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
The Book of GalatiansThe 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
The Book of GalatiansThe "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.
Keith Hunt .............
TO BE CONTINUED
The Book of GalatiansCircumcision and the Covenant of Blood
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 he 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...."
Keith Hunt
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
The Book of GalatiansWorks of the flesh and Circumcision
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
TO UNDERSTAND GAL. 4: 8-11 FIRST READ THIS
Babylon Mysteries Mary and Saint Days From the book "Babylon Mystery
Religion" by Woodrow
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.
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