Galatians -- A Commentary for Active Jehovah's Witnesses
This post is not intended to teach someone what Paul meant by what he wrote to the Galatians. Neither is this posted as fodder for argument over Biblical accuracy, the existence/non-existence of Paul, the authorship of this book, or any other sideline arguments/debates. I hope that the readers of this post will respect the unstated intent, and if you are unclear on the intent please PM me to find out before side-tracking this post.
This is written with current slaves in mind. Slaves who sincerely believe they are slaves of God and of his Christ, but who are in fact, slaves to man's law. This is written to those who recognize that their good news has been perverted and who have lacked the strength to say so. This is written for ones like Shadow and A Friend In Need, who know something is wrong but do not know what to do about it, and to those who place a higher premium on waiting for Jehovah to miraculously fix problems than they place on zeal for righteousness.
Hopefully, the volume of information to read will not be off-putting to students. You may find it helpful to print this post. Printed words sometimes are less harsh on the eyes than text on computer displays. I am removing chapter and verse designations, as I believe they can interfere with getting the accurate sense of a letter. I offer commentary as my opinion only. This commentary only reflects my privately harbored ideas. Having these ideas proves I am an immature Christian.
w01 8/1 p. 14 Make Your Advancement Manifest; Paragraph 8:
First, since "oneness" is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding.
This standard having been set by the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witneses (formerly the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.), we will see how well Paul measured up to the standard of maturity.
To the Galatians
Paul, an apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him up from the dead, and all the brothers with me, to the congregations of Ga·la'ti·a:
May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ. He gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from the present wicked system of things according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
This opening is similar to the openings of many of Paul's letters. One striking difference is his statement that his apostleship did not arise from men. It seems there may have been some who were challenging the source of his apostleship such that he felt the need to directly state the source of his claim.
One thing worth noting, in the case of the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Romans, and the Hebrews who were living in Rome Paul wrote to specific cities. In the case of Galatians, he was writing to an entire province.
I marvel that YOU are being so quickly removed from the One who called YOU with Christ's undeserved kindness over to another sort of good news. But it is not another; only there are certain ones who are causing YOU trouble and wanting to pervert the good news about the Christ. However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed. As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed.
Paul starts off expressing dismay that they have been "removed from the One who called [them]" and infers, at first, that they have left for another good news. He immediately amends his statement, saying instead that there are some causing them trouble by "perverting" the good news. What is the difference between bringing in new good news and perverting the good news?
To pervert means to corrupt. It can also mean to misuse, turn to some immoral purpose, or twist the meaning of something. So there were some in Galatia trying to do this to the good news, and Paul said they are accursed. They were not replacing the good news, they were twisting it.
Interestingly, Paul, who just stated for the record that he is an apostle appointed by Christ, said that if either he or an angel out of heaven declared something different than what had been declared they should be accursed. Think for a moment. If an apostle who claims appointment by Jesus Christ disclaims any authority to teach something different, would he then claim authority to bring "new light" forth? He claimed spirit inspiration, but even he did not claim to be a source of new light. Neither did he allow that the heavens themselves would produce such new light. His teachings were based on very old light, not new light.
But today, we find many groups of men claiming to be the source of such new light. All of them are liars and, according to the apostle Paul, they are accursed. Often, those who leave such organizations are asked, "But, where will you go away to?" From the teachings of those who are liars and accursed? Anywhere!
Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I seeking to please men? If I were yet pleasing men, I would not be Christ's slave. For I put YOU on notice, brothers, that the good news which was declared by me as good news is not something human; for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught [it], except through revelation by Jesus Christ.
Here Paul states that the source of his teaching was not human. He did not receive it from men. When you receive a new Watchtower, is it from God? Well, the producers of the publication claim that it is fallible. Is information from God fallible?
YOU, of course, heard about my conduct formerly in Ju'da·ism, that to the point of excess I kept on persecuting the congregation of God and devastating it, and I was making greater progress in Ju'da·ism than many of my own age in my race, as I was far more zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called [me] through his undeserved kindness, thought good to reveal his Son in connection with me, that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not go at once into conference with flesh and blood. Neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles previous to me, but I went off into Arabia, and I came back again to Damascus.
