Thoughts for a Dying World

Link to the Law Blawg

2011-01-18T20:54:00.003-06:00

An article about "school choice" in the public school realm, and how it really doesn't exist in Illinois, but might be coming into fashion across the state line in Indiana.

http://jrusslaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/school-law-what-if-i-want-to-send-my.html

Taking a new look at Scripture

2011-01-17T11:46:00.000-06:00

My Bible translation of choice for many, many years has been the New International Version. I always felt it was a solid translation, using modern language to accurately reflect original meaning. For a time, it was the choice for most of evangelical Christendom.

But then came the controversy. In 1997,the NIV's publisher, Zondervan, attempted to revise the translation with a view towards political correctness. The publisher south to make the NIV gender-neutral by often getting rid of "man," "he," "brothers," and so on -- a seeming attempt to pander to the political left. The evangelical world reacted violently. As WORLD Magazine pointed out recently, the NIV was then the most trusted Bible in America, with slightly over a 50 percent of the market share. Many evangelicals felt betrayed when a small committee seemed to secretly made changes that appealed to feminists. WORLD Magazine, which broke this story, took to calling this "new and improved" translation the "Stealth Bible."

Zondervan reacted to these waves of negative publicity, and put the plans to edit the NIV on hold. Eventually, the publisher tried to have its cake and eat it too -- an advertising campaign began pledging to maintain the NIV as it was (as if some outside force had started the trouble), but then Zondervan published the new translation as a separate edition -- a gender-neutral TNIV (the T standing for "Today's"). The result was really a failure in both instances. The TNIV did not sell at all, and the NIV's market share is now probably less than half what it was in 1997. I guess it was sort of like the new "Coke." It doesn't pay to mess with success.

But now, in late 2010, WORLD Magazine reported that Zondervan has released online a new NIV, after spending a year preparing the way. This time Zondervan was open about its plans. This time its affiliated "Committee on Bible Translation" reached out to critics and solicited their input. This time the "Stealth Bible's" leading critic, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), praised "significant improvements." Partly because of those better processes and results, there's little fire this time.

Of course, there are criticisms of the new translation -- but I don't want to look at that. I want to look at a revision the 2010 edition of the NIV made that actually makes the meaning of one of the most beloved verses in the bible clearer -- at least to me.

The verse I speak of is Philippians 4:13. Back when I first became a committed Christian back in the 1970s, the Bible translation of choice among my peers was the New American Standard Version of the Bible. In that version, the verse read:

“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”

My Christian friends and I, in our youth and exuberance, all claimed this as a mantra of triumph and victory – we can do ALL things. Just believe. It will happen! Not some things, or most things – but ALL THINGS!

The former NIV translation was a little more subtle, but still very useful for those of us with “name it/claim it” inclinations.

“I can do everything through Him who gives me strength.”

The new, 2010 release of the NIV makes what appears to be a pretty radical change.

“I can do all this through him who gives me strength.”

“All this?” What does it mean by “this?”

Even when put in the context of the passage, the original NAS translation can’t possibly mean victory and the ability to overcome in any circumstance. At least not in the way I have perceived "victory" and "overcoming." The context is Paul explaining the need to content in any circumstance. Verse 13 sums up the passage – we can indeed come to the point where we are content in all circumstances, even what appears to be dire, awful circumstances, through Christ who strengthens us.

Indeed, the original language also implies it. It literally means “all things” but implies a collective concept. When it says "all," it means "all," as in "some of all types," not just the thing upon which I am focusing in the here and now. In connection with the other verses around this one, it means "all things that are pleasing to God". What we can do (in the context of verse 13), the "all " that this verse encompasses, are the things that Christ empowers us to do. We can’t do it on our own – it’s not our strength. The Amplified Version says that “I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him who infuses inner strength to me, [that is, I am self sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency].”

So what Philippians 4:13 is really talking about is contentment in Christ, and needing strength from Christ in order to be content, not carte blanche to overcome difficulty. We used to use that verse to as a prayer to command the spirit world to give us what we perceived God wanted us to have – victory, health, success, prosperity etc. When what it really means is we are willing to be content in whatever God has for us.

Boy do I have a long way to go to come to grips with that. But it certainly makes more sense than me trying to quote the verse at the sky, demanding that God prosper my business, and then being angry at him when I don’t see results on my timetable. I need to grasp the concept that God wants me to be content with the little I currently have, and he’ll give me the strength, ability, and inner fortitude to be self sufficient in THAT, and that alone.

And that revelation, to me, is worth the concept of discovering it in the midst of this new translation.

Relating to Elijah: Dealing with Bad News, Feeling Like Giving Up, and the Steady Provision of God

2011-01-17T08:47:00.000-06:00

Last Tuesday morning, the news in my world that I faced as I got out of bed was not particularly good.

I went to work out at the Community Center. While walking the treadmill, the TV monitor was on, and I got to soak in all the wonderful economic news our region is dealing with.

And by "wonderful," I am being extremely sarcastic.

First, it was the top headline here in Chicago: In the wee hours of the morning, the lame-duck Illinois Legislature had approved what is ostensibly the biggest tax increase in our state's history. The Illinois income tax is going up 67 percent. Worse is the business/corporate taxes. The combined federal and state business taxes males Illinois one of the most expensive states in the US to do business in.

For those of us living, earning, and doing business here in the southern suburbs of Chicago, its as if the Legislature has thrown a drowning man an anvil instead of a life preserver. This is extremely frustrating. I understand the need to try and close the gap on the State's budget deficit. I understand that the State needs to pay its bills. But this really misses the mark. I don't want this discussion to get too political, but the major beneficiaries of this tactic are special interests like the state employee pension plan. There are promises of money for education, but the legislature refused to pass the increase in the cigarette tax, the one concept that guaranteed increased funding for education. And by not going the whole way to the proposed 75% increase, the entities that depend on state funding to survive (like nursing homes that provide care to Medicaid recipients) will not be getting the money promised to them. The practical reality for this region is this -- we are already hemorrhaging. Our unemployment rate is two to three points above national averages. Businesses are closing left and right. And right across the state line, in Indiana, is a much more palatable business environment. Businesses and jobs will be leaving the state in droves. Local commentator John Kass has wondered if the legislature has included the cost of the razor wire fence that will be needed to keep businesses in the state.

Then, as the news progressed, there was a round-table discussion about the economic forecast for the coming year. It was dire. Unemployment to reach new heights by the spring. Record numbers of businesses closing. Record numbers of bankruptcies. Real Estate continuing to decline. It was, to be blunt, a pretty dismal discussion.

Then I started my workday. Business has been pretty slow for me lately. Combined with increased frustration relating to office equipment and my own sense of foreboding as I tackle project after project dealing concepts I have never done before, or haven't done for over ten years, and anger and depression begins to set in. I feel like I need primal scream therapy as I try and sort out bad internet connections, trying to installing software on my new laptop when I'm not sure what I'm doing, having a "smartphone" that should be renamed the "not so smart phone." More frustrations than I can shake a stick at.

And then the depression sets in. Like a black cloud. All this effort. All this capital. Every fiber of my being invested in this concept of being an "entrepreneur." Trying to make a living. For what? There is hardly any business. What little business I have produces an income that is a mere fraction of what I used to make. I've been at this now for two years, and nothing seems to change. And then with this news, it seems pointless to continue.

Many of my friends try to encourage me by reminding me that God is good. Look at all the blessings he's provided for me. God has given me obvious successes. Things may seem tough now, but they'll turn around. I recognize that, but sometimes, this heaviness, the fallout from the day to day struggle is just so hard to resist. It is like a deep darkness that settles over me, and I feel like I'm disappearing. As I keep figuratively banging my head against the wall, I get tired. Very, very, very tired. I want to pull the covers over my head and disappear from existence. I just want to give up.

And then, as i cracked open my bible, and read about a man who was having a similar day to mine.

My devotional reading took me to 1 Kings 19. Its the middle of an extended narrative about the life of the Prophet Elijah.

Elijah was a prophet who was always on the run. He confronted one of the most vile, evil regimes to rule Israel in those times, King Ahab and his wife Jezebel. Ahab's father Omri had sought to cement an alliance with the northern kingdom of Israel and the surrounding pagan powers by pairing his son with a foreign princess, the daughter of the King of Sidon who was also a priestess of Baal. When she came to keep house with Ahab, she brought with her a huge entourage of priests and prophets of Baal and Ashteroth, the most popular pagan deities of the time. The worship of Yahweh was forced underground. Elijah, by standing up for who God was, was truly counter cultural -- preaching the truth to a society that had rejected God. Indeed, Elijah's name means "Yahweh is my God."

Elijah appeared out of nowhere to confront the King and his sin. He boldly predicted the drought that would grip the nation. He was forced into hiding, but God miraculously provided for him -- he lived in the wilderness, fed by ravens. Through him, God had miraculously provided oil for the widow of Zarephath, and raised her son from the dead.

Then came what is ostensibly his greatest triumph -- the confrontation on Mt. Carmel. The story is well known. Two altars were built -- one for Baal, one for the Lord. Elijah's challenge was simple -- the followers of each God would pray for fire to fall from heaven and consume the sacrifice on that God's altar. When the fire fell, it would prove which God was real.

The priests of Baal danced, sang, prayed, and even cut and mutilated their own bodies for blood to flow on the sacrifice. All day, until the sun was setting, they continued. Of course, there was no response. After ordering the Lord's altar drenched in water, Elijah prayed, and the fire fell from the sky, consuming the sacrifice. Elijah seized the moment, declaring that the prophets of Baal should be killed on the spot, and prayed for an end to the drought, and the rain began to fall.

This would seem to be Elijah's moment of greatest success, yet, it doesn't turn out that way. Here's what happened next:

"Now Ahab told Jezebel everything Elijah had done and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword. So Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah to say, “May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your life like that of one of them.” Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, LORD,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep. All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.

The angel of the LORD came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God." (1 Kings 19: 1-8)

Its an amazing story, yet, one I easily identify with. Elijah had indeed just experienced a great triumph. His blessings were many. The success God had brought to him were clear. But, this was also the first time he had been confronted directly by the evil Queen Jezebel. She promised to kill him, with a solemn oath. He had been living "life on the run," and had been getting by with very little. Considering the track record of how often the King's administration, or even the people generally, had embraced or even bothered to pay attention to what he was saying, well, discouragement was probably his usual reaction. So even in the wake of a heady victory, when trouble reared up, the difficulties overshadowed the triumph.

Indeed, the contrast is striking. As soon as this threat appeared, as soon as trouble showed up, Elijah lost sight of the victory and the blessing, and was consumed with discouragement and depression. I am sure the death threat was just he topper to a series of discouragements that became a weight to him, so that even in that glorious triumph on Mt. Carmel, the constant drip of rejection and disappointment was too much for Elijah to bear.

Its as if he was thinking, "See? Even when good things happen, the pattern of my life continues." I so identify with this. I have experienced so much of God's blessings during the last two years, yet, getting smacked in the face over and over again with discouragement and uncertainty causes me to lose heart. Our psyches and souls can be so very, very fragile. I can't tell you how often I have felt like Elijah -- sitting under that tree after another disappointment, wishing I could die.

But the greatest encouragement in all of this is the way that God deals with Elijah after he falls asleep beneath the broom tree. God doesn't rebuke him. Elijah is not rejected. God does not consider Elijah unusable. Indeed, God doesn't say anything at all. God understands where Elijah is at -- He understands how spiritually bone-weary Elijah is. So he kindly and gently provides the thing that Elijah needs the most at that point. A meal. And he allows him to rest. Then, he makes sure Elijah gets a second helping.

Because we know what is going to happen next, we see what God is doing here. God knows there's a lot of work to be done. God knows the enemies are powerful and numerous. God knows the journey will be long and hard. So He sends his angel to Elijah to make sure he has not one, but two helpings of a nourishing, home cooked meal, so he can be ready for the journey ahead. God met Elijah right were he was -- discouraged, hopeless, too tired to continue -- and provided just what he needed to be revitalized.

I can't tell you how many times I have in a place like Elijah's broom tree in the wilderness, and God has brought me angelic provision. It sometimes has been miraculous, like an anonymous gift to meet a financial need. Sometimes its been the support and encouragement of our friends. Sometimes its that phone call from a new client, just when I thought there wasn't going to be enough business to make it. Sometimes its just the Lord, shining his light of truth into my brain like he did here. Even in the midst of abject discouragement and bone weary tiredness, God is there to take my hand.

Philippians 4:19 says "my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus." I often perceive that my needs need to be met according to my own design. But when my body, mind, and spirit are tired and sagging, God graciously provides the nourishment I need. My own resources are limited. Dare I say, bankrupt? Yet God, in His grace, supplies me with bountiful resources that are more than sufficient.

Like Elijah, I am on a journey. I suppose I will continue to have "broom tree" episodes. I will face bad news, discouragement, and threats again and again. I will again feel like giving up. But God will be there, providing all I need -- according to the riches of his glory.

It doesn't make the bad news any better. But it does give me strength. And hope. Hope that I can also continue to have Mt. Horeb episodes (see 1 Kings 19: 9-15), where I meet the Lord face to face, and hear what he has for me.

A Meditation on American History and the Power of a Paralyzing Past

2011-01-11T10:42:00.002-06:00

She was 65 years of age. Yet, it still haunted her. It was like a poison that made life bitter.

She had been married at the age of 22. Now, four decades later, her very existence seemed overshadowed by something that had occurred right after the wedding.

Looking back, she said, “I felt all the honest pride of my soul was laid low forever.”

She had written it all down on paper, reflecting back on her long life; in an essay she called “Adventures of a Nobody.” In it she wrote this bitter sentence: “It is 43 years since I became a wife and yet the rankling sore is not healed which then broke upon my heart of hearts, it was the blight of every future prospect and has hung like an incubus upon my spirit.”

An incubus is a form of demon, by the way – a legendary devil that preys on people while they sleep, causing horrific nightmares. Louisa let this demon, this nightmare, this ”blight, this “rankling sore” fester in her life for 43 years.

I suppose this is not an uncommon situation. Think about our own lives. How about you? Is there some “rankling sore” somewhere in your own past that continues to trouble you, even paralyze your life, today?

Louisa’s story is true, found hidden in the pages of American History.

Louisa was born in London to a wealthy American businessman who had married an English wife. She was raised in France, and there, when she was only four years old, she met for the first time her future husband, an American boy named John, who was traveling with his father. At the time, John was only 12.

Louisa’s family returned to England, and when she was 22 she married John; and it was no ordinary marriage. Louisa’s wealthy father was the American consul in London – the equivalent today to the Ambassador, and John’s father was the President of the United States. The wedding was held on July 26th, 1797.

It appeared to be a fairy tale match. The daughter of a prominent family married the man who was ostensibly the most eligible bachelor in the country. He was handsome, smart, and extremely gifted, having already achieved great things for the country in the Foreign Service as a consul or ambassador to Russia, France, the Netherlands, and England. He was a rising star on the American political and social scene, and, even more importantly, was the son of the second President.

You would think with all this going for her, and the reality of how most of her life actually turned out, the expectation was nothing but “happily ever after.” But the carriage suddenly turned to a pumpkin. Her father’s business failed. The family was bankrupt. Louisa suddenly had no dowry. Scandalous rumors sprang up all over the country. Tongues were wagging. Perhaps she had lured John Quincy Adams into a rushed marriage under false pretenses.

Later, at the age of 50, at a time when her husband had been elected President (making her the only foreign born First Lady in the history of the United States), Louisa still agonized over it. Listen to what she wrote in this memoir to her children: “Conceive my dear sons the shock I underwent, every appearance was against me; actions proceeding from the most innocent causes looked the deliberate plans to deceive…”

Interestingly enough, this event in Louisa’s life is only mentioned in passing in David McCullough’s best selling biography of Louisa’s father in law, John Adams, and only to mention that Adams, as President, had given Louisa’s father a governmental appointment to assist the family. But Cokie Roberts shared Louisa’s version of the story in her book “Ladies of Liberty,” and she came to this conclusion about Louisa Adams: “This was a woman who clearly saw every ounce of pride slip down the drain with her father’s fortunes.”

How sad. Louisa Adams let an incident she was not responsible for poison her life – an event that even the rest of her family, including her famous father in law, really didn’t hold against her or her family. But even if the event that had haunted her and purportedly ruined her reputation had not been her fault, she didn’t need to let her past control her like that.

Now what about the rest of us? Are there “rankling sores” from our past that continue to haunt us today? I know this has happened to me – embarrassing moments from my childhood, misunderstandings that made me want to bury myself in a hole, stupid things I’ve done – these have all stayed with me way past their “expiration date” and often hinder my ability to advance. Indeed, my recent struggles with losing my job and trying to start my own business feel like one disappointment after another, as I struggle with my own sense of worth and purpose.

The Apostle Paul struggled with similar issues. Or at least he could have. He persecuted and even killed Christians before becoming one himself. At several points in his writings in the New Testament, Paul makes note of his past and the reputation it left him. It could have become a chain around his neck and caused him suffering that could have stunted his Christian ministry all his life and in his case it was his own doing.

But this is what Paul had to say about the attitude he took about the things in his past. He wrote in Philippians 3, “Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”

It’s a pretty radical concept for ordinary folks like me, but he said, “…one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind…”

It’s hard to say what Louisa Adams would have done with that advice. She had a lot of other things she suffered through – miscarriages; children who died; long, lonely stints living overseas in foreign countries while her young children stayed stateside in order to be educated. She was a brave woman who endured a lot to support her husband. But could she have overcome this darkness, this “demon?” Could that have helped her better cope with these other trials? Would forgiving her father, and forgiving HERSELF set her free? Would she have had a better relationship with her husband, had a better family life? Would she have been more of a service to her country (and to her husband) as the First Lady? We will never know. But from her own pen, we know that she suffered immeasurably all her life because of one incident in her past.

What about me? What about all of us? Have things in our past laid us low and kept us there? De we believe this is our destiny, our calling in this life?

Not on your life. If you are truly born again, truly a Christian, then you are a child of God, and the future is bright.

Second Corinthians 5:17 says: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.”

If you have sinned, come to Jesus for forgiveness. If others have sinned against you, then with Jesus’ help, forgive them.

Then follow the advice of Philippians chapter three: forget what is in the past, and press on toward what God has for you in the future.

Let Him who began a good work in you carry it on to completion.

The Christian pop singer Chris Tomlin has recorded an updated version of the hymn “Amazing Grace,” which contains a new chorus: “My chains are gone. I’ve been set free. My God, my Savior has ransomed me.”

Don’t let the past paralyze you, the way it did for Louisa Adams.

I pray that as we begin this new year, I want to forget the past and press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus!

Christmas a Day Late

2010-12-26T17:18:00.000-06:00

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Trying to type/blog anything about Christmas before Christmas was just not in the cards for me. Between last minute "before holiday" stuff I had to finish in my business, preparing and presenting the "Christmas Sermon" at church last Wednesday, rehearsals/memorizing lines for our new year's eve production, and all the general busyness of getting ready with my family to celebrate the holiday on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, well -- no time to sit at the computer and think deep thoughts. And even when I now have a chance to type out these thoughts, I am unfortunately a victim of my own capriciousness. Please forgive me for the scattershot nature of these thoughts.

But on the morning of Christmas Eve, I saw a news article on potential scientific explanations for the Star of Bethlehem, and it got me thinking about some things. About how Jesus, as the Son of God, as the Lord of the Universe, as the "Word made flesh" (see my note from last year on the subject, which was the topic of my Christmas Sermon, at http://soxfan59.xanga.com/718775201/what-christmas-means-to-me----/) chose to reveal himself to the world, both at the time he was born and down through history.

Jesus' entry into our world was a bit of a paradox. He was God, created the world (see John 1), and was truly the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords." But he did not enter the world in a way in which the people of his time would have expected a King, let alone God, would have presented Himself to us. Instead of grandness, power, and glory, Jesus entered the world in humility, poverty, and obscurity. (See Philippians 2:5-8). People who were not paying attention to the subtle cues that were given missed it completely. And that meant most of the people of Jesus day.

Then again, sometimes the clues were not so subtle, but were meant for a select audience. For example, the Shepherds mentioned in Luke 2.

We don't know much about the shepherds, but from their reaction to what happened, I presume they were a lot like many of the rural, farm-community folks I know here in the U.S. Hard working, frugal, and devout. Working so hard, they had to stay up all night in order to take care of the sheep. Rough around the edges, perhaps, but basically faithful, patriotic citizens of Israel who were, deep down, hoping for the coming of the Messiah and the deliverance he would bring. Many of them may have been a little more than rough at the edges -- as a rough a life as being poor and dependent on the agricultural industry of the ancient world probably led to as many hard drinking, hard living types as we would find in any American community today. They were sinners, imperfect, and I bet they knew it. Yet, their cultural values were probably honorable -- they just lacked a real connection to God, a connection that went beyond culture, ethics, or family ties.

And then, as they were working one night, the sky is split by an other-worldly light, and an army of angels appears in clouds around them singing. They are told that the hope of the universe, the fulfillment of their hopes and dreams as a nation, as a culture, and as individuals is wrapped in a blanket, sleeping in an farm animal's feeding trough in a cow stall back in the center of a backwoods town not far away. Then they go check it out, find its true, and their lives are transformed with hope, and they spread the news to anyone that will hear.

The shepherds' first encounter with Jesus -- with the real, living, personal Jesus, the "Word made flesh" (see John 1:14) -- was a supernatural experience. I wonder how many people, both then and today. miss out on encountering the reality of who Jesus is and what he would mean in their lives because they can't deal with the supernatural, or aren't willing to move beyond an intellectual approach to their faith. I think there are many times God offers us supernatural "moments," opportunities when he opens up the sky for us, even in subtle ways, to reveal the reality of who He is, and we aren't willing to accept it, or pay attention to it.

I met Jesus for the first time in a manner quite similar to the shepherds. I was raised in the church, immersed in its culture, and trying my best to be devout. I was also, though, a little rough around the edges. I had done some things that I was rather ashamed of, and had helped cement a sense of separation from God. I was still trying though, thinking that if I worked at it hard enough, I'd have some sort of breakthrough and be right with God. But my "faith journey" at that time was very much on hold, very much void of positive results, sort of like the shepherds, just waiting there in the dark, not knowing if anything would happen. Then, just like the angels in the fields around Bethlehem, the Holy Spirit suddenly broke into my darkness with the light of the Gospel -- the truth that salvation comes through faith, and my sins were forgiven, and there was a God who wanted to walk with me and make me a new creation. I "ran to meet him" like the Shepherds, and found it all to be true, and like them, my life has never been the same. I found what I was looking for, but only after what I was looking for grabbed me in supernatural power and showed me the way.

I think there are a lot of folks, especially those raised in the church, who miss the supernatural cues,and wind up waiting out in the dark, in the fields, rationalizing away the last few dozen visits from the angels that point the way to the manger.

But its the second half of the Christmas story we all know that got me thinking about this. The other group of strangers who were drawn to seek out the Christ child. They too were drawn by a supernatural event. But it was much more subtle, and appeared to be an even that only they would have noticed.

I am, of course talking about the Magi, the "wise men," who are mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew's telling of the Nativity story.

Unlike the Shepherds, these guys were not "working class." Nor were they even on the radar when it came to the plan of redemption the Messiah of Israel would provide. The Magi were foreigners. Gentiles. Pagans. At heart, enemies of Israel. If they were not polytheists (some historians argue they were Zoroastrians), they believed in a God whose very purpose and concept was at odds with the God of Israel.

The Magi were likely Medes, from the area of the middle east that today is part of Iraq and Iran. They were a class of religious astrologers who brought star gazing, science, and the occult together in a highly specialized art form. These were the ones who were initially asked to interpret the dreams of the Kings of Babylon in the Book of Daniel. They followed the paths of the stars in order to predict the future and interpret the current spiritual condition of the world around them. This type of divination was forbidden by the Mosaic law, and would compare today with what are considered "dark arts," "black magic," or witchcraft. Yet, in the ancient world they were well respected as artisans of their craft, and were world famous for what they did. While some Christian traditions view them as "kings," they were more likely the servants of the kings of the Median and Persian empires of that day, which meant the wealth and power of those ancient kingdoms were probably at their beck and call.

The scriptural account relates that these "wise men" had observed a star in the East which had meant that the "King of the Jews" had been born. In Matthew 2:9, the star "went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was." Modern scholars dismiss this kind of stellar behavior as a myth. But there is some evidence from ancient history that something was afoot in the heavens at that time. Some rare comet activity was reported and an unusually bright assembly of stars was reported by ancient Chinese astronomers. But recently, a British Astronomer named Mark Thompson has reported a particular set of stellar anomalies occurred around the time we believe Jesus was born which could have caught the eyes of the star-gazing Magi.

Thompson says that between September in the year 3 B.C. and May in the year 2 B.C., the planet Jupiter and a star called Regulus passed very close to each other three times. These three “conjunctions” were caused “by an astronomical phenomenon called retrograde motion, in which a planet will appear to stop its normal eastward drift through the night and instead drift back toward the west for a period of several weeks,” according to a report in Britain’s Telegraph. “This happens because the outer planets in our solar system are orbiting the sun at a slower rate than the Earth and so our planet occasionally overtakes them.”

Thompson says that among astronomers, Jupiter is known as the king of planets, and Regulus is known as the king of stars. Their passing so close to each other three times would have been considered highly significant by astronomers of the day.

Thompson says that the retrograde motion would have meant that Jupiter was traveling west, which fits with the description in the Bible that the wise men came from the east.

Interestingly, this would probably mean that the "star of Bethlehem" as we know it today -- this incredibly bright star that would have drawn a lot of attention in the night sky -- was probably not observable to the naked eye, or at least not noticeable to anybody BUT somebody who focused all their attention on the heavens. This would have been like a coded message to the Magi.

And the greatest irony is that any pious Jew of that day would have condemned this kind of practice, not to mention any evangelical Christian of today. Astrology predicting that the Messiah would come? That's as off the charts as finding spiritual messages on a Ouija Board.

Yet, God allowed this, somehow. He sent a supernatural message to a group of pagan people, who were most likely not even remotely interested in searching for the Jewish Messiah, or in offering him homage or worship. But this subtle message, written in the night sky, was as overt a signal to the Magi as the angels were to the shepherds. And because the Magi were apparently morally and ethically committed to whatever religious system would allow for the stars to predict history, they were compelled to travel thousands of miles to find the Christ child, bring him gifts, and worship him as the King of Kings.

I am amazed when I think of this, because I know of people who were like the Magi who ended up being attracted to Jesus. People who came from different cultures and non-Christian faiths who experienced supernatural events that pointed them to consider the message of the gospel. People who had dedicated their lives to hedonism and selfishness, who considered Christianity and faith a load of poppycock, who saw something compelling, either in the Bible, or in something someone said, or an incredible series of circumstances that caused them to conclude that there must be something to the concept that Jesus was the Son of God. People who have had near-death experiences or been under the influence of drugs, and heard the call of God in their "visions," and when they regained consciousness or sobriety realized it really was the God of the Universe calling to them.

As I thought about this, it struck me. There were three audiences who got to worship the Christ before he grew into an adult. There was the captive audience of his family, his mother and the man who would act as his earthly father. The shepherds, working class and rough. And the Magi -- pagans, foreigners, outcasts among the Jews. Not a high class member of Israeli society among them. And, all of them had had a supernatural experience to draw them in to Jesus.

So I think we sometimes need to adjust our focus. The rough and tumble, the people of the street. Those to whom we can't relate or even those we would consider the enemies of the church or Christianity today -- God loves these people as much as he loves any of us. Jesus came to reach them. The Christmas stories in the gospels make this clear.

I must continue to expand my vision as a follower of Christ. I must be open to have people who I would never expect to be interested in Jesus to have such an interest. I must be open to the concept of those who I do not understand, or perhaps don't care for very much, to be called into the Kingdom. And most of all, we cannot brush off the supernatural call of God that makes a personal connection with each of us -- whether it takes shape through biblical prophecy, or seems to rear itself from unexpected sources. The story of the Magi make it clear that God will work to reach people who are open to Him in ways that defy our religious conventions. Jesus, his saving grace and power, and a living relationship with Him goes beyond our expectations.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Illinois Supreme Court determines underage drinkers can't drive under any circumstance

2010-06-25T12:02:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion involving an interpretation of Illinois' very strict law involving under age drinking, which basically provides that if someone under 21 is caught consuming alcohol, their drivers' licenses are automatically suspended. The Court, however, went the extra step and held that even if the drinking offense did not involve the driving of a car, the suspension still applies.

In this case, which consolidated several appeals from the lower courts, involved individuals charged with underage drinking who plead guilty to that offense. No vehicles were involved. The trial court placed each on court supervision for 90 days and then entered an order declaring unconstitutional as applied the statute requiring suspension of a driver’s license on receipt of court supervision for underage drinking, even where no vehicle is involved. It found a due process violation. The Secretary of State brought the direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the finding of statutory unconstitutionality.

In 1989, the Illinois Supreme Court had held unconstitutional a statutory provision calling for revocation of a driver’s license on conviction of certain sex offenses. There, as here, there was no use of a vehicle. In this decision, the supreme court distinguished its earlier ruling, noting that, here, the legislature may have believed that a young person who consumes alcohol illegally may take the additional step of driving after consuming alcohol, and it is reasonable to believe that a young person disobeying the law against underage consumption may also lack the judgment to decline to drive after drinking. Preventing young people from driving after consuming alcohol is unquestionably in the public interest.

The supreme court also held that the obligation imposed here on the Secretary of State to suspend a driver’s license is mandatory, rather than discretionary.

Thus, the circuit court’s holding of statutory unconstitutionality was reversed.

And, the warning is clear. If you are not yet 21 years of age, and are caught drinking in violation of the law, you will lose your drivers' license, regardless of the circumstances.

Serious food for thought for young people in Illinois who might choose to drink, even if they never step behind the wheel of a car.

Legalizing Marijuana -- What would Happen if we did?

2010-06-22T15:15:00.002-05:00

What would happen if marijuana were legal, taxed and regulated just like cigarettes or liquor? I am not necessarily advocating that pot should be readily legal and available, but in today's trying economic times, it could become a reality. Here is a reprint (with some additional comments of my own) from Avvo's "Nakedlaw" website. Read on to find out.

Drug arrests would purportedly drop and prison space would open for violent offenders. As it stands now, there is a drug arrest made every 18 seconds in America. Now, not all of these arrests are marijuana related, and in fact, marijuana arrests have declined. However, there were more than 800,000 pot-related arrests in 2008, and there are still a number of these arrests taking place as we speak. If marijuana were legalized, these drug-related arrests might drop off -- maybe immensely, freeing up jail space and allowing police to focus on violent crimes.
Fewer kids would try marijuana. It may be counter-intuitive, but legalizing marijuana for adults could lead to less pot use by kids. Why? Studies have shown that even though pot is currently illegal, kids find it more easily than beer and cigarettes. (Although if you click on that link it goes to a site sponsored by a group advocating for the legalization of marijuana -- sort of a "slanted source" -- is it reliable?) Legalizing marijuana would put street dealers out of business who don’t care about the age of their customers.
Street violence would drop. According to Jeffrey A. Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University’s economics department, street violence would drop. The problem with pot being illegal is that it forces people to resolve disputes themselves, often with violence. If pot were legal, buyers and sellers could resolve their business disputes just like everyone else — in court. Gang violence, which is due in part to the illegal marijuana trade, would decrease as well.
State governments would have a lot more money. If pot were legal, state governments could heavily tax it just like alcohol and tobacco, creating a new stream of revenue. For example, estimates show California could rake in over $1 billion per year in pot taxes. What’s more, according to The Budgetary Effects of Marijuana Prohibition, taxpayers are spending about $14 billion each year on the war against marijuana. That’s money that would be saved if marijuana were legal.
Accidents and emergency room visits may increase. Although marijuana doesn’t historically conjure up images of wife beating and recklessness like alcohol, it does impair motor skills and judgment, which could lead to more accidents. (Of course, we don't have a history of LEGAL marijuana use, so comparing its potential abuse to alcohol abuse has no logical connection). However, this assumes legalizing marijuana would lead to more people using it, which isn’t necessarily true. In Holland, where marijuana is legal for everyone over 18, the percentage of adults using it is less than half of that in America. Is this just a cultural difference between the Dutch and Americans? Perhaps, but even in Europe, the French, Italians, Spaniards and Britons all use more pot than the Dutch, even though it’s illegal in all those countries.
The price of marijuana would drop and corporations would profit. In areas where medical marijuana is legal, the increased supply has already caused prices to plummet. If pot were legal for everyone, prices would drop even further as large companies grew, cultivated and distributed marijuana on an industrial scale. Such large companies and their shareholders would make billions in additional profit (a part of which goes back to the government in the form of taxes) and they would need to hire more workers. Of course, some small-scale growers could also thrive, much like some microbreweries thrive in the face of Bud Light.
Mexican drug cartels would be crippled. Marijuana accounts for as much as half of Mexican drug cartel revenue, which means legalizing it would cripple their business. This would free up the border patrol, the forest service and local law enforcement to worry about deadly drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin, not to mention terrorism. A financial blow to Mexican drug cartels would also weaken their control over American street and prison gangs.

Until marijuana legalization takes place in the US, we’ll never really know how things will pan out. However, we could get a glimpse of it in November when Californians vote on legalizing marijuana for everyone over 21.

The New Health Care Law and Federalism

2010-03-23T10:13:00.002-05:00

Its almost ironic. Over the past week, leading up to to Sunday, the House of Representatives was debating the details of the new Health Care Act, which passed (barely!) on Sunday. At the same time, I was working with my daughter Cassi as she was studying about the Constitution at school.

In particular, Cassi was participating in a program called "We the People," where students were placed on debate-style teams and assigned a general topic. They would then appear as a panel before judges, and quizzed on their ability to discuss the topic as it related to the Constitution.

Cassi's topic was about how specific constitutional passages have affected the institutions of American Government -- basically, she needed to discuss the concept how the federal government's power to govern has evolved, and how the interpretation of the Constitution has affected specific aspects of government. Not an easy task, to be sure.

