Agatha; Insanity - St.
Dympna; Disease of eyes - St. Lucy; Skin disease - St. Roch;
Disease of throat - St. Blase; Sterility - St. Giles;
St.Hubert was born about 656 and appeared on our list as
the patron saint of hunters and healer of hydrophobia. Before his
conversion, almost all of his time was spent hunting. On a Good
Friday morning, according to legend, he pursued a large stag
which suddenly turned and he saw a crucifix between its antlers
and heard a voice tell him to turn to God.
But why pray to saints when Christians have access to God?
Catholics are taught that through praying to saints, they may be
able to obtain help that God otherwise might not give! They are
told to worship God and then to "pray, first to Saint Mary, and
the holy apostles, and the holy martyrs, and all God's saints
.... to consider them as friends and protectors, and to implore
their aid in the hour of distress, with the hope that God would
grant to the patron what he might otherwise refuse to the
supplicant" (Catholic Ency. vol.4,p.173, art "Communion of
Saints").
Everything considered, it seems evident that the Roman
Catholic system of patron saints developed out of the earlier
beliefs in gods devoted to days, occupations, and the various
needs of human life.
Many of the old legends that had been associated with the
pagan gods were transferred over to the saints. The Catholic
Encyclopedia even says these "legends repeat the conceptions
found in the pre-Christian religious tales ... The legend is not
Christian, only Christianized ... In many cases it has obviously
the same origin as the myth ... Antiquity traced back sources,
whose natural elements it did not understand, to the heroes; such
was also the case with many legends of the saints ... It became
easy to transfer to the Christian martyrs the conceptions which
the ancients held concerning their heroes. This transference was
promoted by the numerous cases in which Christian saints became
the successors of local deities, and Christian worship supplanted
the ancient local worship. This explains the great number of
similarities between gods and saints" (Ibid.,vol,9,pp.130,131,art
Legends").
As paganism and Christianity were mixed together, sometimes
a saint was given a similar sounding name as that of the pagan
god or goddess it replaced. The goddess "Victoria" of the
Basses-Alpes was renamed as St.Victoire, "Cheron" as St.Ceranos,
"Artemis" as St.Artemidos, "Dionysus" as St.Dionysus, etc. The
goddess "Brighit" (regarded as the daughter of the sungod and who
was represented with a child in her arms) was smoothly renamed as
"Saint Bridget." In pagan days, her chief temple at Kildare was
served by Vestal Virgins who tended the sacred fires. Later her
temple became a convent and her vestals, nuns. They continued to
tend the ritual fire, only it was now called "St.Bridget's fire"
(Urin - "Festivals, Holy Days, and Saints' Day" p.26).
The best preserved ancient temple now remaining in Rome is
the Pantheon which in olden times was dedicated (according to the
inscription over the portico) to "Jove and all the gods." This
was reconsecrated by Pope Boniface IV to "The Virgin Mary and all
the saints." Such practices were not uncommon. "Churches or ruins
of churches have been frequently found on the sites where pagan
shrines or temples originally stood ... It is also to some extent
true that sometimes the saint whose aid was to be invoked at the
Christian shrine bore some outward analogy to the deity
previously hallowed in that place. Thus in Athens the shrine of
the healer Asklepios ... when it became a church, was made sacred
to the two saints whom the Christian Athenians invoked as
miraculous healers, Kosmas and Damian" (Catholic Ency.
vol.2,p.44, art "Athens").
A cave shown in Bethlehem as the place in which Jesus was
born, was, according to Jerome, actually a rock shrine in which
the Babylonian god Tammuz had been worshipped. The scriptures
never state that Jesus was born in a cave. Throughout the Roman
Empire, paganism died in one form, only to live again within the
Roman Catholic church. Not only did the devotion to the old gods
continue (in a new form), but the use of statues of these gods as
well. In some cases, it is said, the very same statues that had
been worshipped as pagan gods were renamed as Christian saints.
Through the centuries, more and more statues were made, until
today there are churches in Europe which contain as many as two,
three, and four thousand statues (Hasting's Ency.of Religion and
Ethics, art "Omage and Idols"). In large impressive cathedrals,
in small chapels, at wayside shrines, on the dashboards of
automobiles - in all these places the idols of Catholicism may be
found in abundance.
The use of such idols within the Roman Catholic Church
provides another clue in solving the mystery of modern Babylon;
for, as Herodotus mentioned, Babylon was the source from which
all systems of idolatry flowed to the nations. To link the word
"idols" with statues of Mary and the saints may sound quite harsh
to some. But can this be totally incorrect? It is admitted in
Catholic writings that at numerous times and among various
people, images of the saints have been worshipped in
superstitious ways. Such abuses, however, are generally placed
in the past. It is explained that in this enlightened age, no
educated person actually worships the object itself, but rather
what the object represents. Generally this is true. But is this
not also true of heathen tribes that use idols (unmistakably
idols) in the worship of demon-gods? Most of these do not believe
the idol itself is a god, but only representative of the
demon-god they worship.