That is a fairly impressive list of credentials. Persecuting the congregations, greater progress in Judaism than many of his age and race, Paul was at the top of his class. Did the newly converted Paul see fit to clear his apostleship with anyone, for instance, to make sure the older men in Jerusalem were aware of his changed status? Did he feel it was necessary to check in with them before commencing his assignment? No. He immediately began his preaching.
Was his assignment something those in Jerusalem expected? Did they think there would be an apostle appointed to the nations? If they were indeed the Governing Body in Jerusalem, would they not have had some say in where Paul went, what Paul preached, and to whom Paul preached? Obviously. Yet, there is absolutely no indication that Paul saw those men in Jerusalem as an authority over him. He was not seeking to please men. (Galatians 1:10) According to him, his authority was from a higher source.
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ce'phas, and I stayed with him for fifteen days. But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. Now as to the things I am writing YOU, look! in the sight of God, I am not lying.
He spent no brief time in his first preaching tour. Three years after his conversion, he went up to Jerusalem and stayed for fifteen days. Among the apostles, he only saw Cephas. After three years of preaching to the nations, he only spoke to one of the apostles, who he stayed with for fifteen days. If the Apostolic authority "thing" was so important don't you suppose Peter might have said, "You know Paul, you are on this whole 'Save the Gentiles' kick, don't you think it might be a good idea to get some input from the ones Christ left in charge, or at least run it by other mature Christians?"
He also saw James, who was not an apostle.
After that I went into the regions of Syria and of Ci·li'cia. But I was unknown by face to the congregations of Ju·de'a that were in union with Christ; they only used to hear: "The man that formerly persecuted us is now declaring the good news about the faith which he formerly devastated." So they began glorifying God because of me.
The congregations in Judea, including the apostles, did not even know Paul by appearance. They only knew him by reputation. The Gentile congregations knew him on sight.
Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Bar'na·bas, taking also Titus along with me. But I went up as a result of a revelation. And I laid before them the good news which I am preaching among the nations, privately, however, before those who were outstanding men, for fear that somehow I was running or had run in vain. Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. But because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who sneaked in to spy upon our freedom which we have in union with Christ Jesus, that they might completely enslave us--to these we did not yield by way of submission, no, not for an hour, in order that the truth of the good news might continue with YOU.
When did Paul next go to Jerusalem? Fourteen years later. How long have you been baptized? Would you start your own preaching campaign without checking with any ministerial servant, elder, Circuit Overseer, District Overseer, Zone Overseer, Branch Overseer, member of the Service Desk, or the Governing Body? Would you wait to meet with them until you had some grievance to bring to their attention, after 17 years of preaching a message contrary to their message without so much as a by-your-leave?
Why did Paul lay the good news he was preaching before these outstanding men privately? For fear that he had run in vain. Was Paul lacking confidence that his message was accurate? Certainly not. He lacked confidence that these men would recognize truth. He was afraid that he had been running in vain, that these outstanding men in Jerusalem were not representatives of Christ.
Was Paul intending to submit to those in Jerusalem? Suppose they had said, "All Gentiles must be circumcised and charged to keep the Law of Moses." That is what the sect of the Pharisees wanted, what if 2/3 of the older men had decided that way? Would Paul have stopped his preaching? He said they did not yield by way of submission to those who insisted on that standard for even an hour.
What was the issue in Jerusalem? Was the issue circumcision? Not according to Paul. The issue, as he states it, arose because of circumcision. The issue was freedom in union with Christ. The issue was that some were trying to again enslave those who had been freed. The issue was not circumcision, it was much more important than that physical trifle. It was a spiritual issue that drove Paul and his companions to Jerusalem.
But on the part of those who seemed to be something--whatever sort of men they formerly were makes no difference to me--God does not go by a man's outward appearance--to me, in fact, those outstanding men imparted nothing new. But, on the contrary, when they saw that I had entrusted to me the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter [had it] for those who are circumcised--for He who gave Peter powers necessary for an apostleship to those who are circumcised gave powers also to me for those who are of the nations; yes, when they came to know the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ce'phas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave me and Bar'na·bas the right hand of sharing together, that we should go to the nations, but they to those who are circumcised. Only we should keep the poor in mind. This very thing I have also earnestly endeavored to do.
Did Paul benefit spiritually from his interaction with these outstanding men? No. They imparted nothing new to him. He imparted something new to them. Was he immature? No. Even though he harbored private ideas, that he conveyed to them in private, he was not immature. Even though his teachings were in some very important ways directly contradictory to their teachings, he was not immature.
Paul said that James, Cephas, and John gave he and Barnabas the right hand of sharing together. Only that they should keep the poor in mind. Were they talking about the spiritually poor, or the physically poor? Well, Paul said that they should do that in addition to going to those of the nations.
How does your organization measure up in keeping the "poor in mind?" It is rhetorical. They teach that the most important thing to give the poor is truth from the Bible, all available money should become something dedicated to Jehovah. They have missed the point because of their traditions.
However, when Ce'phas came to Antioch, I resisted him face to face, because he stood condemned. For before the arrival of certain men from James, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he went withdrawing and separating himself, in fear of those of the circumcised class. The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Bar'na·bas was led along with them in their pretense. But when I saw they were not walking straight according to the truth of the good news, I said to Ce'phas before them all: "If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do, and not as Jews do, how is it that you are compelling people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?"
Paul resisted another apostle? One who received the keys of the Kingdom from Christ? Based on what? Based on hypocrisy, specifically face-saving hypocrisy. The Jews who lived among the Galatians had adopted their customs and become family with them. Cephas was pretending as though he lived as a Mosaic Law abiding Jew, while the men sent by James were present. Apparently, Paul took a very dim view of hypocrisy for the sake of keeping up appearances, for the sake of men-pleasing. (Galatians 1:10)
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners from the nations, knowing as we do that a man is declared righteous, not due to works of law, but only through faith toward Christ Jesus, even we have put our faith in Christ Jesus, that we may be declared righteous due to faith toward Christ, and not due to works of law, because due to works of law no flesh will be declared righteous. Now if we, in seeking to be declared righteous by means of Christ, have also ourselves been found sinners, is Christ in reality sin's minister? May that never happen! For if the very things that I once threw down I build up again, I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor. As for me, through law I died toward law, that I might become alive toward God. I am impaled along with Christ. It is no longer I that live, but it is Christ that is living in union with me. Indeed, the life that I now live in flesh I live by the faith that is toward the Son of God, who loved me and handed himself over for me. I do not shove aside the undeserved kindness of God; for if righteousness is through law, Christ actually died for nothing.
That last sentence says it all. Paul wasn't focused on which aspects of the law needed to remain heeded. Righteousness is not through law. Insisting on law shoves aside the undeserved kindness (the grace) of God. How important is it to understand this point? If it is missed, then Christ has died in vain in our case. If it not true, then he died for nothing in everyone's case.
Is it adherence to a code of law that gains salvation? Is it following the teachings of a specific organization that gains salvation? What is it that means salvation?
O senseless Ga·la'tians, who is it that brought YOU under evil influence, YOU before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly portrayed impaled? This alone I want to learn from YOU: Did YOU receive the spirit due to works of law or due to a hearing by faith? Are YOU so senseless? After starting in spirit are YOU now being completed in flesh? Did YOU undergo so many sufferings to no purpose? If it really was to no purpose. He, therefore, who supplies YOU the spirit and performs powerful works among YOU, does he do it owing to works of law or owing to a hearing by faith? Just as Abraham "put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
"Evil influence?" "Senseless?" Surely Paul is overstating his case. Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and by that was considered righteous. How did he put faith in Jehovah that was counted as righteousness? If you think you know, check yourself. (Romans 4:16-22) He was counted righteous because he believed that by God's power he could impregnate his aged wife, Sarah. He had so much confidence in this power that after Sarah's death he had Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah by Keturah.
Surely YOU know that those who adhere to faith are the ones who are sons of Abraham. Now the Scripture, seeing in advance that God would declare people of the nations righteous due to faith, declared the good news beforehand to Abraham, namely: "By means of you all the nations will be blessed." Consequently those who adhere to faith are being blessed together with faithful Abraham.
Those who adhere to faith are sons of Abraham. Plainly stated. No ambiguity at all. No provisos, no addenda. Do you adhere to faith? Then, what are you? According to Jehovah's Witnesses, the large majority of you are not sons of Abraham; there are only 144,001 of them. Paul does not rely on his thinking to arrive at this understanding that people of the nations would be declared righteous by faith. He relies on Scripture, specifically, on Scripture that predated the Law of Moses. Why? Because it established a precedent to the Law of Moses that indicated the Law of Moses must eventually be fulfilled completely, that its usefulness must eventually expire, that its purpose would eventually be realized.
For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: "Cursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them." Moreover, that by law no one is declared righteous with God is evident, because "the righteous one will live by reason of faith." Now the Law does not adhere to faith, but "he that does them shall live by means of them." Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: "Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake." The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham might come to be by means of Jesus Christ for the nations, that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith.
Those who rely on Law are accursed. Does it matter whether the Law is the Law of Moses, or the codified law of the Pharisees, or some other law developed later? No. Paul lays out the spiritual principle as one that applies regardless of the Law in question. The spirit is provided as a result of faith. In the first century, the "spirit anointed" were anointed because of faith, not works. Cornelius, a Gentile who had not even been baptized, along with his whole household were anointed with Holy Spirit. Why? Because of faith. Neither he nor his household had ever been to a single meeting or out in field service. They had not done anything to warrant this dispensation of Holy Spirit, except have faith. (Acts 10:34-48)
Brothers, I speak with a human illustration: A validated covenant, though it is a man's, no one sets aside or attaches additions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: "And to seeds," as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: "And to your seed," who is Christ. Further, I say this: As to the covenant previously validated by God, the Law that has come into being four hundred and thirty years later does not invalidate it, so as to abolish the promise. For if the inheritance is due to law, it is no longer due to promise; whereas God has kindly given it to Abraham through a promise.
If the inheritance is due for the faithful observance of Law, it is no longer due to a promise of God to his friend Abraham. Is this only true of the Law of Moses? The contract between God and Abraham was fulfilled by Abraham's life. That means the attached promises of God will be fulfilled independent of any subsequent contracts, because the first was a prior contract and its terms take precedence. Paul calls this legal discussion a "human illustration."
Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.
To make transgressions manifest, God gave the Law to the nation of Israel by means of Moses. Moses was the mediator of that covenant between the nation of Israel and God. Paul then refers to his earlier statement about later covenants not invalidating the previous covenants and asks, "Is the law against the promises of God?" In other words, is the Law against the promises to his friend Abraham?
He demonstrates that the law is not contrary to the promises to Abraham by stating that the Law was incapable of giving life, therefore the promises to Abraham were uninfluenced by this covenant in any way. Righteousness cannot come by means of law. Works do not produce righteousness. We can see from many other scriptural accounts that this must have been the case. Otherwise, Cornelius and his family would not have received Holy Spirit. They had no works to call righteous.
However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.
The law was for temporary safe-keeping of the promise to Abraham. That promise must be fulfilled; therefore the Law helped to insure its fulfillment. But it was not an end unto itself; it was purposeful. It was intended to point the way to Christ, in one person the fulfillment of the Law of Moses and the promise to Abraham.
How did Paul indicate ones would be declared righteous? Due to adherence to codified law? No. He said we would be declared righteous due to faith. He did not attach requirements in addition to that.
YOU are all, in fact, sons of God through YOUR faith in Christ Jesus. For all of YOU who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise.
Do you belong to Christ? If so, are you Abraham's seed, an heir with reference to a promise? You are not, if you believe the teachings from the pages of the Watchtower. They teach that Paul was referring to fewer than 8,000 alive today. They teach that anyone else is only blessed peripherally, through the promise held out to a select group of 144,000.
Paul, on the other hand, does not agree. He states quite directly that sons of God are such through their faith in Christ Jesus, not through receipt of Holy Spirit. Such a gift is a result of faith, not works.
Now I say that as long as the heir is a babe he does not differ at all from a slave, lord of all things though he is, but he is under men in charge and under stewards until the day his father appointed beforehand. Likewise we also, when we were babes, continued enslaved by the elementary things belonging to the world. But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman and who came to be under law, that he might release by purchase those under law, that we, in turn, might receive the adoption as sons.
How does one receive adoption? By being freed from law? No, but by receipt of spirit. It is being freed from law that allows room for this spirit.
Now because YOU are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts and it cries out: "Abba, Father!" So, then, you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God.
How does one receive spirit? How is one "baptized into Christ?" Through faith, not through water and not through works. (Acts 10:34-48) According to the scriptures, the determination of who is deserving of being called "faithful" is made by God alone, which only makes sense. After all, he is adopting them.
Nevertheless, when YOU did not know God, then it was that YOU slaved for those who by nature are not gods. But now that YOU have come to know God, or rather now that YOU have come to be known by God, how is it that YOU are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? YOU are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. I fear for YOU, that somehow I have toiled to no purpose respecting YOU.
If someone returns to the "elementary things" they slave for whom, according to Paul? He says those who "by nature are not gods." In other words, they slave for men. Paul's fear was that if these Galatians were enslaved again to codified law that betrays the purpose of Christ's sacrifice, it would render all his work in their behalf useless.
Brothers, I beg YOU, Become as I am, because I used to be also as YOU are. YOU did me no wrong. But YOU know that it was through a sickness of my flesh I declared the good news to YOU the first time. And what was a trial to YOU in my flesh, YOU did not treat with contempt or spit at in disgust; but YOU received me like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus. Where, then, is that happiness YOU had? For I bear YOU witness that, if it had been possible, YOU would have gouged out YOUR eyes and given them to me. Well, then, have I become YOUR enemy because I tell YOU the truth? They zealously seek YOU, not in a fine way, but they want to shut YOU off [from me], that YOU may zealously seek them. However, it is fine for YOU to be zealously sought for in a fine cause at all times, and not only when I am present with YOU, my little children, with whom I am again in childbirth pains until Christ is formed in YOU. But I could wish to be present with YOU just now and to speak in a different way, because I am perplexed over YOU.
Paul encouraged the Galatians to become as he was. He acknowledged that he used to slave for men, too. But he says the men who now seek them out, seek to shut them off from him. He expresses pained confusion over them, because he does not understand how they can have tasted the freedom of Christ and once again long for enslavement to men.
How many times since 1950 would you guess we have analyzed the book of Galatians in the Watchtower study? How many times has there been a three-article discussion of the book? Would it surprise you that there have only been two articles discussing this entire book since 1950? Neither of them are study articles.
What is the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (formerly Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) trying to shut you off from? They do not discuss this book beyond brief quotes and selected verses that do not conflict with their doctrine. I believe this is an intentional oversight.
In the most recent article, (w82 11/15 pp. 28-30 Paul’s Letter to the Galatians--A Message of Good News) they treat Galatians chapter 3 in one paragraph. One paragraph for possibly the most remarkable chapter in the entire Bible.
The older of the two, (w76 6/1 pp. 333-335 Paul Urges Galatians: 'Stand Fast in Christian Freedom') treats Galatians chapter 3 in two paragraphs. You can determine for yourself why they omitted any mention of the existence of verse 15. My opinion is that the proscription against attaching any additions to it would pretty much invalidate any authority to teach new doctrine. Why do you think they omitted it?
Tell me, YOU who want to be under law, Do YOU not hear the Law? For example, it is written that Abraham acquired two sons, one by the servant girl and one by the free woman; but the one by the servant girl was actually born in the manner of flesh, the other by the free woman through a promise. These things stand as a symbolic drama; for these [women] mean two covenants, the one from Mount Si'nai, which brings forth children for slavery, and which is Ha'gar. Now this Ha'gar means Si'nai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Hagar means the mother of natural Israel. Jerusalem represents the mother of those who are freed. Who is your mother? Take care, now. There are only two options given. One is the mother of those who receive the spirit, and they are free. The other is the representative of those born under law, they are slaves. Which are you, a slave to man's law or are you really freed?
For it is written: "Be glad, you barren woman who does not give birth; break out and cry aloud, you woman who does not have childbirth pains; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than [those] of her who has the husband." Now we, brothers, are children belonging to the promise the same as Isaac was. But just as then the one born in the manner of flesh began persecuting the one born in the manner of spirit, so also now. Nevertheless, what does the Scripture say? "Drive out the servant girl and her son, for by no means shall the son of the servant girl be an heir with the son of the free woman." Wherefore, brothers, we are children, not of a servant girl, but of the free woman.
Well, which are you children of? Only two choices are given.
For such freedom Christ set us free. Therefore stand fast, and do not let yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery.
Were you set free? For what freedom were you set free? If you were not set free from codified law and from legalistic requirements as prerequisites for God's approval, then what were you freed from? Nowhere in this letter does Paul mention being freed from false religious beliefs. He focuses on being freed from a codified means of gaining God's approval.
Paul says that we are at risk of being confined again, once freed. That our standing fast is against this possibility, against false teachings of a particular sort—the kind that would rob us of the freedom that belongs to the children of God.
See! I, Paul, am telling YOU that if YOU become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to YOU. Moreover, I bear witness again to every man getting circumcised that he is under obligation to perform the whole Law. YOU are parted from Christ, whoever YOU are that try to be declared righteous by means of law; YOU have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. For our part we by spirit are eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness as a result of faith. For as regards Christ Jesus neither circumcision is of any value nor is uncircumcision, but faith operating through love [is].
Is circumcision the issue, or a symptom of the real issue? Paul says that circumcision or uncircumcision is immaterial. If you want to be circumcised for health reasons or because you prefer circumcision, go for it. It is of no spiritual consequence whether you do or not. But, he cautions, if you do it because of trying to be declared righteous by works of the law you invalidate the sacrifice of Christ and have parted from him. You have fallen away from grace (undeserved kindness). He emphasizes again the need for faith operating through love.
YOU were running well. Who hindered YOU from keeping on obeying the truth? This sort of persuasion is not from the One calling YOU. A little leaven ferments the whole lump. I am confident about YOU who are in union with [the] Lord that YOU will not come to think otherwise; but the one who is causing YOU trouble will bear [his] judgment, no matter who he may be. As for me, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? Then, indeed, the stumbling block of the torture stake has been abolished. I wish the men who are trying to overturn YOU would even get themselves emasculated.
What persuasion was not from the one calling the Galatians? Persuausion toward what? What was it that fermented the lump? Was it the teaching of circumcision that was the leaven, or was it what that teaching represented that was the leaven? For those who have overturned you, I wish the exact same thing Paul wished on those who emphasized adeherence to any codified law as the means to gain God's approval. I wish they would get themselves emasculated. Abraham had no such law, and he was counted righteous by faith.
YOU were, of course, called for freedom, brothers; only do not use this freedom as an inducement for the flesh, but through love slave for one another. For the entire Law stands fulfilled in one saying, namely: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." If, though, YOU keep on biting and devouring one another, look out that YOU do not get annihilated by one another.
Do not harm one another. Simple. However, Paul did not regard those who were trying to overturn the Galatians as his brothers or his neighbors. Neither did he recognize those who advocated adherence to codified laws as brothers of Christ or sons of God. Instead, he said such ones made the sacrifice of Christ ineffectual for themselves. Those who are brothers of Christ and sons of God should avoid devouring one another with biting words, but that does not include avoiding honest examination of teachings in comparison to God's word.
But I say, Keep walking by spirit and YOU will carry out no fleshly desire at all. For the flesh is against the spirit in its desire, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, so that the very things that YOU would like to do YOU do not do. Furthermore, if YOU are being led by spirit, YOU are not under law.
If you are truly led by spirit, do you need constant reminders of what to do and what not to do? If you are led by spirit, are you subject to codified laws? If you meditate on this honestly, I believe you will come to an accurate understanding of what Paul is saying here.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God's kingdom.
Did Paul say not to do any of these? Did he say, "Do not commit fornication?" No. He simply said that these works are contrary to the spirit and that those practicing them will not inherit the Kingdom.
On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. Moreover, those who belong to Christ Jesus impaled the flesh together with its passions and desires.
Show me love. Show me faith. Show me kindness. Show me joy. Show me respect. You cannot, for each of these are internal qualities. They each have recognizable outward expressions that defy explanation in human terms, some of the effects can be described but not the qualities themselves. Examples of the works produced by these inward qualities can be pointed to, but any of these works can come from other motives as well. When it comes to the fruitage of Holy Spirit, you can identify who does not have holy spirit far more easily than those who do have it.
If we are living by spirit, let us go on walking orderly also by spirit. Let us not become egotistical, stirring up competition with one another, envying one another.
Why would Paul caution, in this context, against becoming egotistical? Well, how did he describe those who would be perverting the truth? They want to be zealously sought. For what? For their perverted version of the good news. What characterizes a perverted version of the good news?
It emphasizes works to the extent of minimizing the fact that the only proper motive for works is faith through love. Indeed, it completely ignores that Abraham was counted righteous by faith that motivated works. Faith never arises from works. Works arise from faith. One cannot prove their faith, it is an impossibility. But they are proved faithless if they adhere to codified law of man instead of to the leadings of the spirit.
Brothers, even though a man takes some false step before he is aware of it, YOU who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness, as you each keep an eye on yourself, for fear you also may be tempted. Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and thus fulfill the law of the Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving his own mind. But let each one prove what his own work is, and then he will have cause for exultation in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. For each one will carry his own load.
In context, what false step is Paul cautioning against? What is the bulk of this letter about? What spiritual pitfall is the overriding concern of Paul in this letter, that he has repeatedly cautioned the Galatians against? Falling again into slavery to codified law, imagining that it will lead to salvation.
So when he says "keep an eye on yourself, for fear you also may be tempted," what is he afraid they may be tempted by? Well, in context he wasn't talking about fornication. He was talking about high-mindedness, setting themselves up over their brothers and sisters, comparing their brothers and sisters unfavorably to themselves. Such ones would be characterized by being much more concerned with the behavior of their fellowmen than they are with their own spiritual development. Instead of growing spiritually, these would be pointing out the spiritual shortcomings of others.
They would also seek prominence in the congregation and to be spoken of well by others for all that they do. Their works would stand as sole proof of their faith, their spirit would be absent evidence of their being led by God's spirit.
Moreover, let anyone who is being orally taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such oral teaching.
Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap; because he who is sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh, but he who is sowing with a view to the spirit will reap everlasting life from the spirit. So let us not give up in doing what is fine, for in due season we shall reap if we do not tire out. Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to [us] in the faith.
God is not one to be mocked. What we sow, we individually answer for. To the congregation? No. To whom, then? To God.
If we determine to do good, we individually determine that. Doing good because someone else tells you to is not going to reap good. It is the viewpoint that matters. If you do anything because a human said to do it, you are sowing with a view to the flesh. What is good? Is what the Watchtower says to do good? What if its standard changes, did good change? Never may that be true.
Okay, granted maybe the writers occasionally misunderstand what good is. Does their writing that a thing is good prove its goodness? No. According to the scriptures, does their incessant telling of others what to do encourage or discourage spiritual growth?
God is not one to be mocked. You cannot fake God out. If you sow with a view to the flesh in false hopes that obeying codified laws of man will win you salvation, you will reap corruption from the flesh.
SEE with what large letters I have written YOU with my own hand.
All those who want to make a pleasing appearance in the flesh are the ones that try to compel YOU to get circumcised, only that they may not be persecuted for the torture stake of the Christ, Jesus. For not even do those who are getting circumcised keep the Law themselves, but they want YOU to be circumcised that they may have cause for boasting in YOUR flesh. Never may it occur that I should boast, except in the torture stake of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been impaled to me and I to the world. For neither is circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision, but a new creation [is something]. And all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct, upon them be peace and mercy, even upon the Israel of God.
Henceforth let no one be making trouble for me, for I am carrying on my body the brand marks [of a slave] of Jesus.
The undeserved kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with the spirit YOU [show], brothers. Amen.
Not even those telling you to keep clean from the sin of deception keep clean from this sin themselves. Not even those telling you to keep free from all voluntary political involvements keep free from such involvements themselves. Not even those who decry the Catholic Church for covering up molestation keep free from covering up molestation themselves. This sort of persuasion is not from the one calling you. If a little leaven ferments the whole lump, what happens when the lump is mostly leavened, especially when right and wrong are decided by a 2/3 majority?
Can a leavened lump be cleaned of leaven, or must the entire lump be thrown out? Ask a baker.
I hope you enjoyed this commentary. PMs and comments welcome.
Respectfully,
OldSoul