In an effort to help Cassi understand these concepts, I tried to bring her back to basic concepts -- Constitutional Law 101, so to speak. The kind of things that the Founding Fathers debated when the Constitution was ratified. The kinds of things that still form the basis for understanding how Federal Government works.

The United States is a "Federal" system. That is, there are two systems of government co-existing over the people of the United States -- the national government, based in Washington, D.C., and the government of each individual state. The overriding, basic understanding of the power of the Federal government, as expressed by the Founding Fathers (e.g. in the Federalist Papers), and by the interpretations of the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court is one of LIMITED, ENUMERATED POWERS. The Federal power is LIMITED, in that the three branches of the Federal government are only allowed to assert those powers specifically granted to them in the Constitution. Federal Power is ENUMERATED, as the powers granted to the national government are specifically listed in the Constitution. For example, most of the powers granted to Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8, and include things like the power to tax, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare war, etc.

Contrast this with the Constitutional understanding of the power of the states' governments. Case law interpreting the Constitution defines State power as "inherent." That is to say, State government would have power and exist even if there was no Federal Constitution, and the State's power is general and not subject to limitation except for specific limitation by the Federal Constitution. This "inherent" authority includes a general "police power," which Courts have defined as the power to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of that State. Thus, an action by a State government is presumed valid under federal law unless it violates some specific limitation imposed on States by the Constitution.

I tried to explain to Cassi that in theory, State power is much broader than Federal power. States have inherent authority to act in any rational way to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their citizens. In contrast, the Federal government action must fall within one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Federal Courts have traditionally held that this means that there is no general Federal "police power." The Federal government technically has no right to regulate the health, safety or general welfare of the people. Each act of Federal legislation or regulation must come from a specific, enumerated power listed in the Constitution (e.g. commerce power, taxing power, spending power etc.). In addition, the Bill of Rights (which was enacted as an effort to further limit Federal Power at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789) specifically provides in the 10th Amendment that powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Please note, however, that I said these concepts exist "in theory." This is because the enumerated powers for Congress in Article I, Section 8 includes the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Untied States." This so-called "necessary and proper" clause has been used by Federal courts to define and shape certain specific "implied powers" of the federal government. Federal legislation and regulation only needs to be rationally related to a constitutionally specified objective, and it will be deemed valid as an extension of the "enumerated powers." For example, this doctrine was defined in the case of McCullough v. Maryland back in 1819, where the establishment of a national bank via federal legislation was upheld. While getting into the banking business is not one of the enumerated powers, the Court determined that chartering a national bank was a rational and valid extension of the power to regulate commerce and raise revenue. Historically, then, when the Courts have interpreted federal legislation, they have usually deferred to Congressional power by connecting legislative purpose to the enumerated powers via the "necessary and proper" clause.

The same is true of the 10th Amendment. Only in rare occasions have the Courts invalidated Federal legislation on the grounds that it is interfering with powers that belong specifically to the States. There was a time in the early 20th century when the Supreme Court might have struck down legislation that interfered with a State's internal police power (e.g. wage and hour laws were once viewed this way), this has been engulfed by "necessary and proper." In addition, the Court has also viewed the concept that procedural safeguards built into the federal system (things like equal representation in the Senate, and state control over the structures of federal elections) mean that the structure of the federal system is designed to protect State interests.

As I looked at some of the details of the new Health Care Act, it all fit into these concepts of federalism. . . and made me think that Congress and the President may have given us legislation that has overstepped the boundaries of federal authority.

Two things in the new law look to me like they are at least arguably unconstitutional.

One is the concept that everyone will be required to purchase health insurance. The other is making the State governments liable for many of the financial and insurance related liabilities built into the plan.

I can see a valid argument being made that requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance as falling outside of the enumerated powers. Some people will argue that this is no different than being forced to have auto insurance, or paying for Medicare or Medicaid. But it is. First off, required auto insurance only kicks in if you drive a car and have a drivers' license. Thus, its rationally connected to the use of an auto and driving on the roads. Plus, its a STATE requirement. State governments have a general police power -- the feds do not. If I am forced to buy health insurance, but never need to go see a doctor, well, it would be like requiring people who don't have drivers' licenses to buy auto insurance. Thus, there is arguably no rational relation to one of the enumerated powers.

The comparison to Medicare and Medicaid, or Social Security, even, does not work as well. These serve, in essence, as taxes. The Federal government has determined that these concepts and services are necessary (and they arguably fit into the enumerated powers, or at least have been determined to be so by the Courts), and that through the taxing power, they need to be funded. I may not like this as a citizen, but I can't object, because these regulations pass Constitutional muster as a valid extension of the taxing power. But requiring me to purchase insurance is different. Its not a tax. Its a contractual relationship. Also, there will come a time when I will reach an age when I automatically qualify for the benefits of the aforementioned programs funded by taxes. I may never come to use the insurance policy. Again, there is not the same rational relationship to a constitutional objective.

In addition, the provisions of the law that require certain state action and responsibility could run afoul of the 10th Amendment. In several recent cases, the Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot require States to enact a certain statute, or regulate in a specific manner. Congress does not have the power to "commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." (New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

It does seem ironic. Simple, basic principles of Constitutional law -- principles high school students are learning about as a foundation to understand how our government works. These simple principles could be used to unravel the new Health Care system. There are already talks of legal actions to thwart the enactment of the law. At least 30 states are planning on enacting their own legislation to oppose certain aspects of the law. We could see McCullough v. Maryland revisited in a modern setting, but with a different result.

While I sympathize with the concept of reforming our health care system, the over-broad concept the Obama administration has taken has given its opponents the tools to take it down, and possibly turn back the clock to a time when Federal power was much less extensive. The most comprehensive federal entitlement program in history, including social security, could be brought down or significantly limited -- because the Obama administration insisted this had to be the way to do it, a less extensive overhaul would not work.

This almost arrogant commitment to a liberal ideology that does not mesh with most of America could be a disaster. The question is -- will the voters respond? Will the courts act in a way like I have outlined here? Time will tell. But it is ironic -- the nature of our Federal system, which was designed to limit federal power, may actually work the way its was designed. And Cassi and her high school classmates may get a civics lesson that is up front and real.

Bill Pearce 1926-2010

2010-03-01T20:01:00.001-06:00

Saturday night, while I was attending a church related social event, a friend asked me to comment on the passing of a "great trombone player." He thought I would know who he was talking about, but I was clueless, and he couldn't recall the name. Later, I learned that it was Bill Pearce. He died on February 22, after a long illness.

Bill Pearce was a huge inspiration to me when I was a teenager. You see, he was exactly what I wanted to be -- a jazz-style, lyrical trombone player with a sound like Tommy Dorsey and the technical fluidity of Bill Watrous, as well as a professional singer, and a well known radio announcer with his own nationally syndicated radio show. And he did all of this in the context of Christian ministry. He had his hands in and was at the top of his game in all of the arenas I aspired to be successful in as a teen.

I had learned about him first through his radio program -- "Nightsounds." I used to fall asleep listening to the radio as a teenager, and when I was in 8th grade and as a freshman or sophomore in high school, I was fascinated both the late night programming on WLNR radio from Lansing, Illinois. It was quite a variety -- the play by play of the Chicago Cougars, the new hockey team in the fledgling World Hockey Association, or Chuck Shaden's "Those were the days," rebroadcasts of old time radio programs. But after all that ended, around 11:30 or midnight, Bill Pearce's program came on. It was a time when I was really struggling with my spiritual identity, and the Nightsounds program really ministered to me with its biblical quotes and beautiful music.

It was much later that I learned of Mr. Pearce's singing and trombone prowess. I still have several of his recordings. It was my goal to become a professional trombonist and singer, and use my talents to glorify God. Later, in college, when I got the "radio bug," I also thought that being a radio professional would also be in my future. I wanted to do exactly what Bill Pearce was doing.

I got to meet Bill Pearce once. He was a featured clinician at a convention for Trombonists I attended with my Trombone professor, Dr. Tom Streeter, and our studio at Illinois Wesleyan, while I was in college. Probably 1978 or 1979. It was just Bill, presenting a workshop, playing his horn and singing to backup trax. It was an inspiring performance. He was genuinely warm and humble. I really didn't get much of a chance to talk to him -- it was more like "can I have your autograph." But he didn't brush any of us off.

Below is a great article, an interview he gave late in his career. There are a few links to audio files. Its a shame he wasn't more well known. Though I don't think fame meant a whole lot to Bill. He was just happy to play, sing, and minister on the radio.

Bill's theme song was his own arrangement of the artsong "Beau Soir" by Debussey. It was the opening theme for his radio show. I had the lead sheet for it. I could never play it as well as him. His haunting, lyrical interpretation defined how he played. And I can't hear that song, or even that style of music without thinking of Bill, and what he represented, and what he meant to me as a musician and in my walk with God. He was a shining example of a truly humble musician who used his gifts to further God's kingdom, without putting his own ego first.

I hope you enjoy the link to the interview. It really paints a great picture of Bill's life and contribution to our lives.

http://www.trombone.org/articles/library/pearce-int.asp

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 18 (closing out the Book of Galatians, and my Journal!)

2010-02-08T06:35:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

The last verse of the entire book/letter. We could pass over this quickly if we’re not careful – it just seems like a typical “doxology” style closing. Not bereft of meaning, but ostensibly not a lot of practical application. But if we dismissed this so easily, we’d be wrong – we'd miss Paul’s final sentence summary/emphasis on the major themes of the book.

Paul uses this type of blessing to sum up and close many of his letters (see Romans 16:20, Philippians 4:23, 2 Timothy 4:22, Philemon 1:25). But in the context of Galatians, this simple blessing serves to help sum up the entire message.

If we pick this simple sentence apart, there are 4 sections and concepts to emphasize. “Grace;” “Lord Jesus Christ;” “your spirit;” and “brothers.”

“Grace” The foundational concept for the book of Galatians. It is not what we do, or what we try to make ourselves into that brings us favor with God – it is the promise, it is God’s merit-less favor, His merciful kindness that unites us with Him, and nothing more.

“Lord Jesus Christ” It is Christ’s merciful kindness, His sacrifice that opens the gateway to our relationship with God. It is His Grace, and his Grace alone. Plus, he is “Lord.” He is the King of Creation, and the Universe. Each of us is part of his divine plan and purpose, and he lives us enough to have died for us.

“with your Spirit” The word here for Spirit is the same word used to describe the Holy Spirit – the third person of the trinity. This word can be used to describe the Spirit’s personality or character (as in “Holy” Spirit) or to emphasize His work and power (i.e. the “Spirit of Truth”), but the emphasis here shows that “Spirit” is not some depersonalized force – this is a Person, with a real and distinct identity, the co-equal of God the Father and God the Son. But because of the transformation of our lives in Christ – the “new creation” – He is now “our Spirit.” Paul has emphasized throughout the letter (Galatians 3:2-5; 5:16-26) that once we’ve been baptized in the Spirit, and filled by the Spirit, we “walk” with him in a supernaturally transformed life. Fulfilling the law was impossible (see Galatians 3:10-12), but now that Jesus has paid the price for the curse and the Spirit has filled and empowered us, we can walk in the fullness of the kingdom and please God. (see Galatians 5:16-18, 22-24).

“brothers” And here is the second major emphasis in the book of Galatians. The word for “brothers” here is a very powerful Greek term. “Adelphos,” a term we Americans recognize today from the name of the city of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love.” The ancient Greeks used this term to describe a sibling relationship, or in more general terms, to describe people of the same race or nationality. It might also be used to describe any fellow human being in the sense of a common bond of humanity (i.e. “the brotherhood of man”), it implies an extremely strong bond of affection. Paul, a Jew by birth (and an aristocratic one at that) was closely identifying himself with the ethnically Greek Galatians as if they were part of his family. Paul’s use of this term, I believe, is meant to show that ethnicity has no place in the Kingdom of God as far as acceptability to God or each other is concerned. The great heresy of the Galatian churches was as much ethnic prejudice as it was theological – the two concepts are inextricably wed to each other. The great sin of the American churches no different – we separate by ethnicity and culture as well. Many of us American Christians have correct theology to start – we believe in the promise, believe in salvation by grace, and recognize that obeying a set of rules will not make us right with God. But then we use a standard of cultural conformity to reject whole classes of other Christians, calling it “theology” when its really all about race, ethnic culture, or denominationalism. 1 John 2:9 say “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in darkness.” Many of Christians here in America today have a correct view of theology, but walk in that same darkness. I pray for a gift of repentance for myself and my brethren, that we may turn from our arrogance and pride in our ethnicity and traditions and embrace the truth. We need to grasp the essence of Paul’s message in Galatians if we are to be effective witnesses of the Gospel in the world today.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 17

2010-02-06T08:50:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:17 Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

“Finally, let no one cause me trouble” Throughout this letter, Paul has been on the defensive. The heresy of the Judiazers threatened his whole ministry and purpose, as well as the purity and fundamental truth of the Gospel. The “trouble” I believe he is trying to head off is the concept of the Galatian Christians continuing to put him in a position where it is necessary to vindicate his apostolic authority (as he did in Galatians 1:11 – 2:10) and the divine truth of the message he brought to the Gentiles (as he did in Galatians 2:11 through 4:7). He is really concluding this letter by stating that the issues he’s discussed and the conclusions he’s reached are settled – there is no more reason to debate any of these concepts.

“for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.” The word for “mark” here is the Greek word “stigma.” It literally means to make a mark on the skin through sticking or pricking. It’s a word that describes the process of tattooing the skin, or branding with a hot iron, or even cutting the skin so as to leave a distinctive mark. In Paul’s day, slaves, criminals and prisoners of war were tattooed for identification. Certain pagan religious cults, such as those in Egypt and Syria, also used tattoos to show devotion to their Gods or to designate that a person was set apart to serve the Gods. Tattoos were used to show to which master the person being marked belonged. The mark was a testimony to whom the person belonged, or to whom the animal belonged (the Greeks and Romans generally associated tattoos with barbarians, and branding was reserved for animals). The law of Moses specifically prohibited tattoos, so Jewish tradition allowed for other outward signs of a slave or servant – an earring, for example.

But this Greek word “stigma” had broad application, and could be used to describe any mark or puncture wound. Our modern English use of the word “stigma” is a direct descendant of the Greek usage. The mark placed on a slave or criminal denoted shame. Today, in English, “stigma” means something that serves to be a mark of shame or infamy, a stain, or reproach, especially regarding a person’s reputation.

So what did Paul mean by “marks of Jesus” that he bore in his body? I believe he meant it both literally and figuratively. Paul did bear actual scars and wounds that evidenced the persecution he suffered for the sake of Christ. He had been stoned (Acts 14:19), beaten (Acts 16:22, 2 Corinthians 11:25) suffered a variety of illnesses, some of which may have been the product of the stoning and beatings (2 Corinthians 12:7, Galatians 4:13-14). These physical “scars” marked him as a servant of Christ (see Galatians 1:10 and 2 Corinthians 4:10) in the same way the slave’s tattoo marked his as a bond servant.

But there is, of course, a deeper, spiritual meaning. Christ’s wounds were affected through the concept of sticking or pricking or piercing. Literally, in the meaning of the ancient Greek word, “stigma.” Thus, the ancient Greeks would have used the very same word to describe the wounds that crucifixion produced – nails driven through the hands (or wrists) and feet, the spear thrust into Christ’s side. Indeed, the Latin derivation of this word – “stigmata” – has been used to describe not just the wounds of Christ , but a cultic practice among Roman Catholic ascetics whereby the wounds of Christ ostensibly and purportedly supernaturally appear on the hands and feet of a person devoted to Christ. Paul certainly isn’t referring to that – but crucifixion is a major theme in this book – being crucified with Christ, dying to self, and walking in the newness of life in Jesus just as Christ rose from the dead. Paul noted that he – and all believers – are “crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20). Paul had not been literally crucified (no actual “stigmata” in his body), but was one with Christ’s death and resurrection in the Spirit. Therefore, he bore the “marks” of Jesus in the Spirit. (Galatians 6:14). For while the word here for “body” literally means the human body, it can also be translated simply as “me.” I do think Paul is referring to literal marks on his body from the wounds he received in persecution, but we miss so much if we don’t also consider this deeper meaning.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 16

2010-02-05T10:08:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

There is an interesting parallelism at the opening and closing of the book of Galatians. In 1:3, Paul blesses his readers with “grace and peace,” here, the third verse from the end of the letter, he blesses them with “peace and mercy.” As we discussed in the comments for Chapter 1, verse 3, the pronouncement of blessing there was connected to the common custom in ancient Greece to wish “peace” as a greeting, sort of the way we modern Americans say “Hello.” A greeting of “peace” was also common in Hebrew culture (“Shalom!”). Paul’s introductory greeting and blessing seemed like an effort to sort of bridge the two cultural forces that came together in the Galatian churches – recognizing the validation of the roots of each culture (Greek and Hebrew) while looking forward to a unified, newly forged cultural identity that has more to due with Christ than ethnicity.

Here, in 6:16, Paul does a similar turn, but the emphasis is on the other side. That is, in Chapter 1, the greeting felt more slanted towards a “Greek” sensibility, tempered for the Jewish listener. Here, its completely the opposite, and for good reason –

“Peace and mercy” By connecting this phrase with the concept of Israel at the end of the verse, this becomes more than just a benediction – the phrase “peace be upon Israel” was a cultural icon to the Jews. It was extremely common for a Jewish person in that time to bless others with the phrase “peace be upon . . . “ Jewish tombs often bore the phrase “Peace be upon Israel.” These same words were also the common closing prayer in services in Jewish synagogues – the formal benediction known as the “Amidah,” with its origins in Psalm 125:5 and Psalm 128:6. Paul is pronouncing the benediction and blessing upon the Christians of Galatia in the same manner as a Jewish Rabbi.

“to all who follow this rule” The Greek word for “all” here is translated in the King James Version as “as many as.” The poetic image of the latter is a more fitting translation, in my opinion. While it implies “everybody,” the English word “all” also seems to imply something finite. The Greek word means “as great as,” “as far as.” “whoever,” etc. It implies a number that is always increasing. God’s economy has no limitations, his love and mercy have no boundaries. Salvation is a gift given freely – everyone – “as many as” – will have the opportunity to make this choice.

“follow this rule” the word here for “follow” literally means to “walk.” As discussed in the commentary for Galatians 5:16, where Paul speaks of “walking” in the Spirit, the concept of “walking” with God was a distinctly Jewish cultural consideration, expressed in the Hebrew concept of “Halakah.” But the “Halakah” implied strict discipline and rigid conformity to the rule – the Greek word for “walk” used here implies an orderly walk, like soldiers marching in a line. As emphasized in Chapter 5, the “walk” here, the “rule” of discipline is one of freedom. The very covenant is following a rule, but one that is manifested in the freedom of Christ, rather than slavish devotion to statutes. When viewed in the context of Paul’s entire message to the Galatians, this blessing proves to be the perfect bookend, and exact opposite of the curse pronounced against the disasters of following the Law in Galatians 1:8-9.

“even to the Israel of God.” Paul has been arguing both impliedly and directly throughout the letter that defining our Christianity by culture and ethnicity is wrong. Circumcision is more than just an issue of obeying the rules, but in the context of the argument used by the Judiazers for the Galatians to submit to it, its an issue of ethnic intimidation. The “rule” Paul is encouraging us to follow is embracing a relationship with Christ, not of ethnic traditions. And while the Messiah comes out of Israel, and is the fulfillment of the Law, Paul puts that in proper context here.

In 1 Corinthians 10:18, Paul uses the phrase “people of Israel.” Literally, it means “Israel according to the flesh.” When we put together all of Paul’s arguments in Galatians, we see a picture of the people of God that has nothing to do with “the flesh.” The many churches of Galatia were made up of believing Jews and Gentiles of various ethnic groups, the new “seed” of Abraham according to Galatians 3:15-20, and the heirs of the promise according to Galatians 3:29 (see also Romans 9:6 and Philippians 3:3). Some bible scholars insist that by using the phrase “Israel of God,” Paul is limiting this to Christian Jews. But that doesn’t fit in to the overall context of Paul’s message. “Israel of God” means all believers, the spiritual heirs of Abraham, Jew and Gentile together. But by making his final blessing distinctively Jewish, he is both giving the right emphasis and proper place of honor to the Jewish people and culture (for after all, Jesus himself was culturally Jewish, and the Jews were God’s chosen people), but he is also putting the Judiazers in their place – showing the true purpose for the Law and the promise. Its ironic – at least to those who insisted on obedience to the Law in order to be a “proper Christian” – the blessing here has a distinctively Jewish flair that depicts a distinctively Jewish promise fulfilled in a distinctively Jewish Messiah that was always meant for all people – Jew and non-Jew alike.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 15

2010-02-04T07:22:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

In a single sentence, Paul sums up his entire message as he closes his letter.

“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything” As we’ve emphasized throughout this journey through the book of Galatians, this concept works on two levels, and we know Paul intends his message to work on both of these levels because of the manner in which he makes this statement. Most Bible scholars down through the years have emphasized Paul’s arguments in this book that deal with salvation, or how a person is made acceptable to God. The focus is on approaching God by following the Law – i.e. obeying the “rules” or “being good” I order to earn our way into the good graces of God – as opposed to salvation by grace through faith – believing in and accepting Jesus as Messiah and Savior, and trusting in His sacrifice on the cross as all we need to be right with God. Paul spends some time in this letter focusing on this, and framing his arguments in this way (see in particular Galatians 3). This is the essence of the Gospel. Understanding this truth is what brought me in to the freedom of Christianity, after years of struggle thinking I cold somehow please or appease God by “being good.” Of course, this truth is foundational to our faith and is vital to understand what Paul is saying in this book.

But it’s not enough. If this were all Paul wanted to emphasize, he could have closed the letter by saying “It’s faith in Jesus that counts, not following the Law” or some similar conclusion. He frames his conclusion around a single, specific point of the Law. This particular issue had been the point of controversy in the Galatian churches, to be sure, but a single point nonetheless. The point he emphasizes is a concept that defines the culture of the people involved. As discussed in the last verse, circumcision was the very thing that seemed to separate the Greek and Jewish cultures here, or at least was the focal point, the rallying point for the differences. Jewish and Greek cultures were about as different as two cultural philosophies could be. Plus, the Jews had a chip on their shoulder. Over the centuries, starting with the occupation of the Alexandrian empire, the Greek culture had infiltrated Jewish life and eroded many of the traditions Jews felt were vital, to the point where the offense was so great that the Jews rebelled against their Syrian overlords (heirs of Alexander’s disintegrating empire) many generations prior to the coming of Christ. (This led to the Maccabean Kingdom and the origin of Hanukkah). The Jews were as offended by the intrusion of Greek culture into their society as modern African Americans are about slavery. So in Paul’s time, the irony was the Jewish people had come back to the Greeks with “the answer” – their Messiah, their Deliverer, in the person of Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham – now they were supposed to share this ultimate, amazing truth with the very people they hated, with the very people they viewed as having already sullied their own society. This was an intolerable concept to many Jews – an insult. What Paul is saying here is that the offenses of the past must be laid aside. Ancestry is irrelevant. So is any aspect of culture – race, mode of worship, language, food, music, dress, hair style, attitude – whatever is unique to a particular cultural group. Yet, these are the things that ostensibly divide Christians in America today. And just like the Judiazers of Paul’s day, modern American Christians will cloak their prejudices in theology or religion to make them palatable. In Galatia, the believers were told they needed to be circumcised in order to truly be a Christian. The underlying message was in order to be acceptable to God, one must be acceptable to the Jewish community. They were required to give up their Greek culture, and become like Jews. We do the same thing in American church culture. For example, the exuberance displayed in African American churches makes others who are used to a more staid, traditionally "European" church environment uncomfortable. Folks whose church experiences have always been to just follow the order of the service every Sunday find manifestations of God’s power in the form of the miraculous, charismatic gifts, or a prophetic utterance jarring. Or it works the other way around. The charismatic Christian will judge his more traditional brethren for sticking to a church program he has determined no longer works any more. It doesn’t matter what the setting is, or the particular issue. The modern day “Judiazer” will use scripture interpretations or simple pious platitudes to prove the other person’s culture is inferior, or worse, heretical. And worst yet is where the overall offenses of a particular cultural group are carried over and transferred to their church community. Our churches tend to be defined by our culture – there is really nothing wrong with that; we have to worship in a sense of familiarity and comfort – but when we amplify cultural differences through negative stereotypes and offenses, we get the same wrong and evil spirit that motivated the Judiazers.

For example, if I have an innate prejudice towards black people, their particular, unique cultural expressions will offend me, the same way the Greek culture offended the Jews in Paul’s day. I will then filter their church experiences and expressions through this narrow, hateful lens, and view those things as inferior or wrong, not just because they’re different, but because of my prejudice. This is a form of the Spirit of Anti-Christ, and the church in America needs to repent. Ultimately, what Paul is saying is that cultural differences mean nothing. The focal point needs to be Jesus. In fact, I believe the New International Version translation does us a bit of disservice here. The original Greek states that “In Jesus Christ, circumcision and uncircumcision mean nothing (the King James Version gets it right!). We must emphasize Jesus.

“What counts is new creation.” These five words should be transcribed and hung as a sign, everywhere. On t-shirts, bumper stickers, billboards, on the refrigerator – everywhere. This is the entire message of the Gospel in a nutshell. “New creation” means just that. The life of the future world of perfection in heaven, the glory of being in the presence of the Lord forever had begun in the life of believers on earth NOW! Whenever Paul speaks of the new creation, he uses the present tense. (See Galatians 5:5-6 and the commentary there). This is reality – the old is gone, and Jesus has us completely new! (See 2 Corinthians 5:17).

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 14

2010-02-03T08:53:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

In the previous verse, Paul closed with a comment about the Judiazers boasting in their own achievements in convincing the Galatians, as Gentiles, to submit to the Jewish Law and Jewish cultural norms. To submit to the circumcision procedure – which amounted to surgery – would have certainly been a painful sacrifice. But even as a cultural concept, circumcision would have been a sacrifice for the Galatians as well. Greek and Roman society was horrified at the concept of circumcision, viewing it as the mutilation of the body. They would have seen it as sensible as removing your lower lip or nose, and because it involved the male reproductive organ, it was particularly distasteful – even shameful. But here, Paul takes the metaphor for cutting and wounding to what would be for both Jews and Greeks a new cultural low point. The Jews viewed circumcision as badge of honor, and ethnic identification. The Greeks viewed it as horribly barbaric and shameful. The Judiazers believed and argued that bearing the wounds of circumcision in their own bodies was pleasing to God, something to boast about. In this verse, Paul calls attention to a very different type of wound. Throughout the letter, he has emphasized the concept of the law as expressed in the act of circumcision versus the concept of faith as expressed in the promise to Abraham, fulfilled in Jesus. Here he connects the physical concept which expresses the fulfillment of the latter concept in our lives. The argument is transformed from law versus promise, or circumcision versus promise, to circumcision versus crucifixion. Paul advocates boasting in and relying upon a wounding that is much more severe than the minor surgical procedure of circumcision. And while Greek and Roman society viewed circumcision with disdain, as something shameful, the most shameful and painful form of death in the Roman world was crucifixion. The Judiazers were coercing the Gentile believers to undergo circumcision out of their own sense of fear of persecution and rejection by Jewish religious leaders – sort of like being afraid of bringing your boyfriend/girlfriend home to meet Mom and Dad because they are not from the same race or culture as your family. Paul doesn’t care about that – he will boast in the concept that is most shameful, because it is actually the greatest treasure.

The concept of “boasting” in God is found throughout Paul’s writings – e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:31 – as well as the concept of focusing on the cross. In 1 Corinthians 2:2, Paul states that “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” The word translated as “never” here in Galatians 6:14 is about as powerful a negative as once can use in the original Greek – the King James Version translates it as “God forbid.” Coupled with the word “boast,” the implication is to not boast in anything or anyone except in the crucifixion of Jesus. The word “world” here means everything that exists that is against God. See James 4:4 and 1 John 2:15.

Earlier in the book, Paul has already discussed how we experience Christ’s crucifixion in our lives – in Galatians 2:19-20, and 5:24. It is a process in our lives that has nothing to do with our performance, or what we do, that puts to death the sin nature in us and produces a “new creation” and spiritual fruit that comes only from an intimate relationship with Jesus. As Paul said in Galatians 5:25, there is no law against that, or that even can STOP that. It is not only the only thing we should boast or brag about, it is all we can rely upon.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 13

2010-02-02T06:36:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:13 Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh.

“Not even those who are circumcised obey the law.” Paul’s accusation against the Judiazers here is two sided. Obviously, he is pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of their position. Many of the Jewish converts to Christianity were not necessarily observant of every detail of the law of Moses. Recall Paul’s confrontation with Peter back in Galatians 2:14. Peter was no longer observing the Jewish dietary restrictions, and perhaps never had, living as a fisherman. Paul knew this. Yet Peter was trying to force these restrictions regarding eating upon the Gentiles, who had never had to observe them before. The ironic thing about all the arguments the Judiazers advocated – whether insisting on observing the dietary rules or submitting to the rite of circumcision – is that these rules were as much part of Jewish culture as they were an objective moral code. Paul points out in Romans 2:14-15 that the Gentiles often lived lives that reflected the essence of the law’s moral code, even though they did not “know” the law. It is possible to follow the spirit of God’s rules and not be circumcised, even outside of the concept of the argument of the law versus faith, or law versus promise. The Jewish traditions of Paul’s day even recognized this. Jewish culture begrudgingly accepted the concept of a “moral gentile.” But the insistence on following rules that were really completely outward and completely cultural – that was a matter of convenience for the Judiazers. All of the then, raised in Judaism from birth, had all been circumcised as infants. To require submission to the rule of circumcision in order to be a Christian was no sacrifice to them – it was nothing! They hid their cultural biases behind the concept of “it’s the rule.” What they were really doing was hitting the Gentiles – whom they culturally despised – in a soft spot – LITERALLY! Yet they themselves were not necessarily following the other points of the law. Think about it – the Judiazers insisted that every male Gentile convert to Christianity have the foreskin of his penis surgically removed, while their acceptance of Christianity meant no pain or change in their lives, yet, hypocritically, they were otherwise “ala carte” followers of the law – like Peter back in Chapter 2, picking and choosing himself what they did or did not want to follow in the law of Moses. (Sounds a lot like most evangelical Christians as they hop from church to church). This was covert discrimination, wrapped in the cloak of theology. The same sort of thing happens in American churches all the time. A church with strong ethnic connections wil have the same sort of inclinations – the German Lutherans, the Dutch Reformed, the Irish/Polish/Italian/Hispa

nic Catholic parishes. If you have the right last name, the right heritage, if we know your Dad or Grandad – you’re in. Faith or morality is secondary, at least at first blush. This is the great heresy of the Galatians as much as the concept of a works based theology – become “one of us,” and you’re in.

The second angle of Paul’s accusation meets the Judiazers’ arguments even where they might be insisting on total obedience to the law, and such insistence was completely sincere and without hypocrisy. Even those who sincerely try to obey the law in every respect do not “obey” the law, because perfect obedience is impossible (see Galatians 3:10-14). If we fall short in one area we fail completely. So, while I believe that Paul is focusing on accusing his enemies of hypocrisy, even those who were not so inclined could not stand up to the argument.

“that they may boast about your flesh” This is where the accusation regarding hypocrisy sticks. The word translated as “flesh: here is the same word Paul used throughout Galatians Chapter 5 which the NIV translated as “sinful nature.” This is NOT a Holy Spirit inspired concept here – not in the least. Back in Galatians 5:7-12, Paul used the “cutting” metaphor in the circumcision debate to sarcastically suggest that the Judiazers might emasculate themselves in their vigor. That imagery also plays out here – its as if the effort of the Judiazers to achieve some measure of Jewish cultural conformity in the Gentile members of the church has them figuratively presenting the foreskins of the Galatians as trophies to the Temple authorities. Paul spent the bulk of Galatians 5 arguing that the “acts of the sinful nature” need to be avoided by living or walking in the Holy Spirit. Here, he simply shows that the entire Judiazer philosophy is an “act of the sinful nature.” (Galatians 5:19). The “glory” of the Judiazers, that which they seek to “boast” about, is to force the Galatian believers to behave in the manner described in Galatians 5:19-21. That is the ultimate product of ethnic and cultural division within the church.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 12

2010-01-30T08:11:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:12 Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.

Paul sums up the points he has made throughout the book as he begins to close the letter. He returns to the two main intertwining themes of the letter – both are essential to emphasize and equally important. First, the point for which this letter has usually been recognized throughout the ages – following the law and obeying rules doesn’t make us right with God, but only faith in Jesus Christ, is the theological issue. But also the second theme, that we cannot define ourselves by the outward things – race, ethnicity, culture, tradition, or other social practices – is a social issue. But both go hand in hand.

The word translated here as “compel” is rendered as “constrain” in the King James Version. It implies something done by force, or by threat. It certainly implies bondage. If you go back to Galatians 2:3, Paul noted, using the very same word, that at the time he submitted his ministry to the elders at Jerusalem (all of whom were culturally Jewish) the elders did not “compel” his Greek born companions to undergo circumcision. This is hypocrisy on the part of the Judiazers (see the next verse) and the bondage Paul had warned the Galatians to avoid back in Galatians 5:1.

And what was the Judiazer’s motivation for all of this? To avoid persecution because of the “cross of Christ?” What does he mean by that?

If you only consider the theological issue – in short, the Law versus the Promise (see Galatians 3:6-25), this seems confusing. The Judiazers recognized Jesus as the Messiah! They were nominally Christians. Any general persecution of Christians would have included them. Even by insisting that the Galatians become culturally Jewish, they would not have escaped being ostracized by the Roman authorities or the general Greek/Pagan society these churches existed in – the Jews were viewed with the same sort of jaundiced eye aimed at Christians. No, the real motivation for the Judiazers to “compel” or “constrain” their Gentile brothers in Christ was to avoid being persecuted by Jews. The Temple authorities were generally opposed to Christianity (see Acts 5 & 8, and Paul’s “ministry” prior to his conversion – Galatians 1:13). A way to appease them and stay in their good graces would be to prove that the Savior was a “true Jew,” and that his followers were also. The concept is really no different than the attempted blending of ethnic cultures in American communities. Those who take inordinate pride in their own culture, or who fear or dislike the people of the “new” or unfamiliar culture will seem to be “tolerant” but they wil insist on the new folks being “more like us.” Any difference is amplified. Resistance to the assimilation is ostracized.

That is the issue – the Judiazers wanted to prove to the “folks back home” that Christians (in particular Gentile Christians) were culturally acceptable. The circumcision argument can be presented as a theological point. But at the core of the matter, its an issue of RELATIONSHIP. “You can’t be one of us unless you are like us” Outwardly like us. Its no different than many of the denominational rifts in America today. The theological issue is usually immaterial – a minor quibble, a “disputable matter.” (see Romans 14:1). However, the cultural ramifications become amplified. “That’s not a real church, they don’t worship in the same way as us.” It is as insidious a heresy as the circumcision issue. Because when we define ourselves by a cultural standard, rather than by the promise – by the sacrifice of Christ – we are the same as the Judiazers in the book of Galatians. This is the great sin of the American church.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 11

2010-01-29T08:44:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!

This is a very odd interjection, but it shows Paul’s intimate involvement with the Galatians and his passion for what he is teaching them.

"See” The implication here is to “take note,” or “mark carefully.” He really wants them to take notice of his closing remarks.

“what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand” Most historical commentators indicate that the common method for a man of Paul’s stature to produce a lengthy letter like this was to dictate it to a scribe – a secretary, if you will, trained in the art of writing and quick dictation. Writing with a quill pen on parchment-like paper, the scribe would have written in a small font in order to write quickly and keep up with the dictation. Paul apparently grabs the pen himself here, and writes the rest of the letter himself. He apparently wishes to drive the point home with a personal emphasis. There is the possibility that he has drafted the entire letter with his own hand, and now is shifting to a larger style for emphasis.

There is a scholarly debate involving why the “large letters.” Paul simply may be unaccustomed to writing long letters, using a scribe to take down his dictation (recall, Galatians is probably one of Paul's earliest letters), and may simply not used to writing in the smaller style. He may have taken pen in hand, and was struck by the largeness of his script compared to the scribe’s. Others speculate that Paul is making excuses for his own weakened hands, perhaps because of overuse in his tent making trade. There is also speculation that Paul had poor eyesight, and needed to write so large in order to read it. Back in Galatians 4:13-15, there is speculation that the “illness” Paul speaks of there was some sort of issue with his eyes, and some point to this verse as further proof.

All of this is interesting, but not really relevant. The important point here is Paul’s intimate involvement. He so wanted to reach the people of Galatia with this message, and he cared about their spiritual welfare so much, he himself took the pen from the scribe and finished the letter. The emphasis here is he is writing “to you” – a redundancy, to be sure – obviously he is writing to them. But the heartfelt importance of this can’t be avoided. Again, the emphasis is on RELATIONSHIP, not theology – though the truth about what Paul is emphasizing is vital, too. But the most important ingredient is still RELATIONSHIP.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 10

2010-01-28T07:40:00.000-06:00

Galatians 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Verse 10 serves to sum up what Paul has been discussing in the previous 9 or 10 verses. All of his advice and instruction in Chapter 6 so far has been in the context of community – of RELATIONSHIPS. We are to have a proper view of ourselves and a humble attitude regarding our own importance (5:26, 6:3-5). We are to selflessly relate to and serve the immature or developing believer, serving them and leading them to maturity and right relationship with God and others. (6:1-2). We are to serve and support those in authority or in the teaching ministry, and give generously. (6:6). The most important discussion on sowing and reaping (6:7-8) is placed in the context of “doing good.” (6:9), which , in turn, runs into and is placed in the context of this verse, doing “good to all people.” Christians cannot exist in isolation. There is a God ordained purpose in the relationship to the body of Christ – other Christians – and to the rest of society.

“Therefore, as we have the opportunity” At first blush, this seems like Paul is encouraging us to take advantage of the possibility – sort of like this is an option, an occasion, like a chance to invest money or open a business or something. But the word for “opportunity” here is more specific than that, and much more urgent. It literally means “due measure” and it implies a fixed, definite time, like an appointment. It is used to describe a time when things come to a crisis, or the decisive time that people have waited for, i.e. the end of the world, or the return of Christ. It is literally the “right time,” the opportune time, the seasonal time. It is also a limited time – the opportunity is not open, we must act now. In the context of the previous discussion on sowing and reaping, farming, and agriculture, there is a time to plant and a time to harvest. Both are limited windows of opportunity, and must be accomplished before that window closes. The bottom line – this is not an optional opportunity, but it is an extremely urgent one. We must act, and act now!

“let us do good to all people” The Greek word translated here as “all people” implies a cross section of society – some of all types. This is a divine form of “political correctness.” We must do good to every sub-set of society. We can’t play favorites. This is the exact opposite of the message of the Judiazers, who demanded favoritism for Jews and Jewish custom. This is the issue that divides us today – we need to lay down our expectations regarding culture and ethnicity, especially when it comes to denominational or church “culture” in reaching out to others.

“especially to those who belong to the family of God.” The “death” of our traditional expectations is particularly true here. Notice that Paul didn’t say “church,” he said “family.” We need to define the way we view our ties to each other believers by “relationship,” not by particular doctrine or church culture. The King James Version translates this as “household,” and its literally what the original Greek word means. 1 Timothy 5:8 warns that a person who doesn’t take care of his own relatives and immediate family is like an unbeliever. But don’t fall into the trap that Paul has spent the entire book railing against. Blood and culture, in the context of who we consider to be part of the “family” of God is the wrong identification method. When Paul says “especially the family of believers,” he means those who believe in the promise, regardless of culture. The command here is to get beyond skin color, language, worship style, musical tradition, even doctrines involving “disputable matters.” (see Romans 14:1). We must get beyond what traditionally defined us, and stop defining who belongs to the “family” by the outward indications, like the Judiazers did. This is the message of the Holy Spirit – we need to plant our seed there, and seize this urgent opportunity. To do otherwise is to miss what God is saying altogether.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 9

2010-01-27T08:41:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

This verse closes the discussion on sowing and reaping, emphasizing the “principle of eventuality” discussed previously in connection with Galatians 6: 7 and 8. The analogy to farming is a universal principle – once a seed is planted, it takes time to grow – sometimes a very, very long time. After the ominous warnings of the earlier verses about not being deceived and mocking God, Paul wants to leave us encouraged. The word for “weary” here is a powerful word – meaning utterly spiritless. Other translations render this word as “lose heart,” “faint,” or “grow weary.” It implies being worn down to the point of hopelessness – it could be utter despair or just defeated resignation -- surrendering as the defeated foe. Paul is encouraging the believers. Life is tough, and the circumstances of the world’s systems will wear us down. That “seed” we’ve sown in the Spirit, at the Spirit’s leading and command, may look like it might never bear fruit. In fact, in the very same ground we planted that seed, we might see a product of sowing to the “sinful nature, making it look like things are working in reverse. (See Matthew 13:24-30, the parable of the weeds).

The word translated as “doing good” is also a very powerful word. It implies the concept of creation and building – to produce something, to fashion, to form, to construct. It is used to describe an author or artist creating something. It implies taking raw materials and creating something useful. One meaning is to render a single product in the context of many or to make one of anything. Its like an artisan, making a hand crafted product. She may produce many of whatever she is making, but she’ll still produce them one at a time. The original language implies that this work is noble and worthy. Not necessarily highly skilled, but the best work a person can offer.

The King James Version translates this as “well doing,” and the word for “well” is an adjective describing the work that is also a very powerful word. In other places in the New Testament, the same word is translated as “good,” “better,” or “honest.” It literally means “the best.” Other similes that this word could be translated as include beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, or admirable. It’s a word the ancient Greeks used to praise physical beauty. It also means “genuine” – the real deal, approved by those who are in the know. It means “precious,” as in valuable, like gold or diamonds. The word was often used to show a connection to the names of men who were known because of their position in life, or their special competency or experience – in other words, endorsed by those who know what they’re doing.

There are two kinds of endorsements we’re familiar with in the modern media. One is the advertising endorsement, where a company will hire a celebrity to endorse its product, hoping to connect the popularity of the person to draw attention to what is being sold. There isn’t necessarily a connection between the expertise of the celebrity and the product – but the position of that person draws the attention. Tiger Woods advertises a particular brand of automobile – he has no particular expertise in cars, but his popularity brings attention to the auto maker. Or, you can have a non-commercial endorsement made by someone whose position in life draws attention to the issue. President Reagan liked to have a particular brand of jelly beans available in a jar on his desk, and when that fact was made public, the sales of that brand increased exponentially. The First Lady will wear a particular designer’s dress for the inaugural, and that designer will become the man of the hour. It’s the connection to someone great that makes the difference. While this word means that, if you go deeper, there is more. When a celebrity or someone in a high position connects to the product or work based not just on position, but expertise, and then the endorsement really means something. Tiger Woods can endorse a car, but if he endorses a particular make of golf club, the endorsement means more, because Tiger Woods is such a great golfer. The President of the United States can tell us what kind of candy he prefers, but if he endorses a person for a job well done or because of his competency as a civil servant, it means more because of the President’s preeminent position. This word here in this verse means more like the latter.

It also implies that which is honorable, a purity in heart and life, affecting others in an agreeable manner.

“at the proper time, we will reap a harvest, if we do not give up” Paul is simply and plainly stating the principle of eventuality. The people of a primarily agricultural society were more than familiar with the concept of “harvest time.” Farmers plant in the spring, and then harvest in the fall – it takes time. But there is an expectation that eventually the crops will grow, and we will reap a reward. Paul is assuring us and encouraging us to wait on the Lord. When we sow to the Spirit, when we labor and craft something “good,” it takes not just effort, but a lot of time before we will see results, let alone a final product. But it WILL happen – “God cannot be mocked.” The principle of sowing and reaping is a reality, not just when we sow to the sinful nature, but when our efforts contribute to the furthering of God’s Kingdom. Weariness as explained here obviously can lead to a sense of hopelessness, of giving up. But the harvest time will come – it’s a promise!!

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, Verse 8

2010-01-26T06:26:00.000-06:00

Galatians 6:8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Paul continues his discussion of the principle of sowing and reaping. In the previous verse, Paul emphasized that no one can escape this truth. We can fool ourselves into believing otherwise, but God will not allow otherwise. Here in verse 8, Paul is building on what he has established and defined regarding the dichotomy of “living” or “walking” “ by the Spirit” and the “acts of the sinful nature” back in chapter 5.

“The one who sows to please his sinful nature” None of the other English translations of the Bible I have available have the word “please” in this verse, but it certainly fits, and illuminates the concept. Ephesians 6:12 explains that our struggles in life are not with “flesh and blood,” but with the “principalities and powers” of Satan. We are in a spiritual war. But the sowing and reaping principle involves personal responsibility in that war, and how we will be equipped to fight it. This is not a passive exercise. We don’t simply scatter the seed. We actively choose to sow either to our flesh or to our spirit.

“from that nature” You can’t reap a crop from ground where you did not sow. We have to expect that if we “feed” the sinful nature, it will grow and produce. Again, as Paul warned in verse 7 – Don’t be deceived!

“will reap destruction” The verb for “will” here is translated in the King James Version as “shall.” There is an air of inevitability here. This will happen – and, indeed, it MUST happen. I am no Greek scholar, and I don’t have enough background to truly understand how Greek sentence structure really works (I just point and click with the computer based lexicon!), but the Greek verb for “reap” appears twice in this phrase. It literally reads “shall reap of the sinful nature reap destruction.” It’s like doubly emphasized! This is a law of God’s Kingdom and the natural world that cannot be escaped.

The word translated as “destruction” literally means decay, or rotting away. It also means corruption and ruin, as well as destruction. Paul has already warned us of the byproduct of sowing to the flesh – we will reap the “acts of the sinful nature” listed in Galatians 5:19-21. Recall these are more than the stereotypical “fleshy” sins of sexual immorality and other sins of excess, but things such as jealousy, anger, envy, ambition and such. All of these things are incredibly destructive. In Romans 8:13, in a similar passage, Paul states that living according to the sinful nature leads to death. This is not meant to apply to “spiritual death” – this is not about salvation, or needing to perform and “do good” in order to please God and be worthy of entering heaven. This is about the here and now, and how what we do today plants seeds we will invariably reap tomorrow. The truth is this – if we plant to please our flesh, if we act on the whims of our sinful nature, the results are guaranteed to be the aforementioned “acts of the sinful nature.” Remember in verse 7 is says “God cannot be mocked.” He will not allow any other result.

“the one who sows to please the Spirit” The word here for “Spirit” is a word that especially applies to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the triune God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. This is NOT some depersonalized force, or the “spirit” of a person (as opposed to the body and soul of a person).

“will reap eternal life” The sentence structure discussed above for the previous phrases apply here as well, on the “Spirit” side of the sowing equation. Indeed, most of the verses discussing sowing and reaping in the Old Testament emphasize the disaster that flows from sowing to the flesh, of feeding the sinful nature (e.g. Job 4:8, Proverbs 22:8). Occasionally, the opposite is presented (e.g. Hosea 10:12). It is important to grasp the positive side of the sowing/reaping principle. Sowing to the Spirit produces a harvest that is positive.

In Galatians 5:21, Paul speaks of the concept of inheriting the Kingdom of God. Here, he speaks of reaping “eternal life.” In Romans 8:13, he also speaks of how living by the Spirit produces “life.” The first concept – that of “inheriting the Kingdom” – appears to emphasize a place, a “realm” if you will, that is inherited much like the nation of Israel was promised the land. The second concept, or “reaping” eternal life, appears to emphasize the blessed life enjoyed in that land.

Again, I don’t think this applies to salvation at all, but on the life we lead as Christians. The reward for sowing to the Spirit and producing fruit (Galatians 5:22-23) is enjoyed in this life (because we are walking closely with God and in harmony with other Christians) and is rewarded in the next (see I Corinthians 3:10-15). We do not “please God” by obedience, in the concept of following rules in order to be right with God and earn our salvation – no! But once we’ve been transformed by God’s power and a relationship with Him when we are truly born again, if we respond to God’s favor in love and follow the principles of righteousness, we will find reward. Not because we deserve it, but because God loves us, and because of the principle of sowing and reaping. Remember – “God cannot be mocked!”

One last thought on the principle of sowing and reaping – This is not a concept like “Kismet” or fate. It is not inevitable, as in its not irreversible. If we sow to our sinful nature, it doesn’t mean we’re doomed. It just means things will be tougher. There is always forgiveness of sins, if we repent. And the principle of "eventuality" discussed in the last verse can be thwarted, at least in part. If a farmer realizes he’s sown the wrong type of seed, he can tear it up before the plants take deep root. If we repent soon enough, we seek forgiveness from God and the people we’ve wronged before the seed takes deep root and avoid some of the bitterness of the harvest later. (The same could be said for the opposite – a shift to sowing to our flesh will spoil our efforts to sow to the Spirit, even if just a little bit. It works both ways).

One more thing – we always reap. A farmer who wants to provide for himself and his family from season to season and year to year must not consume or sell all of his harvest, or he’ll have no seed to sow for the next season. An implied part of the principle of sowing and reaping is the need to reinvest part of the harvest of “eternal life” back into the soil – to selflessly give back to others from the personal blessings we’ve received from sowing to the Spirit. Otherwise, we have nothing to continue to sow with. (And recall in the parable of the sower, Jesus explained that the harvest was greater than what had been invested in the ground!).

And in the context of this passage, this especially applies to finances. In the only other passage where Paul uses the sow/reap concept (1 Corinthians 9:6), he warns that those who sow sparingly will reap sparingly, and those who sow generously will reap generously. He’s talking about giving financially there. In Galatians 6:6, Paul is talking about the financial support of the teaching ministry. Arguably, this whole discussion of sowing and reaping was being presented in the context of financial giving. It’s the one area of “sowing” that really shows a person’s heart and true motivations. It is the ultimate litmus test for where a person is at in his or her commitment to the Lord.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 7

2010-01-25T06:25:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

Here is one of the most fundamental yet most misunderstood principles in the Kingdom of God, and of life generally. Verses 7 and 8 of Galatians 6 sum up the practical applications of everything Paul discussed back in chapter 5. Indeed, this is one of the most useful and practical life lessons in all of the scriptures.

“Do not be deceived” A powerful warning! Obviously, Paul wouldn’t have offered this statement if deception wasn’t a major issue in this area. Its also in the form of a command – we need to be extra careful to guard against being deceived, against allowing ourselves to be fooled, or even fooling ourselves in this area. The Greek verb for “deceive” is a word that was often used to describe heresy or leading people away from the right path. There is an intentional element to “deception” here. I have often viewed deception, or becoming deceived, as a passive concept. Its something that happens to you when you don’t realize, such as the concept Paul seems to present back in Galatians 3:1, when he calls the Galatians “foolish” and asks the rhetorical question, “who has bewitched you?” But here, the verb use indicates willfulness. We willingly allow ourselves to believe the lie that we will not reap what we sow. To be blunt, this is evil, and if we have allowed ourselves to fall into this trap, we must repent.

“God cannot be mocked.” The King James version translates “cannot be” as “is not.” I understand what the NIV translators wanted to convey here, and that truth is present in the original language—nothing we can do can truly serve to mock the one true God. But the original language as translated in the KJV puts the action squarely upon God. Its not just that God cannot be mocked – He won’t allow it! The word “mocked” here literally means to “turn up your nose,” or to sneer, as one would turn away from something that smelled bad, or a show of total disapproval. It is showing disdain, or having an apparent devotion to God that is mere pretense, or words not backed up by action, or the willful setting aside of God’s precepts. Its playing games with the grace and mercy of the one true God. If you put these first two phrases together in context what Paul is saying to all of us is this – You can’t fool God, and we are fools if we think we can. We inevitably delude ourselves if we think we can even try to pull one over on God. God will not allow that to happen. He won’t tolerate it. How will he expose these efforts on our part to “fool him?,” this delusion, this deception in our lives? Through the principle of sowing and reaping.

“a man reaps what he sows” The ancient world was more familiar with agricultural concepts than we are today, because the average person either grew at least a portion of his own food, or had to deal directly with those that did in order to survive. The Old Testament is filled with these kind of references, and Paul’s proverbial use of this imagery would have been quite familiar to those acquainted with Jewish traditions.

For example:

Job 4:8 “those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.”

Proverbs 22:8 “He who sows wickedness reaps trouble”

Hosea 8:7 “They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.”

Hosea 10:12 “Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap the fruit of unfailing love”

Thus, Paul was even stopping the Judiazers in their tracks, appealing to an important part of both the spiritual and ethnic tradition of the Jewish people. Of course, the agrarian nature of Greek society would have made this appropriate, too.

Another important aspect deeply connected to the warning about deception and mockery is the concept of the original word translated as “reaps.” The original Greek implies if a man sows a particular kind of seed, he reap that kind of seed, and ONLY that kind of seed. This is how God refuses to be mocked – He will not allow us to reap something we did not sow.

The spiritual principle follows the physical one. What is true for the farmer is true for the follower of Christ. Paul will explain this spiritual principle in the next verse. But if you plant corn, you won’t get potatoes. If you plant wheat, you won’t get apples. If you bury garbage on your land, there will be a stench.

And one of the principles that needs to be understood is the concept of eventuality. This is where the willful deception discussed earlier particularly comes in. All seed, of all types, looks the same to the casual observer after you’ve planted it in the field. Its underground – invisible to the naked eye. You can ask me what I’ve planted, and I can announce, “Why, I’ve planted corn of course!,” when I’ve actually planted thorns and thistles. You can’t see what I’ve planted. It will take time for the seed to grow. But whatever has been planted, it will eventually grow, especially if the field is tended and watered regularly by continued behavior. What we “sow” will eventually come to light. God guarantees it!

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 6

2010-01-22T07:38:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:6 Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.

This verse seems odd at first blush. Paul is reaching the end of his letter to the Galatians. The remaining verses of Chapter 6 (vv 7-18) are like a summary of the concepts he’s been arguing/presenting in the whole letter. This seems almost out of place.

What exactly does he mean here? What is he driving at? Is Paul fishing for financial support? Are there issues with the Galatians failing to provide for Paul?

I have always viewed Paul as an example for the modern church as a leader, minister, even as an Apostle who worked to support himself rather than be a burden to the churches he served. In Acts 18, Paul worked as a tent-maker while ministering in Corinth, evangelizing the residents of the city on the weekends. He worked at what would be the equivalent of a “nine to five” job in today’s world and supported himself. In my own experience, I have come to see the concept of the full-time pastor, especially for local congregations, as a tradition that has come to be counter-productive. While there is plenty of scriptural evidence for viewing the ministry of teachers/pastors as a full time job (see, e.g., Acts 6), the modern American concept of the paid pastor often leads to too much dependence on that one person as the focal point for all the activity within a church, and a culture of performance rather than community. This is an over-generalization, to be sure, but when the local Pastor or Minister is paid by the congregation to do “just that,” there is an expectation that he will “meet their needs” – and there is more of a culture of entertainment, where the congregation will come each Sunday morning to watch the minister “perform,” rather then develop a church culture where they participate themselves, because, after all, that’s the minister’s “job.” There is a greater tendency to separate the clergy from the laity, and a dependence on the minster to do it all, and the congregation to serve as spectators. By his own example, Paul refused to succumb to that and gladly worked for a living, toiling at a regular, manual labor type job.

On the other hand (to be fair), there is evidence to show that tent making or some other form of basic work wasn’t Paul’s usual method of supporting himself, or at least not the exclusive method. 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 and Philippians 4:10-16 show that Paul was supported in his ministry by the sacrificial giving of the churches he had planted. This is not to say he didn’t also work to support himself as well, but it appears the congregations he served often helped him financially. So while my own personal experiences in my own church shows how doing without a paid Pastor works (and works extremely well, I might add) and helps to free the congregation to be more participatory and helps encourage the average person “in the pews” to come forth in the gifts God has given them, the concept of a full time paid Pastor (or at least a Pastor that is given a stipend or salary for his work in the church while also working to support himself) has its place. Like Paul, we need to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit to know when each of these models is appropriate. My reaction as I meditate on this particular passage is Christians in America – indeed all over the world – have fallen into a traditional view of church structure that is often counter-productive and stifling to the leading of the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t make the concept of a full time paid pastor wrong – but I think the weaknesses and abuses that have developed in this tradition need to be examined and even prayed through. Indeed, the theme of the book of Galatians demands that we consider this. The Judiazers of Paul’s day insisted on circumcision in order to be acceptable to God. It was “the way we do things.” To change that tradition meant a radical shift in the way people thought, in the way they “did church.” But in order to see God’s will accomplished, in order to realize the essence and truth of the Gospel, in order to “stay in step with the Spirit” (Galatians 5:25), they had to be willing to give up that tradition. We need to look at our modern church traditions, our expectations, our practices, our prejudices, and be willing to go in a different direction if the Holy Spirit is telling us to do so.

There is another aspect to verse 6 that is brought to the fore by looking at Paul’s defense of himself in 2 Corinthians 11. There, in verse 7, Paul sarcastically argues that he might have been wrong for preaching the Gospel for free. In verse 8 he muses that he “robbed” the support of other churches in order to serve at Corinth. His audience would have understood this, because in ancient times, even more so than today, the expectation was that religious and spiritual “professionals” must be paid for their services, and if they did not charge for it, the implication was “you get what you pay for.” So if the spiritual “product” was free, it must not be worth much – it must not have any relevance. In addition, Greek tradition had the great philosophers and teachers in their culture bring in a sort of “communistic” ideal, insisting that people share all things in common. In pagan religions, people were expected to pay a fee just to walk into a temple or shrine. Here, Paul seems to be suggesting that the Galatians “pony up” in a similar way for all those who provide sound, authentic teaching (implying the inclusion of himself), as opposed to providing support for those opposed to such concepts (implying the Judiazers). Some scripture scholars suggest something different altogether, and believe this is connected with special collection for the Jerusalem believers spoken of in 1 Corinthians 16:1 (although the chronology makes this hard to reconcile).

In the end, the spirit of this verse fits in with the overall themes of unified community and interpersonal relationships found throughout the book of Galatians. A congregation or local church should certainly do all it can to support (financially or otherwise) those who lead and instruct them.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verses 4 & 5

2010-01-21T07:35:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:4 Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, 5 for each one should carry his own load.

Two verses today.

“Each one should test his own actions.” The word used for “test” here means to examine, to prove, or to scrutinize. It implies a very careful, meticulous overview. It is also a test to prove authenticity – to see whether what you have is the “genuine article.” This Greek word was used to describe the process of testing precious metals such as gold or silver to prove whether genuine or not. The same word is used in 1 Corinthians 11:26, and is translated as “examine,” where Paul exhorts us to carefully examine our lives to be sure we are worthy, or in the right “spirit,” to take the Lord’s Supper. This word implies a great personal responsibility – Paul has just spent a good portion of the letter warning us about how easy it is to fall back into the bondage of relying on the law, or on our own performance, and about caving in to our flesh. But the “test” here is not for a grade – this is not an exam like we have in school, or a test of skill or ability. Rather, its like the kind of experiments we used to run in junior high science class – a ph test – where we are simply determining whether what we have is indeed what we thing it is. Paul expounds on this in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, where he explains how our works will be ultimately judged by God. If what we have accomplished in life is done from a selfish motivation (“wood, hay or straw”), it will not survive the fire of God’s judgment. If, on the other hand, our works were motivated by the Holy Spirit, from the heart of God, and done in selfless service to others, they will survive the fire and endure for eternity (“gold, silver, costly stones”). Remember on the old television game shows like “Jeopardy” or “The Newlywed Game,” one of the prizes each contestant would be awarded was the “home version” of the television show, so they could “play at home?” Here in Galatians 6:4, Paul is showing how we can do a little “home version” of the “big show” that will play out at the end of time, and figure out midstream whether what we’re doing is what God’s wants us to be doing, and whether what we’re doing will survive the fires of judgment.

“Then he can take pride in himself” I think the NIV misses the mark somewhat by translating this as “pride.” “Pride” has such negative connotations in the context of the Bible. The original word here deals with the concept of glorifying in your accomplishments. While it carries with it the connotation of boasting, its not necessarily negative. The old saying “its not boasting if you can do it” comes to mind. Even that carries with it the negative connotations of ego and selfish pride, but it begins to scratch the surface of what Paul is really getting at here. When the Chicago White Sox won the Word Series in 2005, the team celebrated in an extravagant way on the field and in the locker room. That’s the sort of thing I think Paul is driving at here – it’s taking personal satisfaction in doing a good job, and celebrating that feeling with exuberance. There is the implication of great joy here, rejoicing for the commendations of our Master, of doing what God wanted us to do. Even the World Series championship is an inexact comparison, although it helps us see the community/relationship component – this is not like running a race and winning as an individual – this is truly a “team effort.” But there are no trophies or prizes here. The glory is in the accomplishment itself, and in itself alone – in Christ alone!

“without comparing himself to somebody else” The New American Standard translation renders this section of the verse as “having a reason for boasting in himself alone.” There is no need to compare with others. Ultimately, the “test” here is to prove that our actions are motivated by something other than our own self-promotion. Therefore, we shouldn’t care about accolades, or accomplishment, or our standing within the church community. Our motivation should be to serve. This also ties in with Galatians 5:26, and Paul’s warning about conceit and “vain glory.” We need to keep a sober and objective view of ourselves and what we are trying to do to serve God and each other.

Verse 5: “for each one should carry his own load” The word here for “carry” is the same word used back in verse 2, but he emphasis in context is different. It implies a lighter touch. It implies we will all be equal to understanding this concept and calmly and submissively receive the “load” spoken of here. This is indeed the sober, objective recognition that all of us have a sin nature, all of us fall short, and that we all need each other.

The word for “load” here, however is different than in verse 2. It’s the diminutive form of the word – implying something small, or on a smaller scale. The word was commonly used by the ancient Greeks to describe the cargo of a ship – a “load,” yes, but one that is manageable and designed to be so. This is the exact same word used in Matthew 11:30, when Jesus says, :”My Yoke is easy, my burden is light.” There is an expectation Christ places on us with regards to how we live our lives, but it is not an oppressive burden of performance, as the law requires. In the context of this passage in Galatians, this is simply an encouragement to see ourselves as we are – imperfect, carrying our own faults and personality issues, and dealing with them properly and responsibly. The underlying emphasis is on getting along with and serving others. Again, the primary foundational principle of the Kingdom is being in a RELATIONSHIP.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 3

2010-01-20T07:17:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:3 If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

The literal meaning of the original Greek in this verse is pretty close to what we actually get in the English translation here in the NIV – except perhaps the word “anyone” might be better translated as “whoever,” but the implication of these words in the context of the rest of the Chapter give us a deeper and more specific sense of what Paul is really saying. This is more than just a proverb. If a person thinks they are “something,” well, that implies a person who is much too self important. Paul has just discussed conceit and “vain glory” in verse 26 of Chapter 5. The “something” here certainly fits in with that discussion and description. He or she obviously thinks a whole lot more of themselves than they should, and hold themselves above others. They are just too important to condescend to the level of those “caught in sin” in Galatians 6:1, to have to get their hands dirty or sully their own precious reputations by stepping down and helping to shoulder the burdens of another Christian as commanded in the precious verse. “Nothing” here implies someone who is a nobody except in his own estimation, in hi sown mind. “Deceives” here implies a deep fog – a delusion, but also an implication that the person is cheating themselves.

I picture the person who thinks they are “something” here as being a step or two beyond the “conceited” person of Galatians 5:26. This is someone who is otherwise marked by Christian maturity – an active member of the church, perhaps even in a position of responsibility or authority. They have already received the benefit of having more mature believers (those who are “spiritual” per Galatians 6:1) who have helped these self-anointed “Somethings” by carrying their burdens and deal with sins they have been caught in (per Galatians 6:1-2), But now, these “Somethings” think they are better than all that. The thought of returning the kindess paid to them by those who helped bear their burdens is repugnant – for whatever reason: fear, the busyness of life, obsession with wealth, job, or family, or a focus on being recognized etc. In thinking they are “too good” or “too important” to be intimate with those who immature is a delusion that deprives them of all the blessings that flow from such selfless service. If walking closely with the folks the world sees as “nothing” and helping them deal with sin and bondage in their lives fulfills the law of Christ (see the previous verse), to shy away from this concept is to be in opposition to the law of Christ. As I’ve repeated over and over again, RELATIONSHIP trumps everything. For it’s the promise of Galatians 3:16 that is the product of God’s relationship with man. While correct theology – knowing and believing the truth is absolutely essential, to place our own concerns and desires ahead of the relationship God has commanded us to be a part of is akin to denying the basic truth of the Gospel. How many of us have known people who believe in all the right things, but aren’t really following God? Or use the truth of the Gospel for their own selfish motives, or to put others down, and exalt themselves? Or simply refuse to answer the call in their life to get involved with the “someones” who are “caught in sin” back in 6:1 – the unlovable, the undesirable, those who need help but might not be the same color, ethnicity, denomination, or economic group? That is the great tragedy – that is the heresy Paul is fighting and great tragedy and heresy we fight in American churches today.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 2

2010-01-19T10:41:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:2 Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ

“Carry each other’s burdens” The original Greek word for “carry” here implies hardship and difficulty. The Kind James Version translates it as “bear.” It speaks of a need for endurance – this load is heavy. (as opposed to Galatians 6, verse 5, where the “load” is not so heavy).

“Burdens” literally means something heavy, a great weight, or something extremely troublesome. In context, it is referring to troublesome, vexing moral faults. (see 6:1). In Romans 15:1-3, Paul makes a similar admonition, where he instructs “strong” Christians who need to “bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves.” It goes on to say that we all are to “please his neighbor for his good, to build him up” and points to the example of Christ, who bore in himself (voluntarily) man’s hostility towards God when he died on the cross.

Thus the concept of bearing another’s burden here means much more than empathy. We are to endure the faults of others, patiently, as a service to them, to help them grow in Christ. This is a sacrifice – not done to build ourselves up, but selflessly, following Christ’s example. This is an act of ultimate service.

It must also be done in a spirit of complete and abject humility. The phrase “carry each other’s burdens” would have evoked a particular image in the Roman world. Of course, servants or slaves were required to carry burdens for their masters, but there was also a common practice called “impressment.” Roman soldiers could require the locals in the provinces occupied by the Empire to carry something for them – on the spot, at a mere command. The person so instructed would have no choice but to obey. A scriptural example of this is found in Mark 15:21 where Simon of Cyrene is pressed into service to carry the cross for Jesus. This was a prevalent practice throughout the Roman world. This whole concept conjures up an image of subservience, demanding much more than a momentary act of kindness, more than the convenience of helping that person carry something for that moment. Indeed, it demands commitment. It demands humility. It demands a total laying down of our lives for the sake of others. The local citizens begrudgingly carried the load of the soldiers only as far as they had to. Paul is instructing us to voluntarily take the soldier’s load, and carry it as long as is needed – even for a lifetime.

“fulfill the law of Christ” The only other reference to a “law of Christ” I can find in the New Testament is in 1 Corinthians 9:21, where Paul explains he is not free from God’s Law, but is under Christ’s Law. In the context of the rest of the letter, I can’t believe Paul is referring to adhering to a set of rules Jesus laid down in the Gospels. Rather, he is speaking of the essence of Jesus’ message, portrayed in the words Christ spoke, and the examples He gave. He is speaking of the character of Christ, imparted to us supernaturally through the transformation and evolution of walking in the Holy Spirit as discussed in Chapter 5. The “law of Christ” is the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham discussed in Chapter 3. It is a living, loving relationship with Jesus expressed supernaturally in our relationship with each other. To paraphrase a favorite phrase of my pastor, it’s “where the rubber meets the road.”

There is further and deeper implication when we look at the word translated as “fulfill.” It implies more than just “doing,” or even “completing,” but to perfectly observe. Paul argued back in Galatians 3:10 that it was impossible to fulfill the law of Moses no matter how hard we might try. Here, however, it IS possible to perfectly fulfill the “law of Christ” because what we do to so fulfill it is done as a response to the transformation that has taken place within us – it is a relationship based on being welcomed as a beloved child (see Galatians 3:25 – 4:7). Jesus has given us everything we need to fulfill Christ’s law. “Fulfill” also implies that we will complete what is lacking in our obedience. Indeed, anything we try to do in and of ourselves won’t be enough. We need the presence of Christ in our lives, the filling of the Holy Spirit, to accomplish this kind of selfless, humble service. And in so doing, we are bound inextricably close both to Jesus and the person whose burden we are carrying – in a close, intimate walk – a RELATIONSHIP! And that is the fundamental difference between the concept argued by the Judiazers of Paul’s day (or legalists today) and the truth of the Gospel. Its not about following rules, changing what we do, adopting the culture and practices of a particular group, or trying to overcome our own shortcomings. No, its all about an intimate relationship with the one, true living God. It is indeed all about RELATIONSHIP!.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 1

2010-01-18T08:19:00.001-06:00

Galatians 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

As we begin the final chapter of the book of Galatians, we find Paul continuing in his transition from the practical application of the theology and spiritual principles he had presented in the first 4 chapters of the letter to our personal lives, and personal relationship with God in the concepts of “Freedom in Christ” and “Walking in the Spirit” to taking those same concepts and applying them to our interpersonal relationships within the Body of Christ.

“Brothers” -- Despite the criticism Paul levels at the Galatians throughout the letter, he never doubts the authenticity of their faith or their basic relationship with Jesus. I find this incredibly encouraging. As often as I fall back into the old, worldly concepts of relying on “the rules” to feel right with God; as often as I use ethnicity and culture (especially the “culture” and practices of my own church compared to others) to define who I am, who “they” are, and who “we” are; as often as I indulge my sinful nature and take advantage of the freedom I have in Christ – my relationship with Jesus isn’t based on a report card as to how I’m doing in these areas. When I am trapped in these failures, it means I have sought fulfillment or pleasure in something other than my relationship with Jesus. I may have fallen, but I’m still a “brother.” Keeping a good relationship with both God and my “brothers” is vital.

“If someone is caught in a sin” The King James Version (a translation that is an attempt at a word for word translation of the original Greek, as opposed to the translation I prefer, the New International Version, which translates by looking at not just the words, but their use in context and phrases) renders the word for “caught” here as “overtaken.” While I am not a Greek scholar by any stretch of the imagination – I just use a computer based lexicon to try and deepen my understanding – the original language and its meaning in context sheds some interesting light on this concept. The original word rendered as “caught” here and as “overtaken” in the King James is difficult to translate into English. It implies the concept of forestalling, stopping, or hindering something in advance, like preventative medicine, or deploying the troops to quell a riot before it starts. It also carries the connotation of crime prevention – stopping a person before they can act. There is also an element of surprise here – the person being caught either doesn’t know he’s doing wrong, or doesn’t think he’ll be caught. There is also a sense of inevitability in the word – the “overtaken” aspect implies being overwhelmed, conquered, and beaten.

But “caught” here must also be viewed from the other side – the ones who see the sin in us. A fish can be “caught,” but the fisherman also “caught” the fish. The admonition here is on the latter. The warning/advice here is meant for those of us who see another Christian – a “brother” – in sin. Both sides are ultimately helped in this equation.

“You who are spiritual” By “spiritual,” Paul means mature. Despite all the issues Paul is trying to address in the Galatian community, he recognizes that many of them truly “get it,” have a solid relationship with Jesus, and are “deep” enough and mature enough to deal with these kinds of sensitive issues. Again, I find this incredibly encouraging.. Compare this to 1 Corinthians 3: 1-3, where Paul is addressing the entire Corinthian congregation, including the leaders, I presume. He castigates them for “not being ready” for a deeper walk with God. Because I see a deep connection between the churches of Galatia and my own church, and the other churches in the area within and around my home town in the sense of a timely, “rhema,” prophetic word from God, again – I find this all very, very encouraging.

“should restore him gently” The word for “restore” here has multiple meanings. It means to repair, and was used to describe the setting of broken bones, mending fishing nets, bringing factions together, or to complete a project to its finish. It also means to equip, to fit out, like a soldier preparing for battle by putting on his armor and gear. It means to put in order, arrange, or adjust, like tuning a car’s engine. In the ethical sense, it means to strengthen, perfect and help make a person what they ought to be.

Recall that gentleness is one of the fruits of the Spirit. (Galatians 5:23) Again, this all fits into the concept of RELATIONSHIP. I like the use of the word “restore” here to describe the setting of broken bones. You can’t do that by yourself. You need others. You need the Body of Christ. Yet, this process must be done “gently” or more damage could result. Holy Spirit inspired gentleness is the proper way to address faults. This is not usually the way its done in the church today. Legalism is the way sin is addressed. But legalism leads to confronting spiritual issues by fleshly means. The answer from the legalist – e.g. the Judiazers in Paul’s day – was to follow the rules more closely, and change outwardly so “they” fit in better with “us.” There is no place in their world for truly meeting the spiritual need of others. The fruit of the Spirit of gentleness implies humility and examining ourselves before we correct someone else. Here in our American culture, we have a lot of trouble with humility.

“But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.” Obviously, we must take care when confronting sin in others. We may tempted to join them in their sin – its so easy to take on that “yoke of bondage” again (see Galatians 5:1) or to indulge the sinful nature (see Galatians 5:16). But the concept of temptation here means much more than lust or envy, or the concept of having the sin of the person being confronted becoming like “forbidden fruit” to the one doing the confronting. The legalist is haughty and judgmental, and condemns those who are “caught in sin.” In Romans 2, there is a warning about judging others improperly, and a statement that those who pass judgment in such a manner “are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” While time and the space constraints of this blog/notebook will not permit me to present a full analysis and explanation here, in short, those who make “bitter root” judgments, those who pass judgment on things that are not important in the grand scheme of God’s worldview, they have those judgments come back on themselves – condemning them, even cursing them, if you will – to fall into the very sinful behaviors they have judged so improperly. Self-righteousness will lead to a very bitter harvest in this situation. I believe it is self-righteousness that Paul is warning us to here with regards to being "tempted."

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 26

2010-01-16T08:48:00.001-06:00

Galatians 5:26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Paul has spend the entirely of Chapter 5 encouraging and counseling the various Galatian churches about the practical application of the theology he presented in Chapters 1-4. He has discussed freedom in Christ, and walking/living by the Holy Spirit. Those are supernatural, life changing concepts. Yet, at every turn there is a warning – don’t let your freedom allow yourself to indulge in your sin nature. If you walk in the Spirit, the acts of the sinful nature should cease, the fruit of the spirit should manifest. There is an underlying, interwoven theme throughout of spiritual discipline, as seen, for example, in the previous verse.

Again, it must be emphasized that this is not the kind of discipline borne out of simply following rules or striving – Paul has spent the bulk of this chapter deriding the concept of going back to a relationship with God based on obedience to the Law, or to the rules, or on outward performance instead of an inner change. It is a discipline borne out of habit – and a habit that is founded on a RELATIONSHIP. I would compare it to a marriage. There are things, concepts, ideas, customs, traditions etc. that my wife and I have developed with each other over the years. It may range from the mundane – who makes coffee in the morning, or who regularly drives when we go out together in the car – to how we communicate, how we react to a crisis, how we make important decisions etc. We know each other so well, that all of this becomes second nature. That is how its got to become in our relationship with God.

Verse 25 makes that very connection. The underlying theme of Galatians is to set aside religion, tradition, the Law, ethnicity, politics etc. and exchange all of that for a RELATIONSHIP. A living relationship with God, through Jesus, which then transforms our relationship with each other. Paul emphasizes over and over in all of his writings in the New Testament that the barometer of our relationship with God is how we relate to each other. So in keeping with his warnings about indulging the sinful nature, here he warns about making sure that our relationship with each other stays “right.”

“Let us not become conceited” “Conceit" is commonly viewed as the concept of thinking more of yourself or your abilities than you should. But the original Greek word here goes deeper than just vanity or self-centeredness. The King James Version translates this as “desirous of vain glory.” It is the only place in the New Testament this word used. It literally means glory without reason, an eagerness for empty glory, or a conceit that simply doesn’t make sense. Like someone who is tone deaf thinking they could be a professional singer, or someone with no basic hand-eye coordination believing they could be a professional athlete. Sadly, if we look around our neighborhoods, or even more sadly, our churches, we see these two examples and others just like them to varying degrees. But even in instances where people are objectively gifted or talented, this concept, the “vain glory” can be just as bad or worse as an above average skill or natural talent is overrated in that person’s mind. The popularity of reality TV shows like “American Idol” or “America’s Got Talent” is based on this kind of “conceit.”

This kind of “vain glory” is particularly dangerous in the Body of Christ because this kind of person thinks they deserve recognition, responsibility and respect when the reality is the matter for which they want this recognition is only recognizable in their own mind. And the danger of this concept leading to “provoking and envying” in the concept of Freedom in Christ and walking in the Spirit is particularly great. Why? Because the grace and mercy of God welcomes everyone, and the kindness and acceptance we show in Christ towards each other can be interpreted as affirmation of our vainglorious conceit.

We have a tendency to indulge our sinful nature in our self centered pride. Paul is warning all of us to be objective. We need to see ourselves as Christ sees us, yes, as new creations, free from sin. But we cannot use that freedom, to exalt ourselves, or to judge others. Otherwise, we’re back to the negative side of Galatians 5:1, burdened by that yoke of slavery, or like 5:16, gratifying our “flesh,” our “sinful nature.” Because the Kingdom of God is a RELATIONSHIP above all else, keeping a right relationship with each other, and viewing that relationship through the lens of God’s reality is essential.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 25

2010-01-15T07:14:00.000-06:00

Galatians 5:25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

Paul appears to be summing things up, and ties this discussion back to its beginning in Galatians 5:16. But the word translated as “live” is different here.

In Galatians 5:16, Paul says “live by the Spirit.” In the Greek, the work “live” is peripateo, which literally means to walk, to make one’s way, as to make progress. We discussed that concept back in verse 16, and found that “walking” in the Spirit was a decidedly Hebrew concept. The Jewish culture connected the concept of walking with living, as a relationship, like two people walking together, so that to walk in the Spirit meant to regulate, conduct, and to pass one’s life in a close relationship with God.

Here, however, Paul uses a different word for “live.” The Greek word for “live” in verse 25 is zao. It literally means “to live” as in breathe, implying the physical aspects of life, such as respiration, pulse, being awake, being conscious, to be quick, alive, or lively. There is sense of vibrant athleticism about this word. It means to be among the living, as opposed to being dead.

This word has deep, multiple layers of meanings. It is derived from the Greek word zoe, which is root word and most common term in Greek for “life.” This term implies a life that is full of animation and vitality – the absolute fullness of life. In its verb form here, it means to pass life in the manner of living and acting as a mortal, or as a character in a drama. But even more, it implies the ENJOYMENT of life -- to have true life, a life worth living. It implies an active life, a full life, a blessed life. In the context of Christianity, it is a life that is endless in the Kingdom of God. It is used as a metaphor to show life in full vigor, to be fresh, strong, and efficient. As an adjective, it means “powerful” and “efficacious.” In Psalm 19:5, the sun is described as a “champion,” rejoicing to run his course. The word here for “life” fits in that – if we “live” using this word, we live a life like a champion, rejoicing as we win the victories in our lives laid out before us by God. Indeed, when Jesus speaks of “living water’ in John 4, this is the exact same word He uses – meaning water that has a vital power in itself, exerting the same kind of power over our souls and lives.

Thus, Paul is connecting our life in the Spirit with vitality, power, and the newness of life in Christ. When we connect this “life” with the concept of “life” back in verse 16, we have a vital, living relationship with God through the Holy Spirit as we proceed through our life, day by day.

“let us keep in step with the Spirit.” But there is still a connection with “walking” right here in verse 25. But once again, the word is different. The King James Version translates the word here as “walk,” while the NIV renders it “keeping in step.” The Living Bible says “walking in line.” The original Greek is a verb that is used to describe soldiers marching in a line, implying discipline, order , timeliness, and regularity.

Interestingly, it is also a metaphor for achievement. It envisions marching forward, but to do so prosperously, to turn out well, or to succeed. Victory! Thus, as Paul sums up this discussion of how to live and walk by the Spirit, he is saying that because we live a vibrant, powerful, exciting and enjoyable life in and through the Holy Spirit, we need to take on the discipline inherent in that concept, as a soldier would, and “march on” to success and prosperity in the Lord. The “walk” certainly won’t necessarily be easy, but the fruit discussed in the previous verses is well worth the “march.”

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 24

2010-01-14T06:24:00.000-06:00

It's been quite a while since I posted an entry in my "Galatians Journal." Part of the reason I've held off is I was planning on presenting some of this material as part of a teaching message for my church. Well, I did that last night, so now I can resume sharing my notes on Galatians without "letting the cat out of the bag," so to speak.

Galatians 5:24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

“Those who belong to Christ Jesus” Paul has spend a great deal of space discussing the issues of slavery in this letter in Galatians 4:8-11 and 4:21-31. But there, the emphasis was on slavery to sin, or slavery to the law. Here, he says we “belong” to Christ. In other passages elsewhere in his writings, Paul connects the concept of slavery to our relationship with Jesus. In Romans 6, he says that we have been set free from sin, and are “slaves to righteousness.” (v.18). In Romans 6:22, he makes a similar statement, that we are free from sin, and are now “slaves of God.” Ephesians 6:6 gives instruction to slaves – literal, real-life slaves who are also believers – to obey their earthly masters even when they aren’t watching, as if “slaves to Christ.” Paul is plainly stating that we belong to Jesus – implying that we are His property, but by NOT using a comparison to the concept of slavery here, the sense is this is something voluntary on our part. Not the issue of ownership of our selves -- that is established as a fact -- but that we have willingly assented to it. I suppose we are indeed slaves of Christ, but we have agreed to those terms. There is also an implication of benevolence on the part of our master!

“have crucified the sinful nature” Paul has used crucifixion as the model for the transformation of our nature in our relationship with Jesus in Galatians 2:20. There the emphasis was on the death of our entire being (our old nature) and that the life we lead now is no longer “us” – that is to say, our old nature – but its Jesus living in us. (I guess we really DO belong to Christ!). The current verse focuses on crucifying or putting to death the sinful nature – the flesh, that which is in us that is opposed to God. But is there really a practical difference? In Galatians 2:20, Paul says “I am crucified with Christ,” here he says the sinful nature is crucified, but, really, before we came to Christ, all we had was a sinful nature. That concept has to die, regardless, if we are to live in Christ. And the death here is total – complete. One of the arguments emphasized by the Judiazers over and over again that Paul was making a case against the concept in this letter to the Galatians (as well as for the Pagan philosophers of the day) was there had to be rules, or the Law, in order to prevent unbridled passion from taking control. Paul, however, has also emphasized over and over that obedience to rules in and of itself leads to failure, in that the one who strives to obey a set of rules will ultimately fall short somewhere. In addition, the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Paul’s remedy for this is complete death in Christ. The verb tense used here is both past and perfect, to signify that the event is completed. It is impossible to die to sin gradually. Paul encourages us – no, he commands us – to accept our completed righteousness by faith, and learn to live accordingly, which is the whole point of the previous discussion in Galatians 5:19-23. One more thing – by using the term “crucify,” Paul means to do more than just emphasize a oneness with Christ in His death. It implies that this death of our sinful nature is the utter destruction of its power over us. It also implies that this death is attended with intense pain. No matter how we conceive it, the end of our sinful nature is painful. But the freedom in Christ that comes from it is worth it.

“with its passions and desires.” The word translated as “passions” here is rendered “affections” in the King James Version. The original Greek work implies suffering, misfortune, calamity, evil, and affliction. This is hard for our modern sensibilities to understand. But its like the title to the movie “The Passion of the Christ.” It is the enduring of suffering and affliction. This almost seems like the wrong word use here. We usually connect passion with sensuality or sexuality, or the unbridled commitment to something -- i.e. "a passion for gourmet food" -- and that appears to fit into the concept of “sinful nature” and “flesh.” Yet, if we give ourselves wholly over to “passion,” as is the case if we are indulging our flesh, it only leads to pain and suffering. This goes hand and with the word “desires” (translated as “lusts” in the King James), which means a craving, a longing, or a deep desire for what is forbidden. In other words, LUST. These are the things that are crucified.

Yet, I am sure that all of us struggle with the “acts of the sinful nature” which Paul discusses earlier in Galatians 5 all the time. Paul goes into a deeper analysis of this struggle in Romans chapters 6 through 8, and even here, where Paul presents the “Freedom” we have in Christ (Galatians 5:1) and the concept of walking/living in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16) as a matter of fact, the underlying issue of a struggle is obvious – this is truly a death that compares with crucifixion! There will continue to be struggles as we walk in the newness of life in Christ. But these issues stem from our inability to grasp hold of this new life, of holding on to the Promise. We often make poor choices, or strive to achieve holiness by following the rules rather by living in the Spirit. Those kinds of choices are always before us, and dealing with it righteously, in Christ, in our freedom and concept of new creation, this is all part of the purpose for Paul writing this letter to the Galatians.

Christmas 2009

2009-12-25T10:38:00.001-06:00

"Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:11 “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” John 1:14 . . . Merry Christmas to all!

What Christmas Means to Me . . .

2009-12-23T10:36:00.001-06:00

I apologize in advance for this little meditation -- it consists material and concepts I have published on my various blog sites over and over again over the years. So if you've read this stuff before, I hope you'll bear with me. This is, indeed, the essence of everything I believe in, and who I am.

**************************

*****************

Its been the subject of many of the Christmas movies and television shows down through the years . . . the "real meaning of Christmas." Whether it's Keenan Wynn's Kris Kringle in "Miracle on 34th Street," all the"Whos down in Whoville" in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," or even "Phineas and Ferb" in the new Disney Channel cartoon series, the themes are the same . . . Christmas is over commercialized, and we need to get down to the true meaning of Christmas, which invariably turns out to be some sort of altruistic concept of selflessness and a spirit of giving. Often times the scripture from Luke 2:14 (always quoted from the King James version of the Bible), "Peace on earth, good will toward men." Its this "good will" that is presented as the essence of Christmas.

There is, of course, a kernel of truth in this. But there is one Christmas movie/tv show that truly gets it right. In "A Charlie Brown Christmas," Charlie Brown, in his exasperation over holiday pressures, cries out "Isn't there anyone who can tell me what Christmas is all about?" Linus takes the stage, a spotlight hits him, and he recites the Christmas narrative from Luke 2, with an emphasis on verse 11, "today is the City of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." After he's finished, he says to Charlie Brown, "and that's what Christmas is all about."

Indeed. Its all about a person. Its all about Jesus. Its all about a relationship with this person.

Of course, the perception we have of Jesus at Christmas time is as an infant, lying in the manger. Babies are not very threatening or complicated when it comes to a relationship. Relating to the person of Jesus as an adult -- the one the gospels portray for us -- is a lot more complicated. There is a perception that Jesus, at the Son of God, demands an awful lot of us. A lot of that "altruism" that Kris Kringle and the Whos were looking for. Good behavior. Right and righteous living. Getting along well with others. Unselfishness.

When we think about what we think Jesus expects from us, especially during the stress of the holiday season, it almost seems like we're being watched. Like he's "making a list and checking it twice,"
that he it all figured out, just exactly who is "naughty" and who is "nice."

Wait a minute . . . this is really starting to sound like its related to the Christmas concepts we grew up with.

But the truth of the matter . . . the real, biblical truth . . . is not at all like this.

What is the real meaning of Christmas? Why did Jesus come into the world? In all the hustle and hassle of what we generally face when we celebrate Christmas with our families and friends, I often feel just like Charlie Brown did -- frazzled, under pressure, and feeling like I just don't measure up. I cry out -- "I can't take this any more! Life has too much pressure! What IS Christmas really "all about?"

Jesus has the answer to my question. In Matthew 28:30, he says "Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you'll recover your life. I'll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you'll learn to live freely and lightly." (from "The Message" translation of the Bible).

This is tremendous imagery, reflecting in modern, 21st Century style English the basic message Jesus was trying to tell us. I particularly love the phrase "unforced rhythms of grace" and that there will be nothing "heavy or ill fitting on [us]." That is the essence of Christ's relational style, for anyone who has a real, living relationship with Him.

But the "Message" translation leaves out the most famous part of the original language of this verse -- the part that really has made this verse so quotable over the centuries. Here is the same verses in the NIV:

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Jesus' audience, centered in a primarily rural and agricultural culture of the ancient middle east, would have readily understood the concept of a "yoke." It was usually a large harness made of wood that was fitted over the necks or shoulders of farm animals. It was done either in pairs or larger groups of 4 or 6 animals. The more experienced animals were placed in a position so that what they did, where they went, the things they did forced the other, less experienced animals to go in the same direction and do the same things. In time, the inexperienced animals "learned the ropes" so to speak, and soon were doing and practicing the very same things the older animals did, and they didn't have to think about it. This was a more humane, gentler way to train animals than whipping them or "breaking" them. It was being trained and disciplined in a way that made it seem like you weren't being trained or disciplined. Our relationship with Jesus is like this -- his "yoke is easy." It is in this yoke we learn the "unforced rhythms of grace." Its a kinder, gentler life changing experience. Jesus is SO like that.

In a past discussion on this matter, a visitor to one of my blog sites commented that there is a second cultural angle to this. Its not just an agricultural image, but a culturally religious one. Here is what he had to say about these same verses:

"Jesus was actually using a double meaning for the Jewish word translated into yoke. For a Jew, the word yoke could mean the wooden thing to keep oxen together and go in a straight line. It also means the teachings of a Jewish rabbi. A rabbi would often tour around Israel, and the most famous and well respected rabbis gained quite a following (as we see with Jesus), one of the central marks of a rabbi was their "yoke" their set of beliefs and teachings...from the most famous of rabbis came the formulation of books like the Talmud and it's commentaries. What Jesus was saying there was. Come to me, my teaching is different that what you've seen before, it's not as legalistic as what you've learned, it rests easier on your shoulders. Come follow me and you'll see that the teaching I have to offer is easier."

This is also quite true. It shows how the cultural meaning of the texts offer us a richer tableau to view when we see it through the eyes of those to whom the words were originally spoken, and not just the eyes of a 21st century middle class American.

But it also speaks of relationship. The essence of Matthew 11: 28-30 is Christ's relationship with us. Whether viewed as a connection like oxen yoked together in learning to serve, or a connection to a religious teacher that would offer us a new and better way, the essence is still the same. Its all about relationships -- a mentor walking with his charge, or two persons laboring together. Except the mentor or coworker here is the God of the universe.

Charles Simpson, the internationally known apostolic charismatic leader, said that you can break down everything in the Bible, everything in God's kingdom, to some form of relationship. Any or you who actually read my journal entries on this site regarding the book of Galatians know that this is the essence of what I see coming out of that book -- God's relationship with his people, fulfilled in a promise.

And as I am thinking about Christmas, and what it really means, it is the Incarnation, the concept of God becoming a man in the form of Jesus Christ, that is at the forefront. And this too, is also all about a relationship.

Indeed, the Incarnation is something that is personal to each of us.

There is the anecdote regarding the Mom who finds her preschool aged daughter drawing pictures. Mom asks the little girl what she is drawing. "I'm drawing a picture of God." Mom smiles, and comments "But nobody knows what God looks like." The little girl things for a moment, and continues to draw. "They will now" she says.

That is what happened with Jesus. Before Jesus came into the world, no one had ever truly seen God, or known God, or understood what God was really all about. But when we come to know Jesus, we come to understand . . . we come to truly know "what God looks like."

The essence of the Incarnation is described in John 1:14

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth”

But how is that "relational?"

Well, the "Word" is God, in the form of Jesus.

The concept of becoming "flesh" was viewed by audience that John wrote for as almost vulgar. The Greek word for flesh connotes an earthy, almost scandalous or "in the gutter" type image. "Flesh" means the sensual, the sensuous, the cravings of our natural state. It means being separated from God, inclined to sin, separated from divine influence and control. It was, literally, a "dirty word." I can almost see images from that scene in the movie "The Christmas Story:" where the main character "Ralphie" is helping his Dad change a tire, and uses the "F" word -- the "Queen mother of dirty words." In the minds of the people of Jesus' time, having God come "in the flesh" would have been as shocking as hearing a child use that word. Its like talking about fecal matter -- you can use the word "excrement," or you can use the socially unacceptable word that rhymes with "fit," but you're still talking about the same stuff. That's what the connotation of the Greek word for "flesh" has here.

And think about it. Philippians 2:5-8 says:

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature { Or } God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing, taking the very nature { Or } of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!"

Jesus left the glory of heaven --volunteered for the part, and put on this "fecal," dirty matter and be one with us. If your going to truly relate to someone, you have to be at their level. That's what Jesus did when he was born in the manger at Christmas.

This concept is not to be taken lightly. John 3:16, which says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Its a verse that isn't often quoted in the context of Christmas -- we usually get Luke 2, or Matthew 2. The Angels, the Shepherds, or the Magi. But John 3:16 is "What Christmas is all about" to quote Linus from "A Charlie Brown Christmas." God loved us so much, he gave us his son. But how do we measure how much God loved us? When you consider the context of the verse quoted above from Philippians, its almost incomprehensible. God, lowering himself to the level of mankind. I had a good friend in high school, who used to try and explain this by saying that to understand how far God had to "step down" to put on that "flesh," we need to picture one of us coming into the world as a maggot in order to redeem all the flies. No matter how highly we think of ourselves, no one of us, or even the entire race of man, is really of any consequence within the vastness of the universe, and of creation. Yet God chose to be just like us, so we could be right with Him.

And he did this on a personal level. This wasn't a grandiose, sweeping concept that would scoop us all up together as an impersonal mass, like a broom sweeping up all the dust at once. Redemption is as personal as holding hands, as a tender kiss. He did this all as a person, as an individual, so that each of us could get to know him, one on one.

He did this by coming live in with us, right in our neighborhood. The words for "made his dwelling among us" in John 1:14 is the same words used when describing making camp -- Jesus literally "pitched his tents with us" when he became a man. He moved in. So we could see him at home, where it really counted, and he could see the same things with us. This is relational living. Jesus wants to be as close to us, or closer, than our own nieghbors. But think of more than just the next house over. Think best friends. Like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble. Inseperable, bosom buddies. That's what this language implies.

That is the essence of the Incarnation -- the essence of Christmas. Christ became just like us, as fallible and dirty and slimey as us -- but he never sinned, he never fell into the trap. But he was willing to come down to our level, to stoop as low as the eternal God of the universe could bend over, so we could see Him as he truly was, and he could relate to us on a personal level. So close, you could see Him working in His yard, talk with him across the back fence, and so he could hear it when your kids practiced thier band instruments.

Jesus became part of our family.

That is the essence of Christmas, ladies and gentlemen, and its why I get excited to think about these things this time of year.

Jesus wants to be my neighbor, my bosom buddy, my best friend.

He wants me to take his yoke upon me, and learn his ways.

He wants to share a meal with me.

He wants to have tea with me (another story I have posted before).

And because of this relationship, I have eternal life, and my very nature has been changed to something that can actually begin to come into line with what those Christmas movies see as the real meaning of Christmas -- that "good will toward men" stuff. Without Jesus, I am doomed to fail in my own efforts to be good. But now that I am a new creation in Jesus (see 2 Corinthians 5:17), I can, in Christ, obey his call to help and serve others.

That's what the Incarnation means.

And my family and I wish all of you a very merry, blessed, and joyful Christmas!!!

Favorite Christmas Movies

2009-12-13T13:39:00.000-06:00

I need a little diversion in what has otherwise proven to be a very busy week.

A conversation/debate started when I posted that my family was gathering for the annual viewing of "A Christmas Story." A lot of folks love that movie, while others communicated their disdain. But it got me thinking about the rare concept of a "Christmas movie," and the ones that over the years have helped define the holiday season for me and my family.

I was originally going to weigh in with a "best and worst" list of Christmas movies, because there are some real clunkers out there too. But in the interest of trying not to offend my friends who may like one of the holiday films I despise, we'll just make this a list of my favorite Christmas movies.

So, in no particular order, are my list of favorite holiday cinema:

* "Humphrey's Search for Christmas" and "The Littlest Present." Yes, two movies I have actually appeared in make the list! These are two films produced by my church's kids ministry, and they have become a part of our holiday traditions both because they are enjoyable to watch, were so enjoyable to make, and, especially in the case of "Humphrey," have become a part of my own family traditions. When "Humphrey" was released back in 1991 or 1992, I was just starting my family, my kids were little, and they watched the video and listened to the song soundtrack over and over and over. And because of my personal connections to these films, they bring back wonderful memories.

* "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" The first of the Rankin/Bass stop-action animated Christmas specials, and still the best. I remember watching this when it premiered back in 1964 or so, and because it was an annual part of my childhood Christmases, I still enjoy it today. Cheezy? You betcha. But its a great story, and the songs have become part of the annual Christmas music rotation along with traditional fare like "Silent Night" or "First Noel."

* "The Toy that Saved Christmas" This is the "Veggie Tales" entry into Christmas -- very clever, very original, and a great message for kids. Larry the Cucumber's "Silly Song," "Oh Santa" is a satiric Christmas classic! Again, this was released at a time my kids were little and very much into "Veggie Tales" videos, so it is imprinted on my family's collective consciousness (along with the Veggie Tales Christmas album!) and was produced before Veggie Tales went "mainstream" after their financial difficulties a few years ago. I consider the earlier Veggie Tale work, when Phil Vischer was still running the show, to be much superior to the current product.

* "Miracle on 34th Street" Here, I mean the original version, with Maureen O'Hara and Keenan Wynn. (The remake just didn't work for me at all). My family watches this every season. Wynn's portrayal of Kris Kringle creates a very human, sincere Santa Claus, and the performance of a young Natalie Wood as a little girl transformed from a Christmas agnostic to a "true believer" is a heartwarming story. Plus, the courtroom scene where Kringle's attorney legally proves there really is a Santa Clause resonates with this usually cynical lawyer.

* "A Christmas Carol" Charles Dickens' Christmas novella about the transformation of the cold hearted Scrooge through the visitation of the three Christmas Spirits has been on of my all time favorite stories -- I have re-read it annually for years. There are several screen adaptations that I have enjoyed. I have not seen the most recent Disney version featuring Jim Carey (I usually can't stand Carey, so I can't imagine that project working),but I can recommend at least five movie adaptations of "A Christmas Carol." The best version from a total cinematic viewpoint is probably the 1951 British production starring Alastair Sim as Scrooge. Very true to the original story, and Sim established the mood and mannerism for Scrooge that have been copied by actors portraying the role ever since. Two more modern productions that were very effective in preserving the original story line and giving us wonderful interpretations of Scrooge and the other characters are versions which starred George C. Scott and Patrick Stewart respectively. The Stewart version took some liberties with the story in setting up the film, but did not take away from the concept, and Stewart is a great Scrooge. In addition, there are two childrens' version of the story I recommend. The "Muppet Christmas Carol" is surprisingly well done, using the muppet characters to portray roles in a way that is respectful to the original material, but still allows the usual Muppet humor to seep through. The musical numbers are fun, too! And who could forget Mr. Magoo? There is a "Mr Magoo" cartoon version of "Carol" originally produced in the 60s. While its probably not a "first class" production, it was an early influence that got me hooked on the story. For that, I will always be grateful, and therefore recommend it.

* "White Christmas" This is one of my family's favorites -- we've watched it every year, and I probably have half of the movie's lines memorized. Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney, Vera-Ellen, and great songs by Irving Berlin. Yes, its a typically cheese-ball Hollywood musical, but its great fun.

* "Holiday Inn" The original "White Christmas." Indeed, while the movie "White Christmas" is much more widely known, this is the the film that originally introduced the fabled Christmas song. Starring Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire, this should be the movie that is remembered and be the big Holiday Classic. "White Christmas" pales in comparison, and is really a more modern rip-off of this film. This was songwriter Irving Berlin's brainchild - a musical about a fellow (played by Bing Crosby) who opens a resort hotel that is only open on each holiday -- hence the name "Holiday Inn." Many popular song classics were introduced in this film -- "White Christmas," "Easter Parade" "Be Careful Its My Heart." The reason why this film has faded from the holiday movie pantheon is obvious, though. The scene commemorating Lincoln's birthday has the entire cast in black-face makeup in the tradition of old minstrel shows, a concept that is patently offensive to African-Americans. Otherwise, the singing and dancing in this film is top notch.

* "A Christmas Story" I have always loved this film, perhaps because the family culture portrayed in it is very close to what my extended family was like growing up, and that it is set in a fictional town that represents Hammond, Indiana, which might as well be the town I grew up in, being so close geographically. I always enjoyed Jean Shepherd's radio monologues and his books, and this movie is a wonder encapsulation of several episodes from his popular book "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash." My family enjoys watching this movie every year, and I know a complete sub-culture has grown up around it. I've discovered that people either love this film or hate it. I think a lot of it has to do with relating to its mid-western, working class concept. For better or worse, that was my life as a kid, and even though this film is set in 1939, I can relate to it in so many ways.

* "The Nativity Story" A recent entry to my list of Christmas favorites, this is one of the few decent attempts to actually tell the story of Christ's birth in its proper historical setting. Its fairly accurate from a scriptural standpoint, and the portrayal of Mary and Joseph as fallible humans rather than idealized saints is refreshing. I highly recommend this movie.

* "Its a Wonderful Life" Yes, this movie had to make the list. I find it interesting that when this film was released back in the late 1940s, it did not do well, and was largely forgotten until the early 1970s. Then, because the copyright had expired, public television stations began airing it over the holidays because they didn't have to pay for the broadcast rights. When I was in high school, you could watch this film six to eight times a week during the Advent season on a variety of TV outlets. Today, the movie is as much a part of modern American culture as any other film. The message is timeless, and the performances real and meaningful. And if you really think about it, its one of the few movies of its kind where the bad guy (Mr. Potter) doesn't get his comeuppance at the end. But George finds his place in the world, and that makes for a very happy ending.

* "Mr. Krueger's Christmas" This has to be my favorite Christmas movie of all time. Unfortunately, its really a half-hour commercial for the Mormon church. That being said, you don't really realize that until the very end of the film (the hints might be obvious, with performances by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the story set in Salt Lake City, and a scene set on the Temple Square). Jimmy Stewart (the star of "Wonderful Life") is featured here. He plays a lonely widower who lives in a sort of Walter Mitty like fantasy world, where he imagines great adventures for himself. The focal point of the story is when he is visited by a group of Christmas Carolers who are uncomfortable with his shabby little apartment and lifestyle. A little girl leaves her mittens behind, and Mr. Krueger, in his imagination, tries to find her. The highlight of the film is a scene where he is arranging a nativity set on his table, and imagines himself at the very first Christmas, and has a conversation with the infant Jesus. I challenge anyone to watch that scene to not come away with tears in your eyes. It is a remarkable performance, and one that gets to the heart of what Christmas is really all about in a way that few other films have ever done. I have read that Mr. Stewart demanded that the scene be shot in one take, because he did not have the emotional wherewithal to go through it more than once.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 23

2009-12-08T16:50:00.001-06:00

Galatians 5:23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Paul closes out his list of the fruits of the spirit with the last two items.

“gentleness” The King James Version translates this as “meekness.” There has already been a word in this list that could have been translated as “gentleness,” the New International Version translated it as “kindness.” The word here does indeed literally mean “gentleness,” but implies meekness, and especially humility. This is mildness and evenness of temper – not easily provoked, patience under duress, injury or offense; not proud, vain or haughty. Numbers 12:2 speaks of Moses as being meek. I think the key concept to understanding what “gentleness” is, as one of the fruits of the spirit, is humility. That is, submissiveness to God, and humble in spirit. It also implies a strong sense of nurturing – a parental sense of love, and to lead and nurture others in gentleness and humility.

“self control” The King James renders this as “temperance.” This word conveys the essence of a person who has mastered his or her desires and passions, especially sensual desires. This is the utmost in self restraint. Interestingly, one of the primary uses of this word in ancient Greek culture was to describe “continence” – a word that can mean to control carnal desire, but as a medical term refers to the voluntary control of the bowels. Its amusing in a way – the Holy Spirit produces fruit in the believer that amounts to a sort of spiritual “potty training” if you will – we grow and develop in our ability to choose not to sin. This was a big deal in the ancient world. The ability to abstain from vice, to discipline one’s own body and personal desires was probably one of the most highly respected virtues of the ancient Roman world. The fear of lawlessness – the freedom to sin to one’s delight – was one of the primary criticisms of the doctrine of “salvation by grace.” But Paul emphasizes that those who are transformed through Christ fulfill the morality of the Law by the inspiration of the Spirit (see Galatians 5:14).

“Against such things there is no law.” I Timothy 1:9 states that the Law was not designed for the righteous, but for sinners. There is an implication in the English translation of this phrase that there is more – “no law – that can bring a charge.” The power of a transformed life in Jesus is just that – our sins are wiped away and there is nothing to bring a charge against. The Law becomes practically unnecessary, because the fruit of the Spirit produces the righteousness of Christ in us – the “new creation” we are in Jesus comes through the power of the Spirit, not through obedience to the law.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 22

2009-11-18T09:52:00.000-06:00

It's been a while since I've updated the Galatians Journal. I've been busy with a project (which is a very good thing).

Galatians 5: 22 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,”

Paul now shifts gears. After his list of “vices,” the “acts of the sinful nature,” he now contrasts that with the “fruit of the Spirit.” The metaphor of God’s people bearing fruit was not new (see, e.g., Isaiah 27:6, Hosea 10:1 & 14:8). But this is a perfect picture of how the miraculous transformation of a living relationship with Christ – being truly born again – works . Paul contrasts the “acts” of the sinful nature (or “works” as translated in the King James Version in 5:19) with the concept of the “fruit” of the spirit. Fruit is something that is produced by the tree because of its nature, in the natural course of the tree’s life. The tree doesn’t strive to produce fruit – it just happens, because that is what the tree was designed for, it’s what the tree does, indeed, it’s what the tree IS!!. Paul is emphasizing that it’s the believer’s nature that has been transformed – made new at a foundational level – in Christ (see 5:24). Its fruit “of the Spirit” because it’s the Holy Spirit dwelling in the believer that produces righteous, “Christian” character traits as opposed to the mere moral discipline of trying to follow the law. As briefly discussed at the end of the entry on the previous verse (5:21), Paul’s arguments throughout this letter (indeed, in ALL of Paul’s letters) clearly lay out the premise that justification by faith does not result in the ability to sin as we please ,because God is bound to always forgive us (see Romans 6). The Holy Spirit, living inside the believer, produces the Christian virtues – the “fruit of the Spirit” – in each believer’s life.

“love” The Greek word here is “agape.” This is unconditional love, love that does not seek return or reward. It’s the highest, noblest form of love.

“joy” This could also be translated “gladness.” But it also implies greatness in joy and gladness, as the word itself in the Greek can be used as an adverb, meaning “greatly” or “enormously.” The joy that comes through the Holy Spirit is deep and over powering.

“peace” The original Greek work here has many meanings, just as “peace” in English does. It can be used to describe peace between nations, as in the peace that follows a war. That would imply exemption from and freedom from the rage, havoc, and fear that comes with war. The reality of the concept that life is a spiritual battle means a relationship with Christ brings an oasis in that battle. It also means a peace between individuals – the Holy Spirit fosters healing in relationships. It implies safety, security, and prosperity, because true peace makes and keeps things safe and prosperous. The peace of Christ, the “fruit” of peace, is the tranquility of our soul knowing and being sure of our salvation through the promise of Christ, not fearing God’s retribution because we have a relationship with Jesus and a sense of contentment with our lot in life here and now.

“patience” The King James Version translates this as “longsuffering.” In the literal meaning of the original Greek, there are two concepts. First is constancy of character, “patience” in the sense of endurance, consistency, steadfastness, and perseverance. It’s not giving up or giving in when the going gets tough. Second is the concept of “longsuffering,” that is, the ability to endure unfairness and wrongs, forbearance, patience in dealing with the faults of others, slowness in getting angry, and not feeling a need for revenge. It’s the ability to forgive, and continue to forgive, even when the other person fails to change or recognize they’re doing wrong.

“kindness” The KJV translates this as “gentleness,” and the original Greek literally means moral goodness and integrity. It also means being kind, benign, and yes, gentle. Proverbs 15:1 speaks of a “gentle answer turning away wrath.” The transformed character of a Christian doesn’t avoid confrontation, but wisely uses “kindness” in the fruit of his or her life to deal with issues, rather than the corresponding “acts of the sinful nature” such as “fits of rage” or “discord.” (See 5:20)

“goodness” Both this and the previous word could be translated as “goodness,” or “kindness,” but they’re different. The previous word implies a gentle approach to contention, and right behavior and ethical reaction in the face of wrongdoing. The meaning of this term is literally “uprightness of heart.” This is the essence and nature of moral goodness, and implies benevolence and selflessness. It would appear that the fruit of “kindness” is aimed at dealing with those who are opposed to us, or have an issue with us, or who need moral guidance. The fruit of “goodness” seems to aimed more at those who need help, at charitableness, and laying down our lives for others.

“faithfulness” The KJV translates his as “faith,” and that is the essence of the word. First and foremost, it is conviction of truth – truth involving one’s relationship to God, and the trust and passion connected to the belief in that truth. If is the absolute conviction that God exists, that He created the world, that He rules the world, and is our provider and the giver of all good things. It is the absolute conviction that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and the only means of salvation in God’s Kingdom. In a more general sense, it means fidelity of character – the transformed Christian life is one of consistency and reliability. The fruit of “faith,” or “faithfulness,” therefore, means we are consistent in what we believe in, rely upon, and exhibit as behavior. It means others can rely on that consistency – rely on the fact that we have been changed, and are walking with Christ. They can rely on our word and morality, and rely on our loyalty and friendship. The fruit is shown in our faith in God and his Word, and his work in the body of Christ – and in how others can have faith in the “faithfulness” shown in our lives!!

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 21

2009-11-02T07:58:00.001-06:00

Galatians 5:21 “and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. “

Paul concludes his list of specific examples of “acts of the sinful nature” here.

“and envy” There is apparently only one word that is equivalent to the original Greek here, and that is “envy.” But why the “and?” Only the NIV version includes it. Perhaps the original language implies this to be linked to the prior group of sins. Envy would obviously be at the root of selfish ambition, divisiveness, and factions. But there’s more. While the NIV, New American Standard, and Amplified Bibles all translate this as envy, the King James Version adds a second sin, an additional word to the list. So, just like in verse 19, there are 4 Greek words translated into three English words here. The KJV adds “murders” and that is indeed what the original Greek literally means. Why do the other translations leave this out? Not being a Greek scholar, I can’t say for sure. Obviously, murder is an act of the sinful nature, that would be so obvious as to go without saying. It would also seem to fit better tucked in amongst hatred, discord, jealousy, and fits of rage. Yet, this seems to be meant to intensify “envy.” The first murder in history was the result of envy (see Genesis 4: 4 through 8). This is more than just a desire to have something that belongs to someone else, or desire someone’s position, talent and the like. This is envy so deep that we want to kill the other person.

“drunkenness, orgies” The first word here simply means “intoxication.” The second word, “orgies” (translated as “reveling” in the KJV) is a special, specific word in the Greek that is tied to the worship of Bacchus, the Greek God of Wine, and it describes a feast or drinking party that lasts all night, involving music, dancing, parading in the streets with torches, sexual cavorting – in general, a loud, riotous revelry fueled by drinking. In a word, “partying,” as it’s understood in modern American slang, but this is over-the-top "partying" to be sure!

“and the like” A few verses back, I mused about whether this list might be conclusive – here it is obviously meant to be a list of examples, not a definitive list of sins. For other similar lists, see First Corinthians 6: 9-10; Ephesians 4:2 and 5:9, and Revelation 22:15.

“I warn you as I did before” In all of Paul’s letters, he emphasizes that this kind of behavior is unacceptable for Christians.

“shall not inherit the kingdom of God” Falling into or getting involved with one of these “acts of the sinful nature” does not disqualify us from salvation. Especially because this list includes sins that involve our thought life and emotions, the temptation in these areas are always great. But Paul is presenting and defining these “acts,” and then in the next few verses, compares them with the fruit of the Spirit, to emphasize that these are character traits more than they are individual actions. It is not in avoiding these acts of the sinful nature that we will get through – that is trying to obey the law all over again. But it is when we become a child of “the promise,” when we are changed and become a “new creation,” so that we no longer are known, in our character, by these traits. Plus, I don’t think the concept of “inheriting the kingdom of God” as that phrase is used in the New Testament, has anything to do with salvation. Paul only uses it to describe sinful behavior that will disqualify people from their “inheritance,” (here, and in First Corinthians 6:9-10 ) -- or to describe how the resurrection of our bodies in the next life will work (I Corinthians 15:50); James used it to describe how the poor get special consideration (James 2:5), and Jesus uses it, in the King James Version, to speak of the reward for those who use their talents well (Matthew 25:34). The Bible clearly teaches that there is a reward for good works that occurs in the judgment we will experience when as believers, we will eventually stand before God after we die and in the final judgment. In I Corinthians 3: 11-15, it states that we are judged for what we do AFTER we come to a saving relationship with God through the Promise. For the things that we do that emanate from our character as new creations, as the fruit of the Spirit, or the result of obedience, we receive a reward in the next life – in heaven. But if we continue to live selfishly, unrepentantly continuing to commit these acts of the flesh, Paul says in I Corinthians 3:15, such deeds will be “burned up, [we] will suffer loss, but [we ourselves] will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” If we have become children “of the promise,” our nature should change and we no longer indulge in the acts of the sinful nature, or at least we have the power in our lives to now avoid them. That is really Paul’s point here. Paul is being specific, so those of us who become Christians who have known only the “acts of the sinful nature” can clearly understand that there will be an eternal consequence to stubbornly cling to this kind of behavior.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 20

2009-11-02T07:54:00.002-06:00

Galatians 5: 20 “ idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions”

Paul continues with his specific description of the “acts of the sinful nature” or “flesh.” The word Paul uses for “acts” in verse 19 is translated in the King James Version as “works,” which seems to play on the concept of “works of the law, as in “observing the law" (see Galatians 3:2). In the previous verse, Paul described all manner of sexual sin (summing it up in 4 words or terms in the original Greek, but translated as three English words in the NIV). He leaves sex behind in verse 19 and moves on to other matters.

“Idolatry” This literally means the worship of false gods. But even in the original Greek, the context goes beyond simply sacrificing to idols and false religions, bad as those concepts are by themselves. It also means avarice – an insatiable greed for riches; or an inordinate, miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth. This is beyond greed – it’s the worship of riches, an all-encompassing obsession with money. Obviously, in our modern age, ambition, a lust for power, and an obsession with popular culture would fit in here as well.

“Witchcraft” As with the word “idolatry,” there is more to the original meaning than the basic English translation can convey. Of course, this refers to sorcery, the magic arts, and other occult practices. But the first definition in my Greek lexicon for the original word is “the use of or the administration of drugs,” followed by “poisoning.” So, while gluttony and over indulgence aren’t specifically on this list, the things that lead to addiction – particularly drugs and other material that alters the consciousness or leads to serious health issues (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, overeating, other obsessions) could be covered here. The fact that the NIV pairs this word with the previous “idolatry” indicates how they work hand in hand – not just false religion linked with the occult arts being used to manipulate and control people, but also greed and obsession being twisted and amplified into societal forces that will also manipulate, control and destroy.

“hatred, discord, jealousy” The next three words are translated quite literally from Greek into English. The Greek word for hatred here is very strong – this isn’t just strong dislike, it’s downright enmity. “Discord” means strife, contention, or wrangling. It boils down to being argumentative, I suppose. “Jealousy” is interesting. It literally means “zeal,” that is, excitement of mind, ardor, or fervor of spirit. This could be zeal in a positive sense, but the stronger notion is a sense of fierce indignation, or punitive zeal. I suppose this is hatred with passion. The secondary meaning involves envy, contentious rivalry, and basic jealousy. It think it was Paul’s intent to emphasis the indignation part, as in “righteous indignation.” Its easy for anyone to allow offenses of all kinds to take root, and when we justify our hurts in our religiousness or self-righteousness, it turns to envious or hateful zeal. We can be our own advocate, or take on the offense of a friend of loved one, in a negative comparison or the desire for what someone has, their talent, or their position.

“fits of rage” The King James Version translates this as “wrath,” the New American Standard as “outbursts of anger,” the Amplified Bible emphasizes “ill temper.” The original Greek word here emphasizes passion – hot, boiling anger that comes in waves. The secondary meaning involves the “wine of passion” or “inflaming wine,” which either drives the drinker mad or kills him with its strength (implying a secondary connection for this kind of rage to alcohol or drug abuse, though such a connection for this kind of rage is obviously not necessary). This is truly the kind of anger that is so deep it leads to destruction.

“selfish ambition” The literal meaning of the original language here is to “electioneer.” That is, to put yourself forth in a conniving way – it implies all the intrigue of a hotly contested election. Thus, this is factiousness at its peak. The King James Version translates this as “strife,” the New American Standard says “disputes,” the Amplified says “selfishness.” It means a bit of, or all of these things. This is more than mere ambition in the sense of furthering oneself by advancing one’s career (although an over emphasis on that concept could lead to what Paul is talking about here), but seeing division and using it to your own advantage, setting things up with the sole purpose of advancing oneself. “Blind” Ambition, perhaps? Merciless ambition to be sure. This was an extremely rare word in Paul’s day. Aristotle used it to describe a self-seeking pursuit of political office by unfair or unscrupulous means. In other new testament letters, we are exhorted to avoid this mindset and not selfishly put our own ambitions forward. (See, e.g., Philippians 2:3, James 3:14). Selfishness and self-promotion are heart attitudes.

“dissensions” is translated in the King James Version as “seditions,” and it literally means “divisions.” The NIV translates this pretty accurately. This speaks to causing factions and divisions, driving people apart, a rebellious spirit that seeks anarchy and the overthrow of authority.

“factions” This is a more specific word than the previous one, yet it has many meanings and applications. It has three basic interpretations. It is an extremely violent word – it literally means to storm and capture something, like invading a city or country. It also means to choose, the process of choosing, or a choice. But the best translation of the original Greek for this word occurs in the Amplified Bible, which interprets this word as a “party spirit.” But we mean “party” as in political party, a group of people following their own tenets or beliefs. It also means any division caused among people based on opinion or belief – groups with peculiar opinions, heresy, or sects. Is this the spirit of denominationalism? Certainly the American church acutely suffers from this. Or dare I say, this speaks to the important underlying theme of this letter – that one must conform to a particular cultural or ethnic practice in order to acceptable to God and/or the congregation – in this setting (the Roman province of Galatia), it was Gentiles who needed to act or become like Jews in order to “fit in.” What does it take to be acceptable in our congregations? Do I expect others to be “politically correct” when it comes to denominational or local practice? Such a concept is the essence of “factions.”

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 19

2009-10-31T08:01:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5: 19 “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;”

“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious” Paul begins to get specific—to individually list actions which are manifestations of the “flesh,” and to contrast these concepts with a specific list of the fruit of the Spirit immediately after, the result of “living” by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16). But this is not a body vs. Spirit dichotomy. While this verse’s “vices” all have to with sexuality, we can’t fall into that trap. Greek philosophers, particularly Plato, emphasized that the body and Spirit had nothing to do with each other – it was “body, bad; human spirit,"good.” The Old Testament Jewish notion wasn’t a whole lot different. “Flesh” to them meant human finiteness, animalistic tendencies, and mortality. It meant moral weakness and susceptibility to sin. The Spirit, however, provided miraculous power to speak prophetically and to do powerful things. So, like the Greeks, the Jews saw the sinful nature, or flesh and the Spirit as having nothing in common. (See, e.g., Genesis 6:3).

While there is a kernel of truth in these presumptions, we must be careful not to let Platonic- like philosophy influence our biblical worldview. It’s not a matter of body verse spirit. Both in worldly thought and in the church, there is an obsession with the body, and sexual matters. Many Christians feel if you can just overcome sexual sin, you’ve got it made. While important, just focusing on avoiding the immoral acts listed in this verse isn’t the end – as can be seen by the other acts of the “flesh” in the rest of the list. Paul’s focus here on "flesh" verses "Spirit" changes the focus of the struggle. The believer who is truly a “son of God,” a “child of the promise,” – truly born again and in an intimate relationship with Jesus – has had his nature changed. God’s presence now indwells and lives inside the believer. This transformation (see Galatians 2:20, 6:15 and 2 Corinthians 5:17) allows believers to live by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16) and have a new moral ability – the ability to supernaturally reflect God’s own character in the way they live.

Paul starts the list with three sexual sins. (As an aside, is this list meant to be exhaustive in any way? Most conservative bible scholars treat the other “lists” Paul makes – including the fruit of the Spirit later in this chapter, as “all there is.”) The NIV has three sexual sins listed – “sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery.” The New American Standard and Amplified versions have the first two the same, but list “sensuality” and “indecency” respectively as the third “vice” in verse 19. The King James Version lists 4 sexual vices where the others have only three – “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, and lasciviousness.”

There are actually four words in the original Greek. The first of these four Greek words can really only be translated as “adultery. “ This has a very specific meaning – intercourse between a married person and someone not his/her spouse. The second Greek word, “porneia” (I wonder which English word has its roots here?) is a more inclusive but still quite specific term, covering any illicit sexual relationship of any kind – adultery, fornication (sex between unmarried people), homosexual or lesbian sex, bestiality, incest or any intercourse with a close relative, and intercourse with a divorced person. (This about covers any sexual relationship outside of marriage). The third Greek word here is “akatharsia,” which is a more general term. It means anything unclear in a moral sense – and while it is more often applied to sexual situations, it wasn’t necessarily limited to sex. This covers lust, the overly luxurious, and generally profligate living. This also covers the concepts of impure thoughts and motives. The last Greek word in verse 19, “aselgeia” appears to be an amplification of the one just before it. This implies unbridled lust, licentiousness (that is, unabashedly and unrestrained, shameless sexual behavior) and wantonness (over the top, careless, wild and unrestrained). This is sexual behavior that goes beyond the pale – outrageous, insolent, shameless behavior. Thus, the entire gamut of sexual issues beyond the sanctity of marriage is defined as “acts of the flesh,” ranging from impure thoughts to adultery and the most outrageous sexual behavior imaginable. It’s important to understand the specificity of Paul’s list here – not to lay condemnation but see that this is serious business. Most of the moral philosophers of Paul’s era simply condemned the excesses in indulging in the flesh, and even the Jews of that time recognized the difficulty in keeping the entirety of the law, and often excused it. But Paul is saying these behaviors, in their entirety, from motivation to full blown excess, are evil (and verse 21 contains a warning). But remember, Paul is not putting the body verses the Spirit. Rather, by making this list, he is bringing specificity to human nature, and contrasting this later with the fruit of the Spirit. These works of the “flesh” are merely the fruit of living life without God’s power and without the connection of a relationship with Him.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 18

2009-10-30T06:40:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:18 “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.”

Once again, Paul brings his arguments full circle, returning to the topic of Galatians 5:1. That is, a relationship with Christ means freedom; dependence on the law means slavery.

“If you are led by the Spirit” If you are a Christian – a “son of God” (see Romans 8:14), that is, authentically Christian, in a living relationship with Jesus; if you are truly born again, then:

“you are not under the law.” To the Jew of Paul’s day, it was expected that one would observe and obey all the components of the Old Testament Law for salvation and/or sanctification. One didn’t obey the law as a means to please God per se, but one did so in order to be acceptable to God in the first place. One slip up meant the relationship with God was broken. Freedom in Christ, at least according to Galatians 5:1, frees us from this bondage, and we depend on Christ’s redemption to bring us into right relationship with God. This, of course, horrified both the traditional Jew and the Greek believers of Paul’s day, because they feared that this meant accepting Jesus as the Messiah would result in, according to Paul, Christians being free from all moral authority. That’s ridiculous, of course, but Christians are freed from the law in the sense that Israel had been under the law. The law as practiced before Jesus came to the earth did not provide the means to resist sin, or the power of sin – it only served to condemn the sinner. But the grace of God in Christ – a living relationship with Jesus that miraculously transforms us in our inner man – this enables us to resist sin and the sin nature. (Paul is about to specifically expound on that in the following verses). For the Greeks of Paul’s day, their humanistic philosophers held that the truly wise needed no laws or rules – they instinctively knew what was right. The Old Testament had a parallel for this when it spoke of the law being written on a person’s heart (e.g. Jeremiah 31:31-34). The Jews understood the concept of Israel being “led” by God, especially in its deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Indeed, that is the exact parallel. The law is slavery; redemption in Jesus is freedom. And the parallel in the struggle to resist sin, and the “flesh” is there as well – Israel, as a nation, struggled with throwing off the yoke of slavery and following God into the wilderness. Paul explains here and in places like Romans 7 the Christian’s battle with sin. But unlike the Old Testament story, we, as Christians, have a greater weapon, a clear way to true freedom – the transformational power of a relationship with Christ!

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 17

2009-10-29T08:28:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:17 “For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.”

The NIV translates the original Greek verb here as “desires what is contrary.” The New American Standard Version uses “sets its desires against.” The Amplified Bible uses “opposed to.” The Kings James Version uses the most colorful and extreme language in its translation – “lusts.” Obviously, verse 17 drives home the reality of the sin nature and the Spirit being diametrically opposed. But the depth and seriousness of this conflict is lost a bit in the NIV’s choice of translation. As discussed in the earlier entries for Galatians Chapter 5, the Greek work that the NIV translates as “sinful nature” literally means “flesh,” and is translated as such in the KJV. “Flesh” is an earthy word, bordering on profanity in the Greek and Jewish cultures. It really means more than just the “sinful nature,” it implies everything that encompasses human weaknesses – some versions of the bible translate this as “human nature,” and that makes a little more sense here. It implies the depth of all human weakness – sin, yes, but also mortality, aging, sickness, pain, negative emotion etc. But it also includes that which is the “positive” side of humanity and human nature, that is, striving on our own, without God’s help. Thus, “flesh” or “sinful nature” really means the worst (or best) that a person can be or become in and of himself. Paul is making two things clear – because the flesh has nothing in common with the Spirit or God’s power, a person can live his life by the Spirit – that is, in a living relationship with God through Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit, or live by the flesh – that is, live his live without any dependence on God. Galatians 5:16-18 makes it clear, you can’t have it both ways. Second, by stating “you do not do what you want,” he emphasizes the powerful nature of the conflict. This is discussed more fully in passages such as Romans 7: 15-23 and I Peter 2:11. Because we are born with a sin nature, this struggle will ensue all of our lives. It is only by living by the Spirit, in an intimate relationship with Jesus, that there is victory in this conflict.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 16

2009-10-28T09:38:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:16 “So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.”

As emphasized in the analysis of the previous verse, the Judiazers’ arguments centered on the sanctity of the community – we need the rules of the Law to keep people from falling into sin and depravity. But Paul has just argued that a relationship with Jesus is based on freedom, and that slavish devotion to rules only leads to “indulging the sinful nature.” But even in freedom, we are warned to not “use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature” (5:13). It seems to be a paradox – We’re not supposed to sin, yet we’re supposed to be free from the rules. How is this going to work?

Verse 16 begins the revelation of the answer to this age-old question.

"So I say, live by the Spirit.” In the original Greek, the work translated in the NIV as “live” literally means “walk.” It was part of the Jewish cultural viewpoint of the Law to refer to following the Law’s principles as a “walk.” The Jews saw their devotion to the Law as having a relationship with the Law – it was a mindset designed to mold one’s behavior by familiarity, like becoming intimately familiar with terrain by walking through it over and over. The Greeks really had no cultural parallel for this concept. To tell a Greek of that era to “walk by the Law” or “walk by the Spirit” would have seemed foreign. Yet, this is precisely why this concept needed to be driven home. Paul is aiming his instruction at those who were familiar with and related to Jewish culture, and is encouraging them to “walk” outside of it. To give up cultural concepts and rules as a basis for defining who we are in God, and “walk” instead with and in a relationship with God Himself.

And while the word here literally means “walk” it is also proper to translate it as “to live.” The verb tense here is present, and its intensified. It could be translated as “go on living by the Spirit” or “continue to live by the Spirit.” It implies habitual conduct. The “walking” or “living” here also implies we are to be responsive to the Spirit, controlled by the Spirit, and guided by the Spirit. This goes way beyond the concept of rote obedience. Again, it’s all about RELATIONSHIP.

But I think a few things need to be established. The relationship is based on the promise. (Galatians 3:6-9). The promise and its power result in a complete transformation – we are made new. (2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15). Our foundational nature and relationship with God is changed. We are no longer slaves to sin, but sons of God. (Galatians 3:26 – 4:7). Our ability to resist sin, the “sinful nature” or “flesh,” is not so much a matter of our will, or ability, but is based on this change of nature, and on the relationship with God, and the indwelling of His Spirit, and on the POWER of the Spirit. This change of nature, the “walk” in the Spirit that is habitual, responsive, controlled and guided is fueled by God’s limitless power. It is SUPERNATURAL. The same miraculous power that raised Jesus from the dead, that gives us miracles and gifts (Galatians 3:5 – I don’t think we can discuss this without including the essential nature of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2 (and in Galatians 3:5) and the use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in a supernatural manner), this power helps us to be free of the sinful nature, of the “flesh.” Yes, there is always choice involved, a day by day, minute by minute choice. But the combination of changed nature and indwelling power makes that choice less of a struggle – we are truly, really free! (See Galatians 5:1).

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 15

2009-10-27T07:40:00.000-05:00

Galatians 5:15 “If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”

“biting and devouring each other” Cannibalism horrified both Jewish and Greek sensibilities in the ancient world. This sort of metaphor was not uncommon in Jewish texts (see, e.g., Proverbs 30:14) and would have pushed the right buttons in the audience this letter was aimed at regarding the seriousness of the situation. Focusing the metaphor on the mouth and teeth also serves to connect this concept to the fact that the dispute was really about words, the use of words, and arguing.

“you will be destroyed” The “you” here is amplified in the original Greek. It implies not just an individual, but the entire congregation. Again, the foundational principle of God’s promise in Christ is RELATIONSHIP. In these last two verses, Paul sums up how the promise is connected to and works with our relationship with each other in the Body of Christ. In verse 13, he notes we are called to freedom, we are set free in Jesus not for ourselves, but to serve (and not to serve as a slave, but to serve “in love”). Verse 14 quotes the Law of Moses to support this promise and concept – this has been the focal point of God’s plan all along! Now, here in verse 15, Paul lays out the consequences of NOT following the concepts laid out in verse 13 and 14 – relationships are destroyed, and the entire church is devastated. Verse 15, then, is the opposite of the previous two verses.

But here is an important notion – verse 13 warns that we shouldn’t use our freedom in Christ to indulge in the sinful nature. This was the main accusation the Judiazers used for insisting on obedience to the Mosaic Law – without the Law, people would do whatever they want, and sin and depravity will reign. But if you look ahead a little further, to verse 19, Paul explains the kind of behavior that proceeds from “indulging the sinful nature" as stated in verse 13. Verses 19-20 list the usual “sinful nature” type activities that come to mind when most folks visualize “indulging” that nature. “Sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, and witchcraft.” These sins are probably at the top of the list of concerns for the Judiazers as well. But as Paul’s list of sins continues, we see things more common to the “good people” of middle class America, things that go on in your local church community all the time – “hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy.” You see, the “acts of the sinful nature,” (literally, the “flesh”) are not just limited to things like drunken orgies, drug binges, sleeping around, and bowing down to graven images – the kinds of things that much of ancient Greek society encouraged and which offended Jewish sensibilities (as well as violating God’s Law!), but include a whole bevy of “fleshly” activity that a straight laced, dignified, ceremonial (“church going,” if you will!), properly obedient to all the rituals Jewish fella (or modern day Christian) could indulge in and still appear to be respectable. Defining a person’s status and acceptability to God by the mere observance of rules and rituals produces a self-righteous, haughty, and critical spirit. By insisting on obedience to rules as the defining concept, you guarantee “indulging in the sinful nature” because the community of believers are now competing to show off their righteousness (even if only subconsciously) rather than working together in love. The ultimate result of relying on the law to save us is the destruction of relationships! And as Paul points out here, “you will be destroyed by each other.” The Devil is not to blame here, at least not so much. If we choose this path, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the ultimate destruction of our relationship with Jesus, and our relationship with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 14

2009-10-26T06:58:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:14“The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Paul connects the concepts of the previous verse to the law itself. He does this to add credibility to his argument for those who cling to the Jewish traditions. This shows that the Sadducees and Pharisees of that time had really gotten it all wrong. The real purpose of God’s law – the heart of the matter – had nothing to do with outward expression or behavior, or the proper fulfillment and performance of ritual. The heart of the matter is LOVE and a RELATIONSHIP built on love. Even the concept of being able to sum up the entire law, the hundreds of commandments that make up the Torah, in a single sentence means the law was always intended to be used in the context of relationships – as something to help us understand our relationship with God, and each other, rather than something to box us in. The law was meant to serve man, not man to serve the law. If I see my friend and fellow Christian disobey the law (in this context, meaning he is walking in sin, falling short of what God has called him to do), my attitude should be “how can I help,” not condemnation.

This verse quotes the law itself – Leviticus 19:18 – which also serves to bring Jesus himself into the argument, for He used this verse to answer the question, “What is the greatest commandment?” (See Matthew 7:12 and Mark 12:31). If Jesus Himself had this attitude and concept in mind, how can we adopt a different conclusion?

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, Verse 13

2009-10-25T09:12:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:13 “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.”

“You, my brothers” Again, Paul emphasizes the close and intimate relationship he shared with the Galatians. The use of the term “you” rather than a more all inclusive term like “us” (as in 5:1) also seems to emphasize the intimate nature of a relationship with Jesus.

“were called to be free” The verb translated here as “were called” is in an intensified form. It also could be translated as “were indeed called.” It’s a higher calling. A stronger calling. The ultimate calling. Plus, the use of the word “calling” also emphasizes the concept of the RELATIONSHIP (remember, it is a universal truth and one of the major themes of this letter – everything in God’s Kingdom comes down to RELATIONSHIP). A “call” means God chose us; He reached out to us; He spoke our name. Think of the story of the prodigal son. He thought that he had made the decision to return to his Father. But it was the Father who was waiting all along. “Call” means God is the author of the promise. We can’t do anything ourselves to complete it. Think of your Mom or Dad, preparing the family dinner, and then calling everyone to eat. Our response is to gratefully come to the table, sit down, and partake.

“But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature” Paul ties up this first section of Galatians 5 by returning to his opening thesis in 5:1 – the freedom we walk in is a gift from God, so don’t abuse it. Paul has already touched on this concept in this letter in a variety of ways – look back at 3:15-24 for a discussion of the purpose of the law, and freedom from the law’s constraints – but the implication here is that the law’s guidelines help define the limits that we should live within. Romans 6:1 states that the freedom we have in Christ does not give us a license to sin. 1 Peter 2:16 says the same thing, emphasizing that if freedom in Christ is real, it can’t be used as a front to cover up a life of sin. Paul is tying up his original thesis in 5:1 and transitioning into the next section, which emphasizes personal righteousness and integrity. But if freedom is NOT a license for our personal fulfillment (this is the “American Way,” no? Thomas Jefferson’s language in the Declaration of Independence has become the mantra in our society – we have a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”) or to do “what we want,” then what is it for? Paul answers this rhetorical question in the very next phrase --

“rather, serve one another in love” At this point, I want to shout “Ah ha!,” or "Eureka!," for this simple truth is really the core concept here. “Freedom,” therefore wasn’t designed for us as individuals, to set us “free” to do whatever we want to do, but to equip us to serve God and each other – in love! The context of the words translated here as “indulge the sinful nature” implies “selfishness.” That’s the key. Of course, the freedom Christ brings to us has great, even incalculable personal benefit. But the real purpose in setting us free from sin and bondage is so we can be useful for God. Now, the way I phrased that last sentence makes it sound like the emphasis is back on “works,” that is, on what we do. But God seeks to set us free in order to bring us into right relationship with Him. He showers us with love and gifts, redeems us from hell, communes with us, abides with us, and makes us a part of His family. We are free from the law – that is, we no longer need to earn God’s favor. But what do we do with that freedom? The purpose of “freedom in Christ” is to allow us to creatively, personally, and intimately respond back to God in love – to serve Him with all of our hearts.

Let’s go back to the family dinner analogy. I am called by God to come to the table. I don’t have to pay for my meal, like in a restaurant, I’m part of the family now. I am free to choose what I eat, and how much. (I personally struggle with my weight, and with overeating, so this concept strikes a chord with me). If I choose to not eat a balanced meal, or to overeat, or just eat dessert, or to sneak a snack of junk food before I get to the table so that my appetite is ruined, the result is easy to see. At best, I’ll get fat and be unfit for the hard work I need to do -- the work God set me free to do! At worst, I’ll get sick and eventually be of no use to anyone. I will also displease and disappoint my Father, who gave so much to provide me with such a fine meal, and the freedom to enjoy it. I will end up not being in right fellowship with him. I won’t be thrown out of the family, or not be allowed to come to dinner anymore (that is, I won’t lose my salvation), but I will bring a world of trouble onto myself, and be of little use to God in the sense that there will be good chance I will miss out on the specific purposes God called me to because of my irresponsibility. My freedom is a gift I am to use with responsibility.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 12

2009-10-24T07:38:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:12 “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”

Paul’s sarcasm and wit combine with his passion and anger here. He uses similar wordplay as he did back in 5:7 -- the verb translated as “cut off” or “cut in” could be applied to cutting in front of a runner in a race, or surgical cutting in the practice of circumcision. Here, Paul is even more direct, but the wordplay still has double meaning. The Greek word used here could mean either “cut off” or “castrate.” Most of the more literal translations of the Bible (like the KJV) render this as “cut off,” implying that what Paul primarily means here is that he wishes the Judiazers would “cut off” their fellowship with the church. This is logical, in the overall context, but there is also a subtext here,and most other translations connect this verb with the concept of circumcision in this discussion, and translate it as “mutilate,” “emasculate,” or even “castrate.” Paul is certainly not being explicit or prurient, but his passionate approach and deep affection for the Galatians indicates that an insult like this is certainly not beneath him. He is far more passionate in his criticism of the Judiazers than in the blame of the Galatians themselves. Another interesting concept, however, is that while circumcision was required by Jewish law, and therefore common to every Jewish family, Roman society viewed the practice with horror and disdain. Years later, Emperor Hadrian would outlaw circumcision as a barbaric practice. But Paul’s insult here has a particularly Jewish irony. Many of the pagan cultures in and around Palestine in the Old Testament and even in Paul’s day included castration as a part of their religious or social rites (including the Greek cultures of the people of Galatia), and Jews had a traditional strong disdain for eunuchs (i.e. castrated males – see Deuteronomy 23:1). For a Jewish man to intimate that another Jewish man should be castrated would truly be a cultural insult -- and in the context of the underlying them of Paul's attack on racism/cultural identity in this letter, it seems appropriately ironic.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 11

2009-10-23T07:33:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished

“Brothers” Again, we have the “intimacy” factor carrying over from the previous verse. Paul believes the readers of this letter are truly born-again Christians, truly brothers in the Lord in every way that the term applies, and expresses the inherent family-like relationship of the kingdom. Paul truly loves these people.

“If I am still preaching circumcision” A rhetorical question – the usual way a Gentile converted to Judaism was circumcision for males, and baptism for males and females, but the concept of a relationship with Christ is so much more. The implication is that Paul has been accused of preaching circumcision as necessary for salvation, along with the Judiazers. Or perhaps Paul was being slandered as being sympathetic to the Judiazers because he himself was ethnically Jewish. The confusion caused by this heresy and the ethnic intimidation among the Galatians was great.

“why am I still being persecuted?” If Paul were simply converting Gentiles to Judaism, the Jews, in particular the Judiazers, would not be against him, or object to what he’s doing. The Judiazers were more sensitive to their own cultural expectations than to those of the Galatians. Aw, that was too polite – to be blunt, they were bigots. The Jews of Paul’s day looked down on Gentiles as inferior, and objected to the concept of such inferiors being accepted into the faith simply by believing in Jesus. This is also the great sin of modern American Christianity – the cultural segregation of the church. Looking ahead to Galatians 6: 12-13, we see the real reason for the Judiazers insisting on circumcision is cultural conformity, pride, and to blend in, in order to "stay out of trouble" with the bellicose faction of Jewish believers who insisted on outward adherence to the minutiae of the law. Believing in Jesus proves to be risky in worldly culture. The “persecution” here comes from the Judiazers themselves, reacting to this very concept. Examples of this kind of thing in the cities of Galatia are found in Acts 13 & 14, where the reaction to Paul’s preaching and the conversion of the Gentile population was for the Jews in the region to stir up persecution. A comparable situation would be the civil rights advocates who tried to “preach” freedom and equality in the South in the mid-20th century – the white establishment often reacted the same way the Jewish elites did in Acts 13 &14.

“In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.” Romans 9: 32-22 and I Corinthians 1:23 both reference the cross as a “stumbling block” for Jews, and ‘foolishness” for Greeks. The Jews cling to (and even today, they still do) the need to obey the law to prove their worthiness. If you need a physical act to be saved, if any part of being right before God depends on what we do, then the cross (and Christ’s sacrificial death) is meaningless. That's the simple truth, though even many ardently evangelical Christians fail to understand this concept.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verse 10

2009-10-22T15:30:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.

“I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view” The first sentence of verse 10 is an interesting insertion.. As he has in other sections of the letter, (see, e.g., 4: 11-21) Paul is letting his personal emotions show, and his deep affection for the people of the Galatian churches. This also speaks to the previous references in the letter to a real, authentic conversion experience by the members of the Galatian churches, a real relationship with Jesus (see, e.g., 3: 1-5). The implication here is that the faith of the Galatians was and is (at the time Paul wrote the letter) real – they really ARE children of the promise. While Paul says his confidence is in the Lord, what he really means is he has confidence in the Lord TOWARDS the Galatians, and that the “other view” they will not take -- the position they will maintain is to really coming to agree with the truth Paul is teaching – they will be of one mind with Him. How can Paul have this kind of confidence? How can he be assured that the Galatians, as screwed up about theology and the nature of God and salvation as they are, as ethnically prejudiced as they are, will come around? How can Paul be so confident of failed, fallen humans? Because of the PROMISE!!!! The Galatians, as a people (as a congregation, meaning most of them) had truly come to know Jesus. That is, truly born again! As Paul had been arguing throughout this book, the promise of God through faith in Jesus can never be negated. Paul is simply expressing this reality – We can’t be saved by what we do, or what group we belong to – therefore, we can’t be lost once we’ve come into a real relationship with God by what we do or what group we choose to identify with or exclude. The Promise never fails.

“The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be”
The level of difficulty here is hard to determine. The word translated here as “throwing into confusion” is presented as “troubling you,” “unsettling you,” or “disturbing you” in other translations. I have a sense that the NIV is closer to the literal meaning with “throwing into confusion,” (this is serious business, and we wouldn’t have this letter if this wasn’t crucial), but the less intense words in other translations seem better in the context of the preceding sentence – this is not a matter that ultimately robs or affects the Galatians regarding their salvation, but is merely a bump in the road for them.

“The one . . . whoever he may be.” Paul does not absolve the Galatians from blame for these issues (see 3: 1-5), but here it is made clear that the greater blame rests with those who are trying to deceive them. Paul does not identify who they are – there were probably many. But by leaving it vague, he also seems to imply that there is a demonic “spiritual warfare” side to this battle as well. He seems to identify a singular “one” that represents the many Judiazers – this would imply a satanic, “borg” like concept (you Star Trek fans will catch on to my reference) of demonic control over a large group of people.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, Verse 9

2009-10-21T06:52:00.000-05:00

Galatians 5:9 "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."

While most other bible translations don’t do this, the NIV places this verse in quotation marks, emphasizing that the phrase is a proverb, a universal saying of sorts, kind of like “a stitch in time saves nine” and such. “Yeast” represents evil when used in the Bible as a metaphor, especially with regard to teaching or theological deception. Exodus 12:15 requires that yeast must be removed from a Jewish household prior to Passover – a rite of purification and cleansing from sin. In Matthew 16: 5-12, Jesus explains at length to his disciples about guarding “against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16: 6, 11). This section directly connects the “yeast” with the false teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matthew 6:12). In Luke 12:1, Jesus gives a similar caution, but himself identifies the issue with the “yeast of the Pharisees” as the sin of hypocrisy. In I Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul uses the same proverb as here in Galatians 5:9, but elaborates, making the connection to Exodus and the Passover – the need for cleansing and the celebration of redemption in the Passover now realized in its fullness in the person of Jesus. But in the I Corinthians passage, the “yeast” is connected with church members openly practicing sexual immorality, as well as dissension, malice, and other forms of wickedness.

The obvious truth of this proverb makes its meaning plain. Just a pinch of yeast is enough to affect the whole lump of dough. Yeast is itself is a living organism, and affects the bread, or rather, INFECTS it. It’s like a virus to the human body. Only a slight inclination to error or a few people teaching a false doctrine is enough. These seemingly small influences can and will pervert the entire conception of faith in an individual, or mislead an entire congregation.

While some theological points may be as important, this one is foundational. Requiring adherence to a standard of conduct or especially an outward ritual to be “saved” or acceptable to the church community perverts and negates the sacrifice of Christ. Wrapping that concept up in a package of racial or ethnic custom is no different. Think of it this way – a person or group that has right-on, orthodox theology but can’t accept someone because of a racial or cultural issue is like a pure glass of water with an eye-dropper full of sewage added. Would you drink it? Is that acceptable?

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, Verse 8

2009-10-20T06:31:00.000-05:00

Galatians 5:8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you.

The word for “persuasion” here implies that the influence is evil or wicked. Starting in the previous verse (verse 7), when Paul asks “who” interrupted the “good race,” the blame for all this confusion is being placed and the spotlight is aimed at the real culprit – the Judiazers. Of course, Paul is not letting the Galatians off the hook – but this section of scripture recognizes the reality of spiritual warfare and the insidious nature of deception. Paul does not mince words here or in the next few verses regarding who is ultimately to blame, the price they will pay, and the difficulty of discerning truth once deception takes hold.

“does not come from the one who calls you” The “call” here is from Jesus, of course, but the context here implies it is the call from the God who made the promise to Abraham – the one who calls us to freedom in Christ. So the context is clear, Paul is contrasting this “kind of persuasion” versus the “call.” The character of the persuader is evil, the one who “calls” is righteous and true. Even the verbs used imply the character of the source – the evil one needs to persuade, to argue, to distort truth in order to weasel their way in. The Lord is “calling” – an invitation, rather than a debate, a notice, rather than a treatise. It’s the difference between the call from Dad and the call from your college professor, or, better yet, the call from the country club. You don’t need a pedigree or a letter of reference to come back home. The father of the prodigal son calls and waits – and celebrates when the prodigal returns home, after the “race” was interrupted.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, Verse 7

2009-10-19T08:35:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:7: You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?

Paul uses the metaphor of a race, of athletic competition, to portray the Christian life in several places in his writings (e.g. Philippians 2:16, and here in Galatians 2:2). The implications of this verse are similar to what we just discussed above in Galatians 5:4 – this is not to imply that getting “off course” means we can lose our salvation. But we CAN choose to engage in behavior that will lead us off the course. We’re not disqualified from the team, so to speak, but God’s purposes in our lives is delayed or thwarted – by the choices we make, or the way in which we react to circumstances. This concept is borne out in I Corinthians 3: 10-15. The foundation is Christ – through the promise, not by what we do or who we are. This is our entry INTO the race. But then, we build on the foundation, or run in the race. We will be judged for what we do, and our reward in heaven will be based on this (see I Cor. 3:13-15). But, our ability to get into or enter heaven is based solely on the promise – on the foundation. (I Cor. 3:11). To use another sports analogy, the promise gets us a ticket to the game, but what we build on, as per I Corinthians 3, or how we run the race as described here will determine how good our seat will be. The Galatian churches WERE running a good race – they had been on track, with a vibrant, living relationship with Christ. But something happened. The Judiazers “cut in.” This is another play on words. “Cutting in” could of course cause a runner to fall, be pushed off the course, or lose his focus. It is also a play on words for the concept of circumcision, which is a surgical procedure. Relying on rules, or on an outward concept rather than an inner change – even relying on ethnicity, culture, or denomination to define our relationship with God and with each other keeps us from “obeying the truth.” In other words, its “rebellion.” Plain and simple. The blatant sin here cannot be disguised.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, Verse 6

2009-10-18T08:48:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

“For in Christ Jesus” This verse is sort of a “proof text.” By that, I mean it’s a summary of the reality and truth of the Gospel message, and therefore of Paul’s entire argument/presentation here in the book of Galatians. Its like an “if-then” statement. Another way to translate this opening phrase is “If we are in Christ Jesus, then . . . “ The power; no-- the REALITY of Jesus in our lives proves itself by the fundamental transformation manifest in our lives. This, of course, is because of Jesus, and our living relationship with Him, and not our own efforts.

“neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value” This is the obvious conclusion of all of Paul’s arguments in the letter, and in other places in Paul’s writings. This is the practical reality of this spiritual truth. In Galatians 2:21, 5:2, 6:15, as well as over in I Corinthians 7:19, Paul expresses the very same concept. But in this context, this helps complete our “proof,” our “if-then” statement. If we are in Jesus, then – obedience to the law, or any set of rules, doesn’t count. By the same token, because obedience to the law for the Galatians meant adopting ethnically Jewish customs and discarding their own native culture – in other words, to become Jewish, rather than Greek – the if we are in Christ, then matters of race, ethnicity, culture, denomination, language, music style, etc. don’t count. Galatians 6:15 says the very same thing, but with the opposite emphasis – it is the “new creation” that counts!

“The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” James 2:18-19 states that “faith without works” is useless. Some have tried to use that passage to prove that in order to be right with God, there must be some sort of obedience to rules, some sort of “good deed” in order to please God, or in order to be saved. In other words, to rely on just “faith” is not enough. That is not what James means, and its not what Paul is saying here. In the context of this verse – again, as a “proof text,” – Paul is making a very important distinction. Faith is not simply an intellectual assent, or some sort of abstract theological principle. Faith serves as the foundation for our relationship with God, but it serves as the spark that ignites the fuse. REAL Faith is a living force in our lives. It activates and energizes (verbs implied here in the original Greek) our relationship with God. We aren’t doing anything in and of ourselves – no good deeds or outward obedience is involved – but it’s the relationship we now have with God through faith, its our transformed nature, the concept of being a “new creation” that begins a process, a change. Faith is more than agreeing with God – it’s a living, transformational trusting in the grace of God. This will express itself in acts of love. In I Thessalonians 1:3, Paul notes that the Thessalonian Christians have produced good things in their lives through faith – “good work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by Hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is not describing people being obedient so as to earn “brownie points” on the heavenly ledger. This is describing a change in nature; this is NEW CREATION!!!. What is being “expressed through love” here is not just an effort to be obedient, but a life so changed by Christ through the relationship made possible by God’s unconditional grace, that it now simply desires to do good in response to the unfathomable love of God! The word in this verse for “love” in the original Greek is “agape.” This is the highest, noblest word for love in the Greek language; it is unconditional, unlimited love, love with no boundaries – indeed, it is the love expressed in John 3:16, where it says, “For God so loved the world . . .”

In the context of our “proof text,” then, the proof is complete –

If we are in Christ, then

1. Obedience to the law doesn’t count;
2. Ethnicity and culture doesn’t count;
3. We ARE transformed, we are “new creations;” and
4. This transformation will be made manifest in us – other people will see that the grace of God, by faith, is the thing that has changed and transformed us.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, Verse 5

2009-10-17T07:54:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.

“But by faith” Obviously, this phrase is the essence of Paul’s arguments through out this book/letter. The original language implies that the opposite sentiment is present as well – the New International Version uses the world “but” to reflect this – What this should or could say is “Not relying on the law,not relying on what WE do -- but by faith.”

“we eagerly await through the Spirit” This is the HOLY Spirit, of course. While Paul has not made the Holy Spirit his focal point for much of Galatians (he did use the presence of the Spirit and the Galatians’ operating in the gifts of the Spirit as the indicia of receiving Christ by faith rather than through obedience to the Law back in 3:2-5), but he is about to start doing so in 5:10, discussing life lived in the Holy Spirit, and freedom from the law AND from sin.

“the righteousness for which we hope.” There is very little eschatology in the book of Galatians. But here, this verse discussed how Paul and the Galatians, at that time, were “eagerly await[ing]” this “righteousness,” and that they waited in “hope.” Most of the arguments in Galatians have dealt with the here and now – how faith in Jesus, rather than obedience to the law, makes us acceptable to God now, as we are. I suppose there is always an implied concept of heaven and eternal life, but here it’s no longer implied. This verse’s “hope” apparently looks forward to the hope we all have for eternal life – our heavenly reward. It also implies the hope for the return of Christ, the end of the age, where all things will be made complete, and we all will be one with the Lord. Indeed, the implication for completeness is clear. There is a duality that Paul has only hinted at in the rest of the letter, a duality he will now begin to emphasize as Chapter 5 progresses. There are two realities at work here. The first has been emphasized by Paul’s arguments since Chapter 3 – there is a blessing and good that comes immediately through faith in Christ – by faith, we are in right standing with God in the here and now. We are instantaneously free. “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Yet faith in Christ is not just an end, but a beginning – the start of a process. There is the beginning of a change in our lives, as we conform to God’s will and in our purpose, in our thoughts, in our actions. This is what we “hope” for, anticipate, and wait for. After a lifetime with Christ (which can be short or long, from cradle to grave, or a confession moments before death – only God determines), we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ, where he will pronounce a final “not guilty.” The dichotomy, the duality, is this “not guilty” is assured in the here and now through “the promise” Paul has emphasized throughout Galatians, while the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit works in us to defeat our sin nature. This same reality and dichotomy is present in the world at large – Christ has redeemed us, and offers His redemption to all, but there is also a spiritual war going on that will culminate in Christ’s return. We all “eagerly await” and “hope” for all of this. The promise redeems us now, and will continue to “work out our salvation” (see Philippians 2:12) until the end of our lives OR until the Lord returns.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, Verse 4

2009-10-16T07:42:00.000-05:00

Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

As we have been emphasizing over and over again throughout these studies and meditations on the Book of Galatians, the defining concept about what it meant to be a Jew in Paul’s day – and even today – is that a Jewish person was born into the covenant by virtue of being Jewish – ethnically. Of course, this is the very thing Paul has been arguing against all along here – not against Judaism per se – but against any kind of ethnic exclusivity for the covenant promise. Yet, even Jews recognized that one can be cut-off from the covenant by refusing to obey it. The NIV uses the word “alienate” here. Other translations present this word as “separated” or “severed,” which suggests something harsher than “alienate” or even the King James Version’s “no effect.”

“You have fallen away from grace” Paul has clearly established that salvation is only by Christ (see, e.g., Galatians 2:21). Paul seems to be saying – even emphatically – that seeking salvation any other way leads to being “severed” – cut off.

This last phrase – “fallen away from grace” – is troubling, in that it seems to state that a believer in the promise, by returning to a reliance on obedience to the law in order to be saved, “falls away from grace,” is alienated, cut off – exiled from the promise. This is a difficult construct, and would appear to contradict all of Paul’s earlier arguments about the promise taking precedence over the law. Is Paul suggesting that one can lose their salvation?

I don’t think so. While passages such as 2 Peter 2:20-22 and 2 Peter 3:17 seem to allow for this concept, the clear teaching of John 10:27-30 (especially verse 28), Romans 8:28-39, and much of Paul’s arguments from Galatians chapter 3 and 4 explain that no genuinely saved person can be lost. So what does Paul mean here by “fallen away from grace?”

As an initial aside, I believe we can temper some of the “severity” of this argument somewhat by considering Paul’s word choices and the art of rhetoric. The focus of this entire section is Paul’s arguments against the specific Jewish religious/legal requirement of circumcision. Beginning here, Paul will use words that reflect violence, physical mutilation and words that can be used to describe literal “cutting” as a rhetorical word-play to accentuate his arguments against this practice. The use of the Greek word for “alienate” in the NIV, which literally means “severed,” fits into this concept.

Also, we need to take the statement “fallen away from grace” in the context of the rest of the Letter. Paul has been focusing on the concept of slavery. In Galatians 3:22, 4:8-11 and then in the section just preceding Chapter 5 (Galatians 4:21-31, the “figurative” argument regarding Hagar & Sarah), the emphasis has been on being slaves to the Law. Then, in 5:1, Paul warns the Galatians to not be “burdened” again by a yoke of slavery. All of these passages, combined with the current verse, suggest that a genuinely saved “child of the promise” can choose to live like a slave again.

Indeed, the language of this passage implies that a true believer can willfully place themselves outside the scope of God’s divine favor. How? Remember, trying to gain God’s favor by observing the law is mutually exclusive from receiving God’s favor through His grace. Recall the curse Paul discussed in Galatians 3:1-14 (“All who rely on observing the law are under a curse”). 2 Peter 3:17 warns us to be on guard so that “you may not be carried away by error.” Taken in the context of the rest of Galatians, and indeed, the whole of Scripture, this is not a statement about losing one’s salvation – but rather an indicator that the Galatians were deceived. We can fool ourselves, and choose to live like a slave, and reap the bitter fruit of that spiritual mindset and lifestyle. But a truly saved person doesn’t lose their salvation by making this choice. Some will point to the aforementioned citations in the Second Letter of Peter , and even Galatians 5:21 along with this passage as evidence that salvation can be “reversed.” Well, I don’t buy it. Even 2:Peter 2:22 ends the argument by saying “a dog returns to its vomit” and “a sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” In both cases, the nature of the animal has not changed. The sow is still by nature a pig – the “wash” was merely a cosmetic change. Paul says elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 5:17 “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” Later on in Galatians 6:15 he says “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.” God sees our hearts. There must be a fundamental change – I don’t think the 2 Peter discussion is speaking of that. Plus, Romans 6, 7, & 8 and later on in Galatians 5, there is plenty of discussion of the ongoing struggle with the sin nature in the life of a true believer. The good news is, even when we make a mistake, and choose to live in the slavery of the law and/or sin, however incrementally we may choose, the promise is NEVER invalidated. Just read on to the next verse, and look back at Galatians 4:26-28 and 2:17-21. Our status as “sons” cannot change.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, verses 2 & 3

2009-10-15T05:59:00.000-05:00

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. <3> Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

“Mark my words!” The Greek word translated here as “mark my words” etc. turns up slightly different in other English translations of the Bible. For example, the King James Version has this as “Behold, I Paul say unto you.” I think the original Greek comes off better in the context of the NIV, at least to the average American, down to the exclamation point. Paul is emphatic in driving home the concept of RELATIONSHIP and his covenant level connection to the Galatians. He is saying, “Hey! Look! Its ME talking here!” And by doing this, he is calling to mind the credentials he has with the Galatians. These include his experience, depth of relationship with God, his integrity and testimony (see Galatians 1:13 – 2:10) the history of their shared relationship (see Galatians 4:12-19) and even his own investment and personal risk in standing up for what is true (see Galatians 2:11-21). Paul’s integrity and reputation WAS Christianity in the Gentile World. It would be a little bit like the Pope addressing Catholics, or Billy Graham addressing evangelicals today – but more so, because Paul was directly and personally involved with the Galatians, and had introduced them to Jesus, had personally planted these churches. Authentic, lateral brotherly relationships based in the Holy Spirit and upon the Word of God are the currency of the Christian life.

Then, in both verse 2 and 3, Paul gives us a double barreled ultimatum of truth. Verse 2 phrases it personally – “if you let yourselves be circumcised.” Verse 3 broadens it to universality – “every man.” Repeating a principle in successive verses/sentences like this for emphasis – even making the second statement broader and more emphatic than the first – was a common Hebraic and rabbinical argument technique. The book of Proverbs, even Jesus himself used this concept many times in the scriptures.

Of course, the Jews of Paul’s time had a concept that Gentiles could be “saved.” A righteous, God fearing Gentile could be “saved” by keeping the seven laws/principles God gave to Noah (I tried to look at this concept in a general sense back in the our discussions in this Journal involving Galatians 3). But to truly be a part of the covenant, if a gentile was to convert to Judaism, he would be required, like all devout Jews, to keep all 613 specific commandments given to Israel at Mt. Sinai (well, that’s 613 by rabbinical count). The Jewish tradition – even before Paul’s day – was that the law was a symbiotic whole. Each piece was dependent upon the other. A devout Jew was required to keep every commandment. Rejecting any single part was a rejection of the whole.

The point Paul wants to make is another “legal argument” and is found here in verse 3 – by accepting circumcision, the Galatians were obligating themselves to strict obedience to the entire Jewish law. However, Paul has already noted the impossibility of this standard -- no one can possibly keep the entirety of the Mosaic law (see Galatians 3:10-12) and how the Galatians had really adopted an “ale carte” view of Jewish law, tradition, and culture, leading to a strange blend of pagan and Jewish rules and customs (see Galatians 4:8-11). Clearly, the Galatians' approach wasn’t working.

In the midst of this discussion, Paul sums up the entire purpose of the letter. If you submit to the rules of circumcision – an outward physical change that really has no bearing on your heart or your interrelationship with God or man – then Jesus has no value.

“No value?” Wait a minute, that’s pretty heavy! But its absolutely true, and, it works on two levels.

The first is the more obvious. To rely on something outward, on something we do in and of ourselves as a behavioral action to make ourselves acceptable to God invalidates the promise. If, by obeying a rule, we can be made right with God, then we don’t need the sacrifice of Christ for redemption or salvation. Jesus truly is of “no value.”

The second level is more subtle, but all the more heretical. Circumcision was as much a cultural concept in Judaism as a spiritual principle. Every Jewish male received circumcision as a right of passage. I do not want to seem to belittle this as a cultural concept, but it served as an initiation ceremony – in some ways not unlike the “cloak and dagger” secret initiation ceremonies in college fraternities, or Fred Flinstone putting on the horned hat to be a member of the Water Buffalo Lodge. This is because the essence of fraternities, lodges, even street gangs, is relationship! But like street gangs and fraternities, the Judiazers insisted on conformity to an outward, cultural standard to be acceptable. These are all corruptions of the truth, which requires a mere acceptance of the promise and then the fruit is a living relationship with God. To rely on a cultural concept as trivial as an initiation ceremony to define our acceptability to God and each other is to reject Christ. If we use this standard in any way to define who is acceptable to God, or to us, we reject Christ. Skin color, language, ethnicity, neighborhood, educational level, musical style/genre, denomination, economic strata, size of family, political view, anything – If these become our measuring standards for God’s kingdom, Christ truly has “no value!”

Galatians Journal: Chapter 5, Verse 1

2009-10-14T07:47:00.001-05:00

Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

The first verse of chapter 5 is really the final summation of all the arguments that proceeded it – going all the way back to Galatians 3:1.

“It is for freedom that Christ has set you free” The King James version of the Bible has this verse translated and phrased more like the original Greek. It says “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.” The New International Version (quoted above) separates the phrase “stand firm” from the first phrase. But the original Greek ties it all together. We are not just to “stand firm,” but to stand firm IN the freedom Christ provides. This might seem to be “niggling,” but it is in keeping with the overall theme of the book – we cannot “stand firm” by a mere act of our will, or by our own efforts, but only by being “in Christ,” in a living RELATIONSHIP with Christ.

The word “freedom” here means many things on many levels. The implication here, the ultimate meaning, is complete and total liberation from the bondage of the law and, as Paul will explain in more detail in Chapter 5, from the bondage of sin. But there are further subtleties here. Just like “freedom” in English, the Greek word for “freedom” can mean many things, and the interpretations of the word in both languages have parallels.

There are three basic meanings for “freedom” in Greek, and all three apply here:

1) Freedom as in choice – the most common understanding of this word is the ability to do or omit things that have no relationship to salvation. By using this particular word (rather than a derivative, like the word for “free” later in the first phrase of this verse), Paul (or better yet, the Holy Spirit through Paul) is actually helping to emphasize the underlying theme of the unimportance of culture, race, or ethnicity as defining factors in our relationship with God and with each other. All of the arguments made so far in this letter have focused on the concept that it is unnecessary to conform to the requirements of the law of Moses (in other words, to become a Jew and adopt the culture of the Jews) in order to be saved, or be acceptable to God. True freedom, then, is the ability to choose to worship God in any manner that is fit. Style does not matter. The key factor is to be a child of the promise (as Paul pointed out in the previous section where he compared Hagar to Sarah), that is, truly born again. The place, manner, and “order” of worship is really not relevant to salvation. Our lifestyle choices do not matter either (unless they are “contrary to the Spirit” as Paul will emphasize later in Galatians 5: 16-26).

2) Freedom as in license – the freedom to do as we please. Of course, this is not the antinomianism discussed back in Chapter 3 – this is not a license to sin. Paul makes this clear as a major theme here in Chapter 5. But, freedom from the law, and the bondage of sin, brings a new exuberance to our relationship with God. Call it a license to serve, a license for joy, a license to open up your heart and relate in authenticity – the sky’s the limit. Freedom in Christ has no boundaries (again, not in the sense that we are free to sin, but that God’s possibilities in us and through us are limitless!).

3) Freedom to be responsible; freedom to be obedient. This is true freedom. This is a melding together of the first two definitions. It is the concept of living as we should, rather than just as we want. This is explained in detail later in this Chapter, in verses 13-26 – that is, the death of our sinful nature, and our new life in the power of the Spirit. This is often confused with legalism. Some argue, “How can you say you’re free, when you insist on a code of behavior, like refraining from the list of “sinful desires” in Galatians 5?” It’s really not a matter of do’s and don’ts. Once we are filled with the Spirit, the transformation of our lives in our relationship with Jesus produces virtue – and frees us from the bondage of these “sinful desires.”

While an inexact comparison, this is sort of like the United States Constitution. Under the Constitution’s text, we are guaranteed specific rights and liberties. But it also requires that we live responsibly so as not to violate those rights in other people’s lives or society generally. It is this second principle that is lost on most Americans.

The word “free” at the end of this sentence/phrase implies deliverance. We have been set free from the bondage of sin, and the law – from the dominion of sin.

“stand firm” A command, and a warning. The implication is that this freedom can be lost, or at least impinged upon. It implies that we have to fight for this freedom -- that we need to be aggressive about it.

“do not let yourselves” The primary meaning and understanding of the word “freedom” involves choice. Paul is imploring, indeed, he is commanding that we not make the wrong choice.

“be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” A yoke was a heavy piece of wood that held a team of horses or oxen together to work as a team. An individual is helpless to move against the force of the yoke, for where the group is led by the master, the individual is compelled to follow. In a positive sense, a yoke would be used for an untrained animal, to teach it what to do, to train it, and then remove the yoke once the animal was properly accustomed to the work (e.g. in Matthew 11:29, when Jesus says “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me.”). The obvious implied meaning here is the “yoke” of the law on the Gentiles. Peter spoke of a “yoke” in the same manner in his speech at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:10-11. But in the context of Galatians 5, Paul means all of this, but so much more.

The word for “burdened’ here also means to be trapped, ensnared, or entangled. Picture an insect caught in a spider’s web. This is more than assenting to a concept – it is a force that will engulf and destroy you!

“yoke of slavery” This is more than just the law. In the context of the theme I’ve emphasized throughout these meditations, it of course means race, ethnicity, and culture, and the reliance on those things to define a person’s acceptability in God’s eyes. In the context of the rest of this chapter, it means slavery to sin.

This last point is the key concept for the individual Christian – and for most of us. The little word “again” stuck in the middle of it all is so very important. Galatians chapters 3 and 4 made it clear that the promise predates and overrides the Law, and that the promise is eternal, and unconditional. But Galatians 5:1 makes it evident that even a child of the promise, and heir of the Father (see Galatians 4:1-7) can choose to live in slavery. This was the ultimate problem facing the Galatians. It is a choice I am faced with every day of my life.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 31

2009-10-13T06:19:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Paul wraps up his “figurative” argument (see Galatians 4:24). There is an old cliché, that when you see the word “therefore” in the Bible, you need to look closer, and see what its “there for.”

First, Paul once again refers to the Galatians as “brothers.” In the commentary on verse 28 here in chapter 4, we discussed how this reference – referring to his readers as brothers – was for Paul a simple statement of truth – a spiritual reality. Its more than just a term of endearment, or an indication of a close relationship. The Galatians had a real relationship with Christ – they were truly born again, truly part of God’s family. This is driven home by Paul’s use of the word “we.” Paul is one with the Galatians. The foundational concept of RELATIONSHIP is really the most important thing. (As I have repeatedly referenced before, one of my spiritual heroes, Charles Simpson, once said that “everything in the Kingdom of God boils down to the concept of RELATIONSHIP.”)

The rest of verse 31 is a simple summary of the entire book. The slave woman stands for the natural, the flesh, and trying to obtain righteousness by our own efforts. The free woman stands for the supernatural, and grace, and the promises of God. The truly born again believer is not enslaved by the law (see Galatians 3:22-25), but a child of the promise (see Galatians 3:6-9), and lives by faith. The focus of the “natural,” side is on that which is connected to the temporal world – that which we see, feel, hear etc. – the external. This includes matters such as the color of our skin, our language, what we wear, our ethnicity, or culture, the music we listen to and use in our worship services, the place we live etc. The focus on the “supernatural” side is on that which is connected to heavenly realms – on the person of Jesus, the Holy Spirit’s transformational power, God’s grace and forgiveness, and most importantly, our relationship with Jesus, and because of that, our relationship with each other.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 30

2009-10-12T07:15:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."

“But what dies the Scripture say?” All along, Paul has used the Old Testament Scriptures to buttress his agreements. Here, he uses such a reference to complete the “figurative” concept he started back in verse 24. It was vitally important for Paul to anchor his arguments in the Pentateuch – the “Law of Moses” – as he has done throughout the letter, to add the most support, as he continues to turn the very proofs the Judiazers relied upon against them.

Here, he cites to Genesis 21:10 – actually, he quotes it, to complete his Sarah/Hagar analogy. And once again, Paul turns the very words/arguments/beliefs of the Judiazers against them, as if a self fulfilling prophecy, or a spoken curse – or a bitter-root judgment, that comes back upon the person who speaks it, like when a child makes a rash vow such as “I’ll never by like my Parents,” and ends up growing up to be just like them. In this case, the Judiazers argued that uncircumcised Gentiles were not worthy to participate in the covenant. Paul proves its just the opposite, quoting Genesis 21:10. In that passage, it became clear to Sarah that Ishmael had to be put out of the camp. Ishmael and Isaac cannot and could not both inherit the promise. So it is with Paul’s opponents in Galatia. Hagar’s “line” cannot inherit with Sarah’s – and Sarah demands that Hagar’s “line” be banished. Paul is intimating the same here – the spiritual descendants of Ishmael – the Judiazers – should be put out of the church.

It is not clear in the scripture if this was an option for the Galatians, and it appears that this did not actually happen. And the literal application of this in the context of the modern church is problematic – being “drummed out” of the church is a severe remedy. But as far as a personal application goes, it would seem we need to be extra careful about who we fellowship with. I don’t recommend legalism about this sort of thing, but Proverbs 4:23 says “above all else, guard your heart.” There may be, indeed there probably are the modern equivalent of “Judiazers” in the midst of each church congregation, those who would focus on works, or culture, or ethnicity, or custom, or even personal taste – anything external – as a means of being acceptable to God, to the rest of the congregation, and even just being acceptable to them. They may be people of influence, or they may just be the person who happens to sit next to you during the worship service, or they might even be your very best friend. Its easy to get sucked in. Remember Paul’s example of Peter succumbing to this heresy back in Galatians 2:11. This is an easy deception to buy into. We need to guard ourselves and our hearts and minds and focus on Jesus, and the concept of Holy Spirit inspired relationships!

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 29

2009-10-11T08:05:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now.

At first glance, this verse seems to state the obvious. Genesis 21:9 tells us that Ishmael was “mocking” Isaac. The antagonism between the sons who were descendants of Hagar and the sons who were descendants of Sarah carry on into future generations. Psalm 83:5-6 speaks of the nation of Edom, the descendants of Ishmael, antagonizing the nation of Israel. Ironically, even in the modern world, the present day “Edomites,” the Palestinians, are still at odds with the ethnic-cultural descendants of Abraham.

But of course, Paul is being expressly “figurative.” (see Galatians 4:24). He has used the concept of literal slavery, and slavery to the law, to reverse the roles in which tradition placed Hagar and Sarah – it is the ethnic descendants of Abraham that were in bondage to the law – they were the slaves, like Hagar, and they clung to their slavery with a vengeance. The Galatians, who were Gentiles, were truly born again, truly the children of the promise, and were therefore the spiritual descendants of Abraham. The reality of the statement “it is the same now” is spiritual – and it is spiritual war! This goes all the way back to the dawn of time. I John 3:12 says that Cain murdered Abel from the sense that Cain was evil, and was jealous of Abel’s righteousness. Psalm 37:32 says “the wicked lie in wait for the righteous.” But this goes even deeper. The forces of darkness, masquerading as the forces of righteousness and light, are trying to destroy God’s people. And how subtle this distinction is – for even Ishmael can claim he is a descendant of Abraham! When the deception is wrapped in the cloak of theology and religion, it is all the easier to buy into and justify. And just like the “figurative” argument Paul makes here – where the obvious and traditional view of bloodline is reversed and even made irrelevant – so it is with us. The modern day “Judiazers” – anyone who would insist that compliance with their views or experience involving matters of race, culture or tradition define our relationship with God – argue that they agree with Paul’s conclusions in the book of Galatians – that the Jewish law cannot save us, only faith in Christ. But then they replace the Jewish law with reliance on conformity with their own culture or tradition. The implication is you can’t truly connect with God, can’t truly be part of God’s Kingdom, unless we do it their way, or become like them culturally, or worst of all – because we are part of a different ethnic group, we are rejected completely. Paul is absolutely right – truer words could not be spoken – “it is the same now.”

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 28

2009-10-10T08:04:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.

“Now you, brothers” Paul comes back to addressing the Galatians in a familiar tone, in intimacy. Paul has shifted the tone of his writing style back and forth from tenderness and caring (Galatians 1:11, 3:15, 4:12) to harsh rebuke and even sarcasm (Galatians 1:6, 3:1, 4:10). What strikes me here, however, is not so much a return to tenderness or intimacy here, but a statement of reality – the Galatians were truly “brothers,” they had a real relationship with Christ (see Galatians 3:2-5), and this verse defines the spiritual reality of the new birth. Paul uses the word “Now” – the Galatians are still right with God, despite the issues of unbelief and sin among them. This is the essence of “promise” – it has nothing to do with what we do. They are “brothers” – always!

“like Isaac, are children of the promise” Here, Paul pushes a concept that would have outraged his Jewish critics. First, the Judiazers insisted that a person needed to be circumcised to enter the covenant with Abraham and Isaac and all their descendants, and become their “spiritual descendants.” While there is some strong support in the Old Testament for at least an understanding of why Paul’s opponents insisted on this (see Genesis 17: 10-14), Paul argues that what he is arguing for transcends Jewish tradition and ethnicity. The Judiazers (and Jews generally at that time) expected that when the Messiah came, at the “end of time,” the law would be strengthened, not radically changed. Paul shows us that the coming of the Messiah inaugurated a new age in which the old rules no longer strictly apply (see Galatians 4:4, 4:6), or, better still, that the old rules were never meant to be the basis of salvation, but to show us the way, to point towards the fulfillment of the promise. The concept of the traditional Jewish belief system of Paul’s time is turned on its head – Paul is proving that the new covenant allows that these uncircumcised Gentiles are the spiritual children of Isaac, and the Judiazers – the ones who arguably are faithfully trying to fulfill the terms of the law – are the spiritual children of Ishmael. Ethnicity and culture cannot define the kingdom.

However, in a nutshell, while this verse seems like just a bridge in the argument, its bare essence is truth – the Galatians were brothers – spiritual descendants of Isaac, and children of the promise. For all who are truly born again, it is exactly the same.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, verse 27

2009-10-09T09:10:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:27 For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."

Paul quotes from Isaiah 54:1, a passage originally applicable to the exile, when the nation of Israel had been dispossessed by its Babylonian conquerors, the temple had been closed, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem were forced to live in a pagan land. Some biblical scholars/critics complain that Paul stretches too far here – this passage could not have been meant to apply to Abraham and Sarah, let alone the promise of the Messiah. Yet, even Isaiah himself seems to have contemplated such a connection (see Isaiah 51:2). And the application works on all three levels – with Abraham, Israel and God’s family today. In each instance, a promise is fulfilled – a promise regarding a hopeless, impossible to achieve goal – a goal that cannot be reached by human effort. Sarah, a woman who cannot physically have children, gives birth. Israel, a nation destroyed by foreign invaders – destruction allowed by God because of Israel’s own faithlessness – is restored. The Galatians, and therefore Christians today, were people lost in the bondage of sin are made right with God through Jesus. The first two events foreshadow the last. One of the bible commentaries I rely upon says that the Jews of Paul’s day would have easily connected the Isaiah 54:1 passage to the story of Abraham. This of course made Paul’s analogy to Sarah and Hagar all the clearer. Placed in the context of the Jewish reliance on ethnicity, which is the fruit of the heresy of the Judiazers, the use of this passage from Isaiah helps reinforce the concept that race and ethnicity do not matter. Paul will continue with this same analogy through verse 31, but I particularly like the implication of the last phrase here – the children of the barren woman will be more numerous. The promise to Abraham was that his children would be as many as stars, as many as the sand on the beach. It’s like a floodgate – a promise not just of you and me coming to God, but of millions – a promise of true revival, across all ethnic and cultural lines. Truly radical. Truly astounding.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 26

2009-10-08T08:23:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

In the previous verse, Paul compares Hagar, as the “slave woman,” with Mt. Sinai and Jerusalem, both centers of Judaism and Jewish culture, sources of the Law, and therefore under the bondage of the Law. Here he makes reference to a new concept – “the Jerusalem that is above.” Rabbinical teaching of Paul’s day taught that in the coming Messianic age, a “new Jerusalem,” a heavenly archetype, would descend to the earth. This, of course, was not too far off from the reality of Christ’s Kingdom. Revelation 21:2 notes that there is a New Jerusalem, a heavenly City of God, where Christ eternally reigns, and of which all “true believers,” all authentic Christians – believers in “the promise,” not the literal descendants of Abraham or citizens of Israel – are citizens. Remember, Paul has announced that he is making this argument “figuratively.” (See Galatians 4:24). The problem is that the Jews took things too literally. They viewed the promise of the new Jerusalem as a physical presence, as something for the present and the here and now, and literally for the re-establishment of the Jewish nation in Israel at some future, but not too far future time. The Messiah would be a temporal King, just like David and Solomon had been. In this verse, Paul makes his own comparison about these concepts complete – and the connections to ethnicity (or lack thereof) could not be clearer. The reality is God’s plan is fulfilled in the promise of Jesus, not in obedience to the law. We are to rely on the Lord’s sacrifice, and not our own merit. Relying on the promise produces life and fulfillment – just as God promised Abraham a son, and produced Isaac. Relying on the law can produce a type of “promise production” that might look and feel similar, but the effort will always fall short – they are never enough to please God – just like Abraham’s relationship with Hagar, and the production of Ishmael. It also drives home that bloodline, ethnicity, and culture mean nothing. Fulfilling the Law means becoming a Jew. But Ishmael, as a literal “child of Abraham” (see the discussion back in Galatians 3: 6-9), was a failure -- and he certainly was not a Jew. So then are all attempts to please God by our own effort, in what we are, what we do, or how we behave. Any outward effort falls short. Any definition of who is a child of God that focuses on what we are, or what we do leads to slavery. We can only be a child of God by being children of the promise. Defining by race, culture, denomination, style, personal preference etc. is no different than trying to please God by following the minutia of the Law.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 25

2009-10-07T07:40:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.

“Arabia” in Paul’s time was considered a larger area than just the Arabian peninsula. It included the Sinai peninsula, and most of the Gentile territory bordering Israel (including the area in which Paul went into seclusion in Galatians 1:17, which would have been to the north of Israel, near modern day Syria). Initially, Paul’s explanation here seems confusing. He connects Hagar, who is the mother of the Arab nations, with Mt. Sinai, which is in Arabia, and then, surprisingly, with Jerusalem, the holy city of Judaism, and the center of the Jewish world. Mt. Sinai is where Moses came face to face with God. Jerusalem is the City of David, and as we see in the next verse, is connected to the concept of heaven. How can Mt. Sinai and Jerusalem be connected to Hagar, the mother of the Arab nations? Paul, of course, explains this himself.

“she is in slavery with her children” The whole emphasis in this section of the letter has been on slavery (at least, he is picking up on the concept first presented in Galatians 3:23 – 4: 11). We also need to connect back to Paul’s arguments about the law in Chapter 3 – especially verses 10-14. Relying on the law, rather than the promise, results in a curse – it leads to bondage rather than to freedom. Here, Mt. Sinai and Jerusalem are connected to the curse, to bondage, to slavery – Sinai is where the law originated, Jerusalem, as the center of Judaism, is also centered on the law and the concept of following the law in order to please God. Thus, there is a connection to the slave woman and her children, the product of trying to fulfill the promise by human effort. It all leads to slavery to the law, to bondage to sin. The statement “with her children” also implies that this is a generational curse – passed on from parent to child. Of course, this is what the concept of original sin is all about. But this also ties back to the underlying theme we’ve been discussing throughout our analysis of Galatians – ethnic prejudice and narrow mindedness is a root problem here, too. The ultimate result of insisting that the Gentiles follow the law is that the culture of the Jews becomes the central focus, rather than the person of Jesus. “Be like us, or you can’t be pleasing to God.” It sounds disturbingly close to Billy Crystal’s old Saturday Night Live character, Fernando – “It’s better to look good than to feel good.” But insisting on cultural conformity is really no different. This too is slavery.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 24

2009-10-06T08:09:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.

“taken figuratively” Hagar and Sarah were real, historical people. But Paul is going to use these two woman, who were such a significant part of Abraham’s life (and therefore of Jewish cultural history), as a living allegory of the two covenants. Also, by using the word “covenant” here, Paul is revisiting the legal metaphors he started using back in Galatians 3:15. The issue of viewing these events from Abraham’s life as “figurative” would not be a new concept to the Jews of Paul’s time. Many of the great teaching rabbis of that era interpreted the life of Hagar as a kind of “imperfect training” – almost like the first draft of a term paper, or spring training for a baseball team. Sarah, however, was seen as the embodiment of perfect virtue. Paul chooses instead to emphasize the connection with slavery. The parallel becomes clear – Hagar was a slave herself, and with Abraham, she produced a child in the expected way, according to human biology, planning and effort. There is a direct parallel between the slave and the results produced, with those who seek to please God and fulfill the law’s righteousness by similar means – according to the flesh. In the case of both Hagar and the Judiazers, the ultimate result is the same. It cannot be done. We are slaves, and remain slaves. Hagar was from Egypt, where the Israelites had been in slavery. Mt. Sinai was just outside of Egypt’s borders. There is a thin line between freedom and slavery in God’s Kingdom.

Update on My Health Status

2009-10-05T09:19:00.000-05:00

To all my Blogspot friends:

I wasn't sure what to call this note. But I wanted to bring my friends up to date on how I'm doing since my surgery. While my family and many of my church friends have been kept up to speed, I wanted to let many of my other friends, who have been so supportive, know how i am doing.

It has been three weeks today that I had my prostate removed.

First, the best news is my pathology came back clear. No cancer anyplace else but in my prostate. I will not require any further treatment -- no radiation, no chemotherapy, no nuthin! Praise God! I just need to be tested/examined on a regular basis, starting next month. The only negative at all in my pathology report was the cancerous growth in the organ had moved close to the inner wall surrounding it at one, tiny, even microscopic point. My doctor isn't overly concerned -- he says this just means I need to be diligent in keeping up with my checkups to guard against any possibility of recurrence.

This is all good news, but what this last point brought home to me is that the timing of my surgery was critical. Had I delayed this process in any way, I could have faced a much more serious prognosis. Had I not lost my job in February, and felt compelled to get a physical exam before my severance and health benefits ran out, I probably would have delayed seeing a doctor until at least September (I try to get a physical exam around my birthday, but had missed the last year or so). I tend to be very stubborn and arrogant about matters relating to my health, and I do NOT like to make a big deal over such things, and I hate going to see doctors for matters of my own health. I look back -- had I not lost my job, I might just be hearing about the results of my PSA test now, or had I decided to not have a physical in September, not known at all. It appears that my cancer was caught just in the nick of time. While the loss of my job was probably one of the toughest things I have ever had to go through -- put in perspective, it may have saved my life, or at least saved me from having a much more serious battle for the stability of my health. I am humbled by the mercy of God -- He knew when I needed to have surgery, and he made sure this arrogant, self centered guy would be in a position to listen to Him when that time came.

Everything else I currently am dealing with pales in comparison. I am gradually getting better. All of the adjustments I have to make now that the "mechanics of nature" have been re-built and re-routed inside me have gone pretty well. I am encouraged by my progress. I have a few difficulties with some of my sutured wounds, but those have simply been annoyances. I still tire easily, and suffer from aches, pains, and soreness, but nothing really serious. To think I had major surgery three weeks ago, and to be able to move and function at the level I'm at amazes me.

I've lost a fair amount of weight, too. But I don't recommend organ removal as a viable weight loss program. I hope that through better management of diet and exercise to lose even more weight and have a more healthy lifestyle. My doctor was adamant about this -- "lifestyle modification" he calls it. I've had my weight under control as long ago as seven or eight years ago, despite having my weight be a constant struggle since my teenage years. But since then, I have really let it go. My doctor was very frank with me after my surgery -- gently upbraiding me for not caring about my weight. He said that after working so hard to save my life from cancer, he doesn't want to see me dropping dead from heart disease, stroke, or some other weight related disease. Its good advice. And I hope by God's grace, I'll be able to follow through.

Thanks again to all my friends who have stood by me, prayed for me, and supported me and my family. I couldn't have made it without you. Covenant relationships in God's kingdom are what sustains us all in trying times. In all times.

Please also pray for my business prospects. Being under the weather for nearly a month has brought my law practice to a near standstill, and we really need to see an influx of business or a major breakthrough in some other area.

Thanks again to my children -- Simi, Tara, Cassi and Frank. I know how difficult this has been, and how difficult I have been. "Crabby Dad" has been no fun. Yet, they have shown me such grace and love. I am humbly grateful for my kids.

And my wife Susan -- what can I say about this warm ray of light, the hands and voice of God to me, the one person who has taught me the meaning of "lay your life down." That she would stand by me in all of this humbles me more than anything. I love you.

Sincerely,

John

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verses 21 through 23

2009-10-05T07:24:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

Today we get three verses for the price of one – 4:21 through 23

“Tell me” Paul transitions back to his more familiar and formal letter writing style, but he’s still in an agitated emotional state. While it seems as if he may be picking a fight by demanding proof or some evidence or argument in support of the Judiazers’ position, this is really one of Paul’s trademark rhetorical questions. Indeed, like any good lawyer or debater, Paul already knows the answer to the question he poses here. “The Law” here specifically is a reference to the book of Genesis, and one of the books of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, which was written by Moses.

Verse 22: This will be Paul’s final Old Testament proof for his position. Once again, he focuses on Abraham, the “Father of Judaism,” and the first real focal point of God’s covenant promise.

“had two sons” The first son was Ishmael, born to the servant girl of Abraham’s wife Sarah, Hagar. The second was Isaac, the son of his wife, Sarah. He refers to Hagar throughout this section of the letter not by name, but as the “slave woman.” In the same way, he does not speak of Sarah by her name either, but as the “free woman.” Of course, Hagar had been a literal slave, but Paul is using this concept to extend the slavery – freedom argument he emphasized back in 3:23 – 4:11.

Verse 23: This is an odd construct for modern day Christians to understand. Paul says Ishmael was born in the “ordinary way,” and Isaac was born “as the result of a promise.” My initial reaction is that this should be stated the opposite – Isaac was born in the “ordinary way” because he was the son of Abraham’s actual wife. But what Paul means by “ordinary” here is “by human effort,” rather than relying on God’s power and intervention – or by simply believing in Him. Believing in God, and Faith in God is the key, as it was for Abraham back in Galatians 3:6. Genesis 11:30 is clear – Sarah had been “barren;” she was physically incapable of conceiving a child. Sarah’s sterility emphasized the fact that God’s people, the true “children of Abraham” would not be born by natural means. It is also clear that the means of producing Ishmael had been Sarah’s suggestion, to which Abraham apparently readily agreed (see Genesis 16: 1-4). The tragedy of this “plan” was that it immediately followed all the promises God had made to Abraham in Genesis 15. Paul emphasizes these promises in Galatians 3: 6-14 as the foundation of the Jewish faith that was fulfilled in Jesus. Abraham’s first reaction to God’s promises was to try and fulfill the covenant himself, by his own efforts. This parallels the Judiazers’ argument that everyone still needed to follow the Jewish laws and customs so that by our own efforts we will be acceptable to God. The fulfillment of the covenant to Abraham, however, was by a promise – and a miracle, which produced Isaac. The covenant is fulfilled in us through a promise and a miracle – the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verses 19 & 20

2009-10-04T08:11:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4: 19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!

Two verses for the price of one today!

“My dear children” Paul often expressed his affection for the converts he ministered to and with, see, e.g., Philippians 4:1. But Paul’s style and language was always tasteful and artful, and his grammar and usage was always mature, even complex. When I was in college, I had a roommate who was preparing for seminary and was studying Greek. He explained that Paul’s Greek was of the highest order, with a mature style indicative of an extremely intelligent, highly educated man. On the other hand, there was the Greek style of John the Apostle, which was simple, rough, and almost child like. (This is why beginning Greek students studying the Bible read from John’s letters, and gradually work up to the writings of Paul). Its sort of like comparing a PhD in English with Dr. Suess. Well, that's not fair -- John's writing isn't childish, just a lot plainer and simpler. More "blue collar," if you will. But here, Paul is reverting to that simpler style, a more emotional style. “My dear children” is never used anywhere else in Paul’s letters, yet, it’s the type of phrase (i.e. “my little children;” “my dear ones” etc.) that John uses over and over and over. Paul’s emotions here have reached the boiling over point. The man who had studied at the feet of the great rabbi Gamaliel, who has shown the Galatians a razor sharp wit and intellect and the most clever, inspired arguments based on the law and on Jewish, Greek, and Roman culture has here, briefly, been left speechless. Instead, he appeals to intimacy, relationship, and the depth of friendship. A lover might exclaim “my darling,” or a parent resort to a pet name or nickname for the intimacy of the home. Paul is doing the same thing. It seems out of character for him, and for this letter, but not when you consider the depth of emotion and commitment Paul really had (see, e.g. Acts 20: 36-38).

“for whom again I am in the pains of childbirth” In ancient Roman tradition, a father’s authority over his children was absolute. A father was an autocrat within his own home. In Jewish tradition, a great teacher was viewed as a spiritual “father.” In many ways, Paul has been appealing to his spiritual authority as a “father” over the Galatians, but here, he is especially appealing to the intimacy and affection of parenthood. The ancient cultures that blended together in the Galatian churches all applied this image of affection to a father, and here, Paul also takes up the image of a mother’s role. Labor pain has always been regarded as the severest pain a human can experience. It was common for mothers to die in childbirth in Paul’s day. Paul is painting an image of his own love and sacrifice that is extremely graphic. AND extremely sad, for the apostasy of the Galatians means Paul’s labor pains result in a “still birth.”

“until Christ is formed in you.” This was the goal of Paul’s ministry. It’s the reason he went through all this pain and anguish!

In verse 20, the exasperation reaches its peak. One way to paraphrase verse 20 is “I’m at a loss as to what to say.” The whole situation has pushed Paul over the edge emotionally – again, something we don’t see too often in his letters. Paul longs to be with them. Indeed, it seems it was easier for Paul to rebuke his flock from afar, in a letter, than to so stern face to face (see 2 Corinthians 10: 10-11) . Paul was really quite sensitive about this sort of thing. The old parental adage, “this will hurt me more than it hurts you” was very real to Paul. (See 2 Corinthians 2:4). He simply wanted the best for them, and wants to gently lead them back to the person of Jesus. Yet, his anguish is real – he is truly “perplexed about [them]!" – with an exclamation point!

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 18

2009-10-03T08:27:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:18: It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you.

Here, Paul is taking the position of a frustrated parent.

“It is fine to be zealous” The tone here seems sarcastic, as if Paul is the typical parent of a teenager, and the Galatians are collectively his adolescent child. Indeed, that would appear to be an apt comparison for where the Galatians are at – these were not new believers, no “babes in Christ” – but an established, mature church. Yet, they were not mature believers. Paul had probably helped establish the churches of Galatia and lived with them for a time because of his illness (probably caused by being stoned and left for dead in Acts 14:19) sometime around 46-49 A.D. Most scholars date this letter as just 2 or 3 years later. The Galatians obviously had a great start as a church, but were struggling as spiritual adolescents. The “fine to be zealous” comment smacks of an attitude not unlike a typical 21st century American parental trite phrase, e.g. “ if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you too?”

“provided the purpose is good” Obviously, the zeal of the Judiazers was not good, both in their zeal for a works based theology, and a Christian community defined by race, culture and ethnicity.

“and to be so always, and not just when I am with you.” Paul’s final comment is multi-layered. One the one hand, it still smacks of a scolding. An immature child will misbehave and disobey when unsupervised. An immature believer will be swayed more easily when separated from their comfortable, established, and more mature relationships. (a most sad statistic is the large number of children raised in the faith who have a faith crisis with Christianity when they go away to college).

On the other hand, the context makes the last comment seem sad. Verses 11-15 explain the closeness and intimacy of Paul’s history with the Galatians. The fact that the Galatians could apparently just throw it all away so easily – not their faith alone, but the friendship and kinship they had with Paul – it must have broken his heart. I have personally experienced this kind of hurt – when a close friend leaves the fellowship of the body of Christ because of sin or a change of heart, This is a double devastation. You grieve your friend’s rejection of Christ. But you also grieve at a more basic, even childish level – you grieve because you miss him; you have lost a friend.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 17

2009-10-02T06:56:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them.

“Those people” Obviously the Judiazers. Interesting. Paul seems almost over-polite here – reminiscent of Confederate general Robert E. Lee, who always acted the part of the “southern gentleman,” and could never refer to his enemies by name, but yet would not stoop to name calling either (like “blue bellies” or “Yankees”). He always referred to the Union army as “those people.”

“are zealous to win you over.” Paul’s use of the term “zealous” will be played out in the next verse as well. In this context, it would indicate the Judiazers were telling the Galatians what they wanted to hear – and spreading lies, too, in order to win or even steal their affections, to “alienate” them from Paul, and have the Galatians be “zealous” for their cause. Paul, however, has been brutally honest with his “children.” Throughout this letter, Paul has been laying into the Galatians, not only presenting arguments to convince them why the path they have chosen is wrong, but often scolding them, and, in fact, telling them that they’re being stupid (see Galatians 3:1, for example). Paul really cares. This particular section shows the deep relationship he had established with them. The Galatians were throwing away the proven commodity of their "spiritual father" and mentor for the quick fix promises of men who were actually spiritual enemies!

The tragedy here is twofold. First, Proverbs 27:6 says that “wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.” The churches were missing out on their best chance to get themselves back on course – the loving correction of a friend who was closer than a brother.

But even more tragic, they were allowing the flattery of the Judiazers, who were saying what the Galatians wanted to hear, to destroy the life giving RELATIONSHIP they had with Paul, the person-to-person connection God had established for them. This is akin to a divorce where the young wife has been swept off her feet by the excitement and enticement of an illicit affair, but is justifying it as something God-ordained. The following verses reveal just how heartbroken, angry and emotionally troubled Paul really is over the loss of this deep relationship with the Galatians.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 16

2009-10-01T07:46:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:16 Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Looking at this verse by itself, the old adage of “the truth hurts” comes to mind. Obviously, the result of telling the truth, particularly when the listener is not open to hear the truth, can result in the loss of a friend. But in the context of the rest of this passage, the irony drips from Paul’s words – but not in bitterness. Here is a deep, deep sadness. The same people who in the previous verse were willing to give up their most precious commodity for Paul’s sake now dismiss him as an enemy. Indeed, how sad! A relationship grounded in Christ, forged in the trials of persecution and debilitating illness, developed over a relationship shared together in good times and bad is now lost. I get the sense that the churches of Galatia (not just a “church,” but plural, see my commentary on Galatians 1:2) were authentic Christian communities, that is, places where people really stood by each other, and really laid down their lives for each other in the spirit of Christian brotherhood. Indeed, not too very much different than my own home church. But the bald statement of this verse is the natural product of both legalism and racism. The result in both instances is the same. People who had been closer than brothers, who had been through the toughest, leanest times together – not unlike comrades who fought in war together – and the man who “saved their lives,” who introduced them to Christ, who was a spiritual father to them, a man who had lived with them as family, helped build their church community – He is now regarded as an infidel, as one who is “unclean,” or worse yet, a traitor! If we rely on rules or ethnic/racial or other cultural concepts to define who we are in Christ, this is the ultimate result – the rupturing of RELATIONSHIP – the one essential concept of Christianity that separates it from all other world religions. And while the Judiazers formed a community of sorts, it was founded on the wrong principles. In Christianity, our relationship with God is based on relating to the Lord as a person – that is, his personality; who he REALLY is. Our relationships with one another are based on the same things because of who the Lord is, and what he is in our lives. But, just like Paul here in verse 16, when we bring these concept to a church community (or any community) that would rather define itself by what we do, or what race we are, or what our cultural mores are, we will ultimately be rejected, just like Paul. Imagine – the most important, foundational truth of Christianity – REJECTED! But even sadder is the essence of Christianity – the concept of a living relationship with the one true God, and then through him, a living relationship with each other as a community of believers – dies a bitter death. This is the fruit of both a rules oriented environment, or one where culture is the overriding factor.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 15

2009-09-30T07:32:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4: 15 What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.

“What has happened to all your joy” The restraints and burdens of a legalistic worldview/lifestyle are a drudgery. There is no freedom. There is constant pressure, day to day, minute by minute, as one has to prove himself worthy of God. Life is one endless struggle “to obey.” It is not unlike the oppression of being under the rule of a totalitarian dictator – fear becomes our motivation, not love. The concept we’ve been emphasizing over and over again in this letter – that of a living RELATIONSHIP – is non existent. There is no living relationship – just rules that can’t possibly be obeyed, no matter how hard we try! (see Galatians 3: 10-14). And the real tragedy here is that the Galatians once had the “joy” – they had the freedom that only comes through Christ, they had a viable relationship with God – but had thrown it all away. Sadly, this also seems to include throwing away their relationship with Paul. How ironic! The legalistic approach to God not only robs us of joy, is not only a drudgery – it isolates us from God and the proper, healthy relationships we need. I think this is because the ultimate focus of legalism is on ourselves, rather than on God. Further, when we also factor in the concept that the Judiazing heresy had its roots in ethnic prejudice -- i.e. being Jewish was "better" then being Greek – we know that using such a philosophy and belief as the foundation for living cannot result in anything but hatefulness and bitterness. The “joy” is indeed gone – nonexistent.

“I can testify that” Paul is using legal terminology again, as he did throughout chapters 3 & 4. This emphasizes not only the truth of Paul’s message, but the sincerity in his argument.

“You would have torn out your eyes to and given them to me” Many interpreters of this passage see this statement as indicative of the kind of “illness” Paul is suffering from in this section of the letter. Was his “illness” some sort of oozing eye sore, or cataracts, or some other issue relating to his eyes? Considering Paul’s activity in the book of Acts, this scenario seems unlikely. While Paul complains in another part of scripture of a “thorn” in his flesh, his ability to write and communicate was not an issue (although Galatians 6:11 might be an indication that Paul’s vision was suffering!) But this sort of language was common in the ancient Greek world. Its hyperbole. In Greek culture, friendship was always associated with the concept of sacrifice (I suppose that’s really true in ALL cultures). This is a dramatic phrase indicating that the Galatians had been willing to give up that which was most precious to them for Paul’s benefit. Paul is simply reaffirming the deep bond he once had with the Galatians, and how this relationship, this deep love, was reciprocal. It’s like saying they would “go the extra mile” or would “cut off their right arm,” etc. (As a side note, the Greek word that is translated here as “torn out” is used in Mark 2:4 to describe the process that was used to tear open the roof of the house Jesus was in to lower the paralytic man in so Jesus could heal him. A rather graphic description! It is also indicative of the sincere dedication of one brother in Christ helping another).

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 14

2009-09-29T08:41:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:14 Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.

Paul continues in his more personal, heartfelt testimony regarding his past relations with the Galatians.

"Even though my illness was a trial to you” Obviously, whatever Paul’s infirmity had been, it was serious enough to be a burden, or at least a grave concern. But Paul is impliedly complimentary—even grateful to the Galatians because they did not treat him “with contempt or scorn” because of his illness. It was quite common in the ancient world to view physical illness as a curse or punishment by God (or “the Gods” if one was a pagan). Even Jewish tradition often viewed sickness as divine retribution. But the Galatians obviously received Paul, illness and all, with a welcome heart. He was received as an “angel of God.” The original Greek world for “angel” here was also commonly used to identify human as well as supernatural messengers – “angel” literally means messenger. And in ancient times, a messenger was received as the representative of their sender. For example, a messenger bringing a letter from the King would traditionally be given a "kings welcome."

Here Paul is received as God’s angel – God’s messenger. This is interesting, considering how Paul entered the city of Lystra, one of the chief cities of Galatia, as told in Acts 14: 8-13. After healing a man who could not walk, Paul and Barnabas were hailed as the Greek Gods Zeus and Hermes in the flesh. Indeed, Paul was hailed as Hermes, the messenger of the Gods! Of course, Paul makes it clear that the Galatians, at least once they received Christ, welcomed Paul not as a Greek God, but as if he were a messenger of Jesus.

As an aside, Acts 14 may give us a clue as to the nature of Paul’s illness. In Acts 14:19, amid the tumult of the confusion over this whole “Greek God” episode, some of the Jews in the area “won the crowd over,” and Paul was stoned, dragged outside the city, and left for dead. The healing process from such an ordeal would have taken a long time, and Acts 14:21 (and so on) outlines a journey back through the Galatian cities Paul had just traveled through, building up the churches. This would have necessarily taken a lot of time – perhaps years even – and Paul, in his injured, frail, recovering state, would have had the opportunity to establish deep ties with the Galatians.

But in relating and reminiscing about how Paul and the Galatians established their ministry together, there is a sad undertone. “You welcomed me” – yes, at the time Paul first came to Galatia, the new Christians there did not view his physical problems as God’s judgment, but took care of him joyfully (see the next verse regarding the concept of “joy”) and “welcomed” him as Christ’s true representative. BUT – the implication now is the “welcome” is strongly in the past tense. Something has changed. The influence of the Judiazers has caused a change in attitude. Paul no longer feels “welcomed.” In verse 16, he sees himself as he perceives the Galatians are seeing him, as an enemy. Paul is obviously deeply saddened by all this. The importance of RELATIONSHIP – here, a lateral one, between fellow believers in Christ – is vitally important to the Kingdom concept, and comes shining through.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 13

2009-09-28T07:58:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:13 As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you.

The “illness” Paul mentions here is never specifically identified. On the basis of Galatians 4:15, and later on in 6:11 (where Paul identifies the handwriting on the letter as his own, in such large letters) many scripture scholars believe that this was some sort of problem with his eyes, or that Paul struggled with poor vision. Some scholars suggest something more serious, such as malaria or epilepsy. There is no mention of illness in the Acts 13 & 14 account, so we can only speculate as to what this means. The literal Greek word here for “illness” or “infirmity” (as the KJV translates it) could mean a physical ailment, or it could mean wounds, impliedly the result of physical persecution. Whatever it was, it was obviously serious enough to cause Paul to stay over in the Galatians’ region for some time in order to recuperate.

Another angle to consider is the ancient Greek’s attitude towards physical illness or infirmity. The stoic philosophers believed that illness should not affect one’s ability to function, so if we are to take the accounts of Acts 13 & 14 in tandem with this passage, Paul still actively functioned in his ministry, despite his illness. That would have scored him points with the “Greek” people among the Galatian congregations. As a side note, at least one of the commentaries I have consulted notes that southern Galatia (the area Paul was traveling through in Acts 13 & 14) would have had the ideal climate for recovery from illness. Indeed, this region was famous through the ages because of its “health benefits.” God knew what he was doing by having Paul “lay over” with the Galatians.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 12

2009-09-27T07:19:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:12 I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong.

So far, Paul has spent the bulk of his energy in this letter in criticism. Its aimed either at the evils of the Judiazing heresy or at the Galatians themselves for succumbing to it. His focus has been on theology or the personal testimony of events which occurred in his own life, rather than on any shared experience with the Galatians. Even when he briefly appealed to the Galatians’ own experiences (3:1-5), it was to criticize them for believing in the lie of this heresy.

Here Paul shifts to a much more emotional and personal tone. While he is critical, even disappointed in what has happened to the Galatian churches, he doesn’t want to break fellowship with them. He still has a sense of hope. He cares deeply for them. The RELATIONSHIP side of he equation, here, is now played out in Paul’s own personal interactions with the Galatians, and the concept is clear – He truly loves them!

First off, he uses the term “brothers.” This term has been used elsewhere so far in the book (e.g. 1:2, 3:15), and of course indicates that Paul considered the Galatians his fellow believes in the truest sense of the word. But some versions translate this word as “friends.” The implication of this concept is important. In ancient Greek culture, a “friend” was a social equal. Of course, Paul occupied a place of authority in the lives of the Galatians. The Romans had a concept of the “Patron,” a lord over a group of dependents. But a Patron has a relationship with his charges – a true friendship. Paul is not speaking to the Galatians merely as their teacher or master, but as a peer.

“I plead with you.” A passionate, heartfelt plea for a change of heart. In his plea, we see Paul’s heart, and his notion of friendship.

“become like me, for I became like you.” When Paul says “become like me” he is speaking of himself as a Jew who has been set free by Christ from the bondage of Jewish ritualism and tradition. He is speaking as a living example of what the Galatians are trying to be. They were trying to embrace ethnic Judaism – Paul’s been there, done that, and knows from personal experience that it doesn’t work. Not that being Jewish or ethnically Jewish is a bad thing, no -- but dependence on or identification with Judaism, or any culture for that matter, cannot bring us any closer to God. When he says “I became like you,” Paul is speaking of becoming like a Gentile. Because of his freedom in Christ, Paul lives his life separated from the world of law. His day to day practice, therefore, is just like the Galatians lived, at least as far as their Christianity was concerned. They had been delivered from the bondage of pagan idolatry. There might be some ethnic differences (language, music style, dress etc.), but the basic concepts were the same. Paul had really changed more than they had.

In addition, though, the underlying implication here is EQUALITY. The Jews are not better then the Greeks, in faith, in culture, in anything. Greek culture is not better either (through this was apparently not the issue in Galatia, but it is implied as an issue in the early verses of Chapter 4, and the Greeks themselves also traditionally had an air of superiority about them, regarding the Jews, and especially regarding the Romans). The pagan culture (here, Gallic) is not better. Paul himself as a spiritual authority is not “better” than they are. When Paul says, “I became like you,” he means he relates to the Galatians as equals , and not only as their spiritual father, as indicated in 4:19.

“You have done me no wrong.” Paul is not offended by what has happened. Indeed, he is about to emphasize the tender relationship he has shared with them; the closeness of that relationship. As we have seen, over and over, the Kingdom of God is all about RELATIONSHIP.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verses 10 & 11

2009-09-26T08:43:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!
(11) I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Paul is criticizing the Galatians for exchanging the leading of the Holy Spirit for the tradition of following the calendar. The Jewish law and traditions are full of these, corresponding to each of Paul’s examples here in verse 10. “Special Days,” e.g. the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement (see Leviticus 16: 29-34); “months and seasons” e.g. new moon festivals (Numbers 28: 11-15, Isaiah 1:13-14), Passover (Exodus 12:18), or First Fruits (Leviticus 23:10); “years” e.g., the Sabbath year (Leviticus 25:4). None of these (in particular, the Day of Atonement) had ever been, could ever be, or would ever be in and of themselves a means of salvation or sanctification. Yet, the Pharisees meticulously observed all these to gain merit before God. But there’s even more here. Paul is suggesting that by returning to the ceremony of the calendar, the Galatians are returning to pagan bondage under the "spirits of the sky" referenced here and in verses 3 and 9. Jews, of course, would be offended by this – they felt Judaism and paganism had little in common. (Maybe the pagans would be offended too, but the issue in the Galatian churches was a drive to make everyone ethnically homogeneous under Jewish culture). But in a practical sense, the Jewish reliance on tradition and custom was no different than a pagan mindset. In both cases, the comparisons in verse 9 with a return to slavery, or going back earlier in Chapter 4, with the image of an adult going back to the guardianship of a child is appropriate. This is taking a step backward. Also a reliance on formula or our own efforts, negates the need for a personal relationship with God, which is always the ultimate goal of the promise. Its like the implied mistake the older brother made in the parable of the prodigal son. The older boy was offended when his history of good works and service on the family farm was not ostensibly good enough to “earn” a celebration from his father. But what the father wanted was a relationship – and the younger son, the prodigal, despite his sin, had availed himself of the promise and re-established the relationship with his Dad. The essence of Paul’s proofs and argument seems to always boil down to that concept – there is a need for a dependence on a RELATIONSHIP with God.

This argument regarding the emphasis on “special days” seems rather timely (I originally made this entry in my journal around Christmas time, so while it is currently in late September, I was originally thinking and meditating on these issues in late December or early January) with the recent controversy over some churches canceling their Christmas services so folks could spend time with their families. A lot of folks who are more on the conservative side in the evangelical community criticized this – it “wasn’t right,” and to do so would not"find favor" with God. Paul would seem to have a different view. Is it more important to follow tradition, and emphasize a “special day,” or emphasize the concept of relationship, with God, and with one another?

VERSE 11: An exasperated Paul appears to be giving up on the Galatians. But, as we will see in the next section, this is really genuine concern. There is also a connection here between Paul’s sense of “wasting his efforts” or as some translations put it, “laboring in vain,” with the prophets of the Old Testament, who had similar frustrations bringing their message to the nation of Israel. See Psalm 73:13, Isaiah 49:4, and Isaiah 65:23. Even God seemed to feel his judgments were “in vain” when the nation of Israel refused to return to Him (see Jeremiah 2:30). The image was always that of a great labor expended with no return because of the listener’s obstinacy (see Philippians 2:16, and Thessalonians 3:5) or the ineffectiveness of the message (see I Corinthians 15:2, 14,17, 58). Paul is experiencing both here. Anyone who ministers to people understands this concept.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 9

2009-09-25T12:07:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:9 But now that you know God-- or rather are known by God-- how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

Paul’s tone here is turning sarcastic. “now that you know God – or rather are known by God.” This is a similar tone to how Paul started Chapter 3, when he called them “foolish” and “bewitched.” Ostensibly the Galatians knew God – in that they had a solid foundation, and a real, authentic relationship with God through Jesus Christ (see 3: 2-5). But this little rhetorical flourish calls this concept into question. Paul seems to imply that perhaps their “knowing” of God is not very deep, in that God seems to know them better than they know God.

“turning back to those weak and miserable principles.” These “principles” are different than the matters discussed in the first 3 chapters. This is more than just going back to practicing and observing the Jewish law. The Galatians were Greek by ethnicity, or Gallic (transplanted from Central Europe by the Roman authorities) so had originally been pagans prior to coming to Christ. The Greek words translated as “principles” here is translated as “elemental things,” “elements,” even as “spirits” in other English translations of the bible. The original Greek implies an over-arching concept – it’s the “elemental things” of all religions prior to the coming of Christ, or of any false religion, really. These “spirits” would be the spirits of nature, the false Gods they use to worship as pagans, in particular the “astral” spirits – the “sky Gods” – which Paul first referenced in Chapter 4, verse 3. These “Gods” also had special feast days and holidays, similar to the feasts and holidays of the Jewish calendar. (see 4:10). This is interesting. What seems to have happened to the Galatians is a full circle regression. They started out as pagans – having no knowledge of the true God. Paul and Barnabas brought the Gospel message to Galatia – the Holy Spirit was poured out, and many of the Galatians came to Christ, and a solid, thriving church community grew, with lots of unity, despite a wide range of ethnic diversity. Then came the Judiazers, who were trying to sell the message that the Galatians needed to become a Jew both religiously and culturally to be ‘truly Christian.” Many in the Galatian churches bought into this heresy. Paul focuses on the evil of this specific concept in Chapters 1-3, and it's been his main focus for most of this letter so far. But there was apparently a lot more ethnic baggage among the various groups that made up the Galatian churches. It could have been a reaction to the Judiazers – the Greek, Gallic, or other ethnic groups feeling like there must be some worth in their own ethnic heritage, which would have included the “old religion.” Or it could have been a “have our cake and eat it too” reaction – if embracing the customs of the Jews brings us closer to God, then bringing in the customs of our own ethnic religions would bring us even closer. In any event, in many respects, the Galatians are back where they started -- their pagan roots are just as much a stumbling block as the Judiazers insisting on conformity to Jewish roots.

The problem with all this is obvious – in 3:23, Paul notes that the Jewish law made us prisoners, and that Jesus sets us free from this slavery (3:28). In 4:3, he uses the slave metaphor again, but broadens it to include all religion apart from Christ – that is to say, without total dependence on Christ, there is slavery, regardless of your ethnic or religious background.

He closes verse 9 with the rhetorical question that brings us back to all of that. “Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?” There is a warning in this for all of us. Ethnic, cultural, social, even matters of personal taste can become stumbling blocks. When we elevate the observation or adoption of these things to “sacred” status, we are going back to the “curse” of Galatians 3:10. It is also a warning that reducing Christianity to a formula in any way will also cause us to revert back to the “curse,” to slavery.

Finally, we must be wary of the things from our own past that were idols being justified as part of our relationship with God. The key here is just that -- RELATIONSHIP! Being devoted to and in love with Jesus is the cornerstone. Once again, if we have a living relationship with God, the need for ethnic/cultural conformity is gone, the need to follow rules or formulas, all of it goes by the wayside. Our focus needs to be on Jesus. But this is can be such a subtle encroachment -- there is a fine line between pride or even historical interest in our ethnic heritage, denominational traditions, or "hometown" loyalties and relying on these things as a basis for identity. Its only in truly knowing Jesus can be be truly free to properly sort that stuff out.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4 Verse 8

2009-09-24T14:02:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods.

“did not know God” Prior to coming to know Jesus, to being born again, no one can “know” God. But in this context, Paul seems to use this to refer to the Galatians Greek/Pagan background. See I Corinthians 12:2, “You know that when you were pagans . . . “ and I Thessalonians 4:13, “like the heathen who do not know God." The Jewish mindset of Paul’s time was that pagans did not “know God.” Prior to the coming of Jesus, the covenant connection was with the Jews. It would seem at first blush that Paul is hinting that the Jews have a leg up on Gentiles, but actually, he is simply beginning a section where he will point out that not only is it wrong to insist on becoming like Jews in order to be a Christian, but that the Galatians were also dragging along many of their own pagan traditions and "worldly" mindsets into their Christianity.

“you were slaves” Again, here is a reference to slavery, which is a person who is the PROPERTY of another, without any rights. Earlier in the letter, Paul discussed being slaves to the law, before the Jews knew Jesus. Here he references an apparently even more cumbersome slave master – the world at large. Regardless, the only freedom is in a relationship with Jesus.

“to those who by nature are not Gods.” These are the pagan deities the Galatians once worshiped. Pagans believe that what they are worshiping are indeed Gods. After coming to know Jesus, of course, we realize that they are not Gods at all. Indeed, the Pagan Gods were almost always connected to some object in the creation – the sun, the moon, the stars, the sea, the sky, the animals, the seasons etc. The sin of idolatry is to worship a created thing as if it were the Creator. Prior to becoming Christians, this was all the Galatians knew.

My journey back from cancer

2009-09-24T13:50:00.000-05:00

I have not said much online, blogging on facebbook, Xanga, or Blogspot, about this particular issue. I just didn't feel like making a bigger deal out of it than I needed to. But, to add to the "fun" of being suddenly and unexpectedly unemployed about 8 months ago, going through the "fun" of starting my own law practice from scratch in the worst economy in half a century, in the midst of it all, I discovered I had cancer.

Prostate cancer. Detected early. Not-worried-about-terminal

issues, but prostate cancer nonetheless.

My family and my church friends know this, and some of you who I have had closer conversations with also know. But I thought I needed to make this issue public, as it is coloring my whole life these days.

Its ironic. I probably wouldn't have found out I had it had I not lost my job. I was on a short severance, and decided to make sure I got a physical exam in before my benefits expired, and I had to switch over to something new. The PSA blood test raised all sorts of alarms, and the biopsy confirmed that I did, indeed, have cancer. My wife and I spent our 25th anniversary in a doctor's office looking at treatment options.

We chose to have the prostate surgically removed -- best option for someone my age to assure against recurrence of the cancer and spread to other parts of the body.

I had the surgery performed on Monday. I was home the following day. Its a pretty amazing procedure, done via laproscopic robotic arms. The Doctor's hands never actually touch my innards -- in fact, I don't believe my surgeon was even in the operating room -- he was next door, with a computer device and a monitor.

I will not know the pathology for another week or so. But the Doc was very upbeat -- he felt that the cancer was primarily confided to the organ, and told me my lymph nodes were clear. He estimated a 10% chance of a need for further treatment (e.g. radiation, chemo etc.).

I am home recuperating. Taking it slow. I am required by the Doc to walk at least 60 minutes a day, in short intervals. I am in a lot of pain, but the Doc explained that I because I'm a "larger" guy (can you say "obese" boys and girls?), there was a lot more material to push around to get the cameras in place inside me for the surgery. So I am SORE.

It'll be a while. A long road back to full health. But I am hopeful. I described what I am going through to one friend as "yucky." And I immediately followed up with "but yucky beats terminal hands down."

Thanks to all my dear friends -- I know there has been an army of people praying for me and my family -- I felt that sustaining us throughout. All the generous and thoughtful support, from reaching out directly to simple encouragement -- I can't beat my family, and the family of God. People who are looking our for my wife, and looking out for my kids. I weep at the concept of how much all of you care for me and my family.

I know its the bond we share in Christ. And what I have received from God through His people helping me in my time of need bountifully testifies to the reality of walking with Jesus.

I also want to thank my children -- Simi, Tara, Cassi & Frank, who have been so understanding. In many ways, this year has been toughest on them. And yet, they have such great attitudes about it all. I am so proud of them all.

And to my wife, Susan . . . who is really holding up the most, music teacher extraordinaire, working mom, now add playing nursemaid to a crabby guy like me. She has, and always will, be the best. She is the closest thing I have seen to unconditional love this side of eternity. And now, I hope surgery has removed the barrier that will keep us from growing old together.

Thank you all for being so understanding.

Sincerely,

John

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, verse 7

2009-09-21T00:10:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

“no longer a slave, but a son” Paul sums up all his legal metaphors, We are free from the curse of 3:10, we are no longer in the prison of 3:22-23, we are no longer under the “charge” of a pedagogue (3:24-35), that is, the law is not necessary to guide us to Christ anymore. We have found Him! We have arrived! We are no longer slaves as noted in 3:28, or 4:1, and finally, we are no longer subject to the guardians and trustees of 4:2. The “time set” by our Father in Heaven has come! We are truly “sons.”

“also an heir.” Our Father is no common person. He is the Lord of the universe. In the covenant “last will and testament,” referenced in 3:15, there is a tremendous promise of inheritance, through grace, that each of us now receives -- not a "pie in the sky," "someday I'll go to heaven" kind of inheritance, but the inheritance of a new life, of new creation, of being made new in the here and now.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, verse 6

2009-09-20T08:26:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, <"Abba>, Father."

“Because you are sons” At the end of the previous verse (verse 5), Paul summed up our position in Christ as being someone with “full rights as sons,” but it felt like there was something more. He now states clearly what was presumed in that verse – we ARE sons. Of course, the Judiazers would argue that without a connection to Abraham by birth, without a bloodline lineage, one would need to “convert” to Judaism, that is, have a technical, “legal” connection. But because Paul has used estate planning as his metaphor since Chapter 3, verse 15, we can infer a “legal” connection, but one that has no requirements for us – Adoption!! By faith, we are the adopted sons of God, whether by the pure-bred blood lineage of Israel, or if we are Gentile “mongrels.”

“God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts” In Romans 8:4, Paul states, “the Spirit of God lives in you,” and in Romans 8:2, he calls it the “Spirit of Life,” while in Ephesians 1: 13-14, he speaks of receiving the Holy Spirit as a “deposit on our inheritance.” God sends the Holy Spirit to fill us and to draw us into an intimacy with Him – “into” or “in” our hearts, as close as God can possibly be. But by referring to the Spirit in this way it also serves to continue the legal metaphor. Under Roman law, all adoptions required a witness. (For those of you who have ever seen the movie “Ben Hur,” there is a scene in the movie where the character of Ben Hur, played by Charlton Heston, is presented to a crowd of party guests by the Roman general whose life he saved. In front of his guests, the general announces his plans to adopt Ben Hur as his son. The guests serve as official witnesses in the adoption ceremony, and to complete it, the general’s ring is stamped on the adoption document as a seal). Here, the Holy Spirit is serving as that witness, sealing us to the Father in an unbreakable bond. I also think that a parallel can be drawn to the pedagogue in Galatians 3:24 – the slave that was in charge of the child in a “baby sitter” sort of fashion, as well as the “guardian” of 4:2. The Holy Spirit is our new “guardian,” but a guardian that guides us in freedom, and leads us to intimacy with the Father.

“the Spirit who calls out ABBA, Father.” Once again, we are back to the essentials of the kingdom of God; a relationship. RELATIONSHIP! Yes, the Spirit “calls out,” but because the Spirit “fills our hearts,” it is our heart also crying out. We ourselves cry out to fulfill our ultimate longing. We were in slavery before – where we had no rights, and suffered under horrible oppression. We were under the watchful eye of the pedagogue (the personification of the law), whose purpose was to take care of us—but it wasn’t a life giving relationship. Even as sons, in our immaturity, we were under the watchful eye of our guardian. But in Christ, finally, we are free, and we meet at last our true Father. Under the law, the Father was watching over us, but it was always at a distance – like a sitter, or a legal guardian. In Christ, we have direct access to the Father, we are IN the Father’s presence. We know Him! “Abba” is a word in Aramaic (as opposed to Greek, the language the letter is written in), and it is a word that is as intimate a word as can be conveyed – as if we were calling the Lord our “Daddy” or “Papa” instead of the more formal title of “Father.” We are as close to God as a child reaching out and touching his Daddy. Indeed, this verse is the essence of the Gospel message!

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, verses 4 & 5

2009-09-19T07:35:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, (5) to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Two verses today – two for the price of one!

“But when the time had fully come” “Time” here could mean two things – the generally accepted concept of “fullness of time” (as one translation puts it), as in the fulfillment of God’s perfect wisdom and plan. More likely, Paul is connecting this to verse 2 – to the child who was subject to his deceased parents’ last will, under the authority of and bound by guardians and trustees until the time set in the will. The coming of Jesus into our lives frees us, so we are no longer subject to the rules that bind us as slaves.

“God sent His son” The rest of verse 4 reads like a doctrinal creed. This is basic to the faith – but a vital, basic truth, to be sure. Across the panoply of New Testament scripture, this basic truth is elaborated – John 1:14 (“the Word became flesh”); John 3:16 (“he gave his one and only son”), Romans 1: 1-6 (explaining Christ’s pedigree in the plan of salvation); I John 4:14 (“the Father sent His son to be the Savior of the world”).

“born of a woman” Jesus was truly human – (while also being truly God) -- a concept that both the ancient Jews and pagans had difficulty with.

“born under the law” As Jesus walked the earth as a man, He was subject to the Jewish law. Of course, Jesus, as the one man who never fell short of the law’s standard, was sinless!

“to redeem those under the law” “redeem” means to buy back, to exchange. All of the examples Paul has given – the “curse” of 3:10-14, the “prisoner” of 3:32, the “pedagogue” overseer of 3:26, or the child under the testamentary trust her in Galatians 4, all of these examples involve a person being under some sort of bondage. All of those bondages are directly connected to our sin natures – we are inclined to sin, and cannot please God through our own efforts. The law was designed to guide us in or relationship with God, but, as Paul demonstrates here and throughout his letters, it is impossible to fulfill the law. Thus, the law itself becomes a bondage. The law, as an end in itself, cannot give life. Only a RELATIONSHIP with the living God can do that. Christ’s life and sacrifice fulfills the law and frees us from that bondage, and brings us into that relationship.

“that we might receive the full rights of sons” The testamentary trust of 4:2 had been fulfilled by Jesus. The property, riches, and rights withheld by the terms of the trust because the beneficiary was underage are now fully in the hands of the heir. We can now claim our rightful inheritance. As Paul will emphasize in 4:7, the state of slavery is gone – we are now truly “sons.”

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, verse 3

2009-09-18T07:21:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world

“when we were children” I don’t think Paul is being literal here, but referring to our lives before we knew Christ.

“we were in slavery” The concept implied by the comparison with being a literal child under Roman law discussed in Chapter 4:1 is stated directly here. As a child, we had no rights, we had no hope of freedom. This is similar to other themes voiced in this letter – the curse of Galatians 3:10-14; the prisoner of 3:23, and now, the slave/child of 4:1.

“under the basic principles” The original Greek phrase here literally means to place things side by side in a row, and was used for explaining simple order in the basics of life, like the alphabet. Its not unlike the common trite phrases we use in American slang to explain the same thing – e.g., “simple as ABC,” “easy as 1-2-3.” Paul is implying the fundamental principle or basic elements of life. The context points to the “basic principles” or elemental forms of religion and spiritual life that existed for the Galatians prior to knowing Christ. So far, Paul has been emphasizing concepts as they existed in Judaism, under the Law of Moses, and he will continue to do so (very soon, in fact, down in 4:5), but he is also referring here to the religious customs of the pagan Gentiles, which he will begin to touch on in 4:8. Thus, not only was the issue of the Judiazers and their heresy a problem, but even the old pagan customs of the Gentiles were creeping back into the Galatian churches too!

“of the world” In their pagan life style, the Galatian Gentiles had worshiped the elements of the earth, sky, and the personification of nature and all its forms (e.g. earth, fire, the sun, the moon, trees, rivers, animals). Most of the ancient world was concerned about the concept of “fate,” which ruled the lives of men in an impersonal manner through the pagan deities. Paul is concerned that even the Jewish believer has been subject to belief in these sorts of concepts – relying on a sort of “folk magic” to guide their lives, like modern American society uses Astrology and other pagan elements (Paul implies the Jews are subject to similar issues down in 4:9). “World” in verse 3 means what we use that term to mean in modern evangelical and charismatic Christianity – the pagan world, the “flesh,” “worldliness.” Before we knew Jesus, we were slave to all the concepts of the “world,” – For some of us, this was the obvious immoral, narcissistic, and hedonistic sinfulness that is at the center of the pagan world. For others, we might have for the most part lead good, moral lives by the objective standard of the “world,” but delved into more socially acceptable “paganism,” the sort of thing that was “Christianized” – you know, immoral practices that didn’t seem so bad because they were coated with religion and much more socially acceptable. The problem is, both kinds of sin are really the same. Some of it seems like its good, or at least “better” when compared to the really immoral pagan or self centered, “fleshy” behavior (“I don’t do drugs, I haven’t killed anyone, I’m not promiscuous” etc.), but, unfortunately, its all sin.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, verse 2

2009-09-17T07:21:00.001-05:00

Galatians 4:2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.

“He is subject to guardians and trustees” The words used here for “guardian” and trustee” are much broader and have more force than the word that described the “pedagogue” that the parents left “in charge” of the child back in Galatians 3:24. Just as a slave had to be under the authority and control of a master or owner, a child was under the authority of a guardian. This was, of course, usually the parent – usually the Father. But if his parents were dead, and the child was still a minor, Roman law required the child to be placed under a legal guardian (remember from 4:1 – a child has no rights, he is like a slave). The guardian would be appointed and named through the father’s will, or, if not specified, Roman law provided that the nearest living male relative on the father’s side of the family would serve in this role.

The world for “trustee” is translated in other versions of the Bible as “manager” or “steward.” This is quite similar in concept to a fiduciary trustee as understood in the modern legal system. This concept is comparable to the overseer of slaves on an early 19th century southern American plantation, or a foreman on a construction site, or the vice president of a corporation. In the context of Paul’s time, this would have been either a slave or a free man who wielded considerable power and authority. Similar concepts in other places in the New Testament are the vineyard owner’s foreman in Matthew 20:8 and the “manager of Herod’s household” in Luke 8:3. But whether a guardian or trustee, this is a much larger concept then what was essentially a babysitter, or Kindergarten teacher, or coach that was the pedagogue's role in Galatians 3:28. This is REAL authority. Paul will expand more in 4:3 on how this “authority” affected us in our spiritual lives.

“until the time set by his father” The father’s last will and testament, as the instrument which appointed the guardian, controlled how long the guardian would have authority over the child. If not specified, it would only last until the child reached majority. But often, a parent proscribed a longer time period. A father who knew his son wasn’t very responsible might make a guardianship that lasted well into the child’s adult years. The timing for when the child could call the shots was always set by the Father. This analogy works on a multitude of levels – not just for the basic issue of salvation and coming into God’s kingdom, and into a relationship with Jesus, but in the entire maturation process in our walk with God. Every step in the kingdom, all growth, every blessing, the “desires of our heart,: even the things God wants us to be responsible for – we will not come into them until the time “set by the Father.”

Galatians Journal: Chapter 4, Verse 1

2009-09-16T07:23:00.000-05:00

Galatians 4:1 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.

Of course, the chapter/verse designations of the Bible are artificial – they were figured out long after the fact – Paul himself did not determine when Chapter 3 would end and Chapter 4 begins. While Chapter 3 ends with Paul’s arguments summed up in a nice, tidy package, the start of Chapter 4 is really an extension of Paul’s Chapter 3 discussions.

At the close of Chapter 3, Paul sums up his arguments by declaring that all Christians, regardless of culture or ethnic background, are “sons of God,” descendants of Abraham, and heirs of the promise made to Abraham. Verse 28 in particular declares we are “all one in Christ,” despite our differences. Paul opens Chapter 4 by taking these concepts, along with his use of legal metaphors from the prior chapter, and explains and clarifies these concepts further.

“What I am saying” Paul seem to feel that he needs to clarify something. He has spent the last two chapters proving that salvation is achieved through faith in Christ, and not by works, and that being Jewish and observing the law has no bearing on one’s acceptability to God. This is pretty radical stuff. Especially in 3:28, Paul is laying out concepts that fly in the face of the ancient world’s customs and mores. Jews the same as Greeks? Men and women equal before God? Both the traditional and devout Jew and the average moral pagan would have trouble swallowing these concepts. Paul’s transition here in 4:1 seems to say “Wait, there’s more.” Indeed, we do have to be cautious. Paul argues in Galatians 3:21 and in Romans 6 & 7, that the grace of God does not give us a license to do whatever we please, and we can’t be selfish or childish – well, at least we need to learn. For example, Galatians 3:28’s proclamation of “male nor female” has been used to open the door to a spirit of radical feminism in the church. “Slave nor free” has been used to justify political revolution. We can’t lose sight of the need for the person of Jesus, our RELATIONSHIP with Him, our need to be submitted to Him, as a young child is to his Father.

“heir is a child” Paul taps into the child/Father concept and relationship, as well as calling back to mind the references he made in the previous chapter, such as the pedagogue servant from 3:24, and the covenant/last will & testament concept, and continues. Paul has just closed Chapter 3 by giving us the title of “heirs,” and “sons of God.” Well, even the heirs of a family worth billions start out as babies. Legally, a child is still an heir. But until the child reaches adulthood, he can’t enjoy the full benefits of the estate, or his inheritance. (see the next verse, verse2).

“no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.” The concept of slavery, or being a slave has not been discussed much in Galatians so far – just a passing reference in 3:28. Paul used the concept of being a “prisoner” of the law in 3:23, but that’s not the same as being a slave. A prisoner, in the traditional sense, is a citizen who has violated the law, or run afoul of governmental authority. While a prisoner may have lost his freedom, he till has rights that are protected by concepts of the due process of law and procedures of the legal system. Despite the despotic nature of Roman government in Paul’s day, this was actually true for Roman citizens – they had a civil and criminal code that carefully protected the rights of the average person. A slave, on the other hand, is NOT a citizen. He has no rights. He has no freedom, even if he’s not a prisoner. He’s not even considered a person, but rather, a piece of property! Under Roman law, a child, a minor, under the authority of a parent or guardian, had virtually no rights – the equivalent of a slave’s rights – and we might as well say the child had no rights of his own. In the picture Paul begins to paint here in Chapter 4, he starts to personalize the argument he made in 3:15. He shows us the concept of a child -- a child whose parents have passed away, leaving a last will (a “covenant”) passing the estate to the child. But this child is very young, still a minor. As a child, he has no rights, but as the heir, he is technically and legally the owner. Paul is showing us how our relationship with Jesus begins in a similar way.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 29

2009-09-15T06:05:00.001-05:00

Galatians 3:29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Here is Paul’s final summation before moving on to his next argument (although the next section is similar in tone and content). Here, though, the focus reverses. Throughout Chapter 3, Paul has emphasized the Jewish cultural concepts, essentially debunking their importance as far as acceptability to God is concerned, e.g., being a “child of Abraham,” viewing the law as a curse, and “Abraham’s seed.” He’s also emphasized common estate law and the social constructs of the “pedagogue” type servant. All these things serve to show us the way to Christ. His “”wrap up verse” flips the focus, but in a way to show proper emphasis – if we “belong to Christ,” then we are truly “Abraham’s seed.” It is Jesus that ties us to Abraham’s people, to Abraham’s blessing, to Abraham’s promise, no matter what our ethnic connection might be. If we “belong to Christ,” we are heirs “according to the promise.” Jesus again ties us in. Perhaps I am making too much of this in the context of sentence structure, but by starting with “If we belong to Christ,” rather than “you are Abraham’s seed if you belong to Christ,” Paul is showing us where the emphasis needs to be! On Jesus! NOT on ethnicity, culture, or what we do!

Its also interesting that Paul’s play on words back in Galatians 3:16 appears to be "out the window," in a sense. But as I discussed at length in the comments on 3:16, this is a play on words with a divine purpose. Paul uses the focus on singular, rather than plural “seed" as an argument technique, and to show the true emphasis on the concept of who the real “seed” was. But here, he shows that the reason for using an ambiguous word had a purpose in God – it is actually interpreted BOTH WAYS! Jesus was the singular seed. Through Him we all became the plural seed(s). He also adds the concept that we are “heirs.” This not only ties in with his examples of the covenant/last will and testament in verses 15-18, and the pedagogue servant in verse 24, but with the traditional Jewish concept of “Abraham’s seed.” For it was common to leave one’s estate for a single heir, and then provide that it go to others upon that heir’s death. That is what happened for us. God’s “heir,” – the one “seed” – Jesus, died on the cross, passing his inheritance under the last will – the “covenant” – on to all of us who believe in Him. In a legal sense, then, the one seed splits into many seeds – and the original, traditional way the Jews understood the contextual concept of the “seed” or “offspring” of Abraham as an infinite number, as a nation of people, becomes true as well. Paul’s little play on words with singular/plural “seed” is not just some game. Its a phrase inspired by the Holy Spirit to show that in Jesus, we are all part of God’s family. Abraham’s seed is singular AND plural, and that is so like God’s nature. The focus must be on Jesus, and OUR RELATIONSHIP with Jesus!

Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 28

2009-09-14T07:34:00.001-05:00

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This is one of the most oft quoted scriptures from the book of Galatians. It is, indeed, the ultimate conclusion of Paul’s arguments here in Chapter 3. The unity of the Body of Christ transcends all of the traditional barriers that exist in culture. This was an extremely radical statement for its day, and, despite “political correctness,” it’s still a radical concept in modern society. But we need to understand exactly what Paul means here. Paul is talking about salvation, and being acceptable to God through Jesus. His main point throughout this book so far has been that we don’t need to follow the Jewish law, and therefore don’t need to be ethnically Jewish, or be like a Jew, in order to be acceptable to God. Ethnicity doesn’t matter – that is Paul’s underlying thesis in the book of Galatians. Here in verse 28, he makes a point to expand and explain further.

Its not just the issue of ethnicity – the issue of social class is also irrelevant (“slave or free”). This was also radical for its time. The wealthy were given every consideration over the poor (things really haven’t changed much today). But social standing is also irrelevant. Paul also adds a distinction he really hasn’t mentioned yet – “male nor female.” In the ancient world, women were also relegated to second class citizenship, often having a status that was much like that of being a slave. Paul is saying that gender is also irrelevant as to the issue of being acceptable to God. Now, this verse is often mis-characterized on this last point. Paul says “you are all one in Christ.” He does not say “you are all the SAME in Christ.” Gender roles in the church and the question of spiritual authority are NOT being discussed here. Ephesians 2 discusses a similar concept, saying we are no longer aliens, but “fellow citizens.” The power of Christ, the totality of His sacrifice has torn down these societal boundaries, and made us ONE – made us a family. We are all in this together folks!