Several articles within "The Catholic Encyclopedia" seek to
explain that the use of images is proper on the basis of them
being representative of Christ or the saints. "The honor which is
given to them is referred to the objects which they represent, so
that through the images which we kiss, and before which we
uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and venerate the
saints whose likenesses they are" (Catholic Ency.vol.7,p.636, art
"Idolatry").
Not all Christians are convinced, however, that this
"explanation" is strong enough reason to bypass verses such as
Exodus 20:4,5: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is
in the earth beneath, or that is underneath the earth: Thou shalt
not bow down thyself to them."
In the Old Testament, when the Israelites conquered a
heathen city or country, they were not to adopt the idols of
these people into their religion. Such were to be destroyed, even
though they might be covered with silver and gold! "The graven
images of their gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not
desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it
unto thee, lest thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination
to the Lord" (Deut.7:25). They were to "destroy all their
pictures" of pagan gods also (Numbers 33:52).
To what extent these instructions were to be carried out
under the New Testament has been often debated over the
centuries. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a historical sketch of
this, showing how people fought and even died over this very
issue, especially in the eighth century. Though upholding the use
of statues and pictures, it says "there seems to have been a
dislike of holy pictures, a suspicion that their use was, or
might become, idolatrous, among certain Christians for many
centuries," and mentions several Catholic bishops who were of
this same opinion (Ibid.,p.620, art, "Iconoclasm").
For people to fight and kill each other over this issue -
regardless of which side they were on - was unmistakably contrary
to the teachings of Christ.
The pagans placed a circle or aureole around the heads of
those who were "gods" in their pictures. This practice continued
right on in the art of the Romish church ... St. Augustine is
shown in Catholic books - with a circular disk around his head.
All Catholic saints are pictured this same way. But to see that
this practice was borrowed from heathenism, we need only to
notice the drawing of Buddha which also features the circular
symbol around his head! The artists and sculptors of ancient
Babylon used the disk or aureola around any being they wished to
represent as a god or goddess (Inman - Ancient Pagan and Modern
Christian Symbolism" p.35). The Romans depicted "Circe," the
pagan goddess of the sun, with a circle surrounding her head.
From its use in pagan Rome, the same symbolism passed into papal
Rome and has continued to this day, as evidenced in thousands of
paintings of Mary and the saints.
Pictures, supposedly of Christ, were painted with "golden
beams" surrounding his head. This was exactly the way the sungod
of the pagans had been represented for centuries.
The church of the first four centuries used no pictures of
Christ. The scriptures do not give us any description of the
physical features of Jesus whereby an accurate painting could be
made of him. It seems evident, then, that the pictures of Christ,
like those of Mary and the saints, have come from the
imaginations of artists. We only have to make a short study of
religious art to find that in different centuries and among
different nationalities, many pictures of Christ - some very
different - may be found. Obviously all of these cannot be what
he looked like. Besides, having now ascended into heaven, we no
longer know him "after the flesh" (2 Cor.5:16), having been
"glorified" (John 7:39), and with a "glorious body" (Phil. 3:21),
not even the best artist in the world could portray the King in
his beauty. Any picture, even at its best, could never show how
wonderful he really is!
...............
With what we have learnt above about Saints and Saints' Days, we
can now come to see what Paul was instructing and correcting the
people of Galatia about, in Galatians 4:8-11.
Verse eight, Paul talks to those who "knew NOT God, yet did
service unto them which by nature are no gods." Paul is NOT
addressing the Jews (who did know God, having a form of
knowledge, but without proper understanding) - he is talking now
to those who DID NOT know the true God, but who had served false
gods, that were not gods in any form or shape.
Verse nine, Paul says they HAD COME TO KNOW God, or God was
knowing them, as now being called of God to His light and
service, and true way to live and practice.
Then he says, "how TURN you AGAIN to the weak and beggarly
rudiments where you desire to be in bondage." They were TURNING
BACK, and the Greek here is "back to" "again at first" "again
anew" - it is indeed meaning "back again to" as doing something
that they once did and were now returning to it once again.
None of God's commandments of any kind, can be considered "weak
and beggarly" - if they are from God, they are from HIM, and so
have a purpose. God does not do anything that is "weak and
beggarly."
The Galatians (many of them) had returned to their former ways.
The ones who at one time "knew not God" but had "served gods that
were not gods" had again gone back to serving the weak and
beggarly rudiments of the gods of this world, the false customs
and practices and traditions, that belonged to the worship and
service of false gods. In that service of bondage was the
observance of "days, and months, and times, and years."
Woodrow has brought out in some detail what many of those
observance days etc. were.
This section of Galatians HAS NOTHING TO DO with God's holy days,
calendar, new month days, and the Festival observance that is
ordained of God, BUT it has everything to do with people who have
come out of false observances of false gods, that they once
observed, coming to KNOW the true Eternal God and all His true
ways, and then turning from them and turning back AGAIN to the
bondage of the false customs and traditions and observances of
the world of gods that are no gods.
Keith Hunt